The Zodiac is a long and complicated movie that runs over two hours. The first hour and a half comes off as a Law and Order episode with some cinematography that uses the "God's eye" view in effective ways. I couldn't get over how much like Law and Order the film was. It's far too procedural for me. I liked the last hour of the film. The character of Robert Graysmith saves this film from utter oblivion. The beginning starts off with a lot of brutal violence. I couldn't help myself thinking, in the first murder scene, how much the zodiac killer looks like Joe Pesci from Goodfellas as he kills Samuel L. Jackson for forgetting to ditch the incriminating vehicle. The setup for each murder looks the same. Each using a pistol with a silencer. It even uses a rock song. The scene was brutal enough to invoke the emotion of fear that would grip San Francisco about the Zodiac killer. It is that use of showing brutal murders that creates the initial impulse to follow the film to it's conclusion.
The period dress and settings were remarkably done. The police station and the newspaper office evoked American conlformity from the sixties. The gray desks and chairs along with the haircuts and shirts created an ambiance that created a World in which to get lost in. Forgetting that those days were more than several decades past. In the first ten minutes all the particulars are established; the main characters, the atmosphere, and the conflict that runs throughout the course of the film. After the first twenty minutes or so the film delves into procedurals which left me bored and wondering when the film will end.
Robert Downey, Jr. carries the film forward, but the police investigation bogs it down. There is no action. Perhaps the film would have been better as a documentary? I wonder if there has been a documentary made about the Zodiac killer? Probably. The film aims for documentary realism and it succeeds mostly. But for a good solid hour there is little to no action. The film wasn't made for the fan boy audience. It's a serious film that attempts to be an awards contender.
The screenplay was a thriller. It runs a long 194 pages and is not too light on thrilling sequences. Especially thrilling is when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to the movie buff's house to see his secret canister of film. The scene is filled with nervous tension that grows out of the central conflict of the film; who is the Zodiac killer? According to the film it has never been resolved conclusively. It is too bad that the lead suspect didn't get justice. During the investigations of the Zodiac murders I found myself angry that they didn't indict Arthur Leigh Allen. Why didn't the DA act? Surely they could have brought him to trial and if nothing came of it, then he would be a free man and the investigation would continue. It's a travesty of justice that makes the film watchable for the last hour. Was it sloppy police work? A judicial system too protective of criminals? That was the questions the film raised for me.
The screenplay also veered into documentary, perhaps too much for me. It used hard dates to emphasize how much time had passed. Maybe that was used in the Graysmith book from which the film was derived? It was a very newsworthy approach. Similar to Nixon which used specific dates in it's back and forth between time periods. I liked the use of dates to show the elapse of time. It really showed how much time lapsed between letters and kept me interested. After all the procedural stuff I could be brought back to the case with the use of a specific date. It made the film more cinematic rather than just another procedural like CSI or the previously mentioned Law and Order.
I wouldn't recommend this film to someone who isn't interested in serial killer films. It is far too detailed and procedural than a casual film goer would want to watch. Still I did find it better the Girl on The Train which had it's merits, but lacked the seriousness and gravity of Zodiac.
No comments:
Post a Comment