New film tries to crack
unsolved ‘Zodiac’ murders

At the Movies
By Senitra Horbrook

The saying "truth is stranger than fiction" comes to life this week in Zodiac, opening Friday. Real-life events are the basis for this thriller, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.
David Fincher, who has gained legions of fans since directing Se7en, Fight Club and Panic Room, brings another serial-killer story to the big screen.
Thorough storytelling in this film means more than two and a half hours of sitting in a movie theater. While the movie feels as long as it is (meaning time doesn’t fly by), Zodiac is an intriguing watch for the most part.
The movie follows the path of a cop, newspaper reporter and editorial cartoonist as they try to unravel the clues left by a California serial killer who calls himself Zodiac. The beginning of the film takes place in 1969 with a gruesome killing. It’s not the Zodiac’s first crime, but it is the first time he makes headlines.
After that attention-grabbing killing, the Zodiac sends a cryptic letter to various newspapers and the police, confessing to two crimes. He demands that the newspapers publish his letters or he will kill more. The papers comply, but the killing continues in various parts of Northern California.
Most of the movie is set in San Francisco, where Chronicle reporter Paul Avery (Downey Jr.) seems to make it his personal mission to catch the killer. Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhall) is the Chronicle’s editorial cartoonist, and he also takes an interest in the clues, having some strange fascination with cryptograms.
The San Francisco Police Department is also hot on the trail of Zodiac, with detective Dave Toschi (Ruffalo) and his partner William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) leading the way.
What’s important to know about this case is that to this day, it is still considered unsolved. During the course of the film, there are a number of potential suspects but no one is ever convicted of the crime.
Graysmith, who actually wrote a book on the Zodiac that the script is adapted from, builds a strong case against one particular man, and those scenes are great. You’ll be convinced that he is the killer and frustrated when the police let him go.
My criticism of the film, besides its extended running time, is that Robert Downey Jr.’s character disappears in the last quarter of the film. As a reporter for the Chronicle during the late 1960s and 1970s, Avery contributed a lot to the Zodiac case. Not much is told about his private life, but he did drink heavily and do drugs, which is what led to his being let go from the Chronicle.
In an instance of art imitating life, Downey nails the part, and it would have been nice to see more from his character.
Jake Gyllenhaal’s character, Robert Graysmith, is in the background for the first three-quarters of the film. We do know a little about his personal life. He’s a single dad but eventually remarries and has more children.
Unfortunately for him, his obsession with the Zodiac spells trouble in his marriage. The last quarter of the film takes place years after the Zodiac ever sent a letter or confessed to a killing. It’s about 1991 by this time, and Graysmith makes solving the case his personal mission, even though it has been long forgotten by most and isn’t even being actively investigated by the police.
Gyllenhaal’s performance, while not as riveting as Downey’s, is solid. There’s some humor thrown in, which makes his character seem a little more human. Ruffalo, as the cop who can’t seem to shake this case, also puts in a good performance.
There’s definitely an audience that will appreciate this film. The shots of San Francisco at night are beautiful, and it’s interesting to see a time when a newsroom wasn’t filled with computers. Googling information was not an option back then. Heck, they were just getting used to the idea of a fax machine.
There is a fair amount of suspense throughout this film. The end is sort of unsatisfying, but that’s simply because the killer has never been caught and now is most likely dead.
The rest of the movie is quite satisfying, intriguing and worth a watch. That is, if you can spare almost three hours. ••
Movie Grade: B+