Friday

Zodiac is a great film. I'm not sure if there's much more to say than that. It's the mark of some of the best directors that you don't notice on a first viewing many techniques or stylistics in their movies; you become immediately immersed in the world of the story and never break out of it. I was engaged from beginning to end - and that's an amazing 2 hours 40 minutes (I doubt the same will happen with Pirates). I think this movie achieves its brilliance by being unassuming in this way. Characters drift in and out of importance without remark; nothing is overly signposted or obviously suggested. The events and dates are given to us cleanly and concisely: there is (seemingly) no exaggeration or exploitation of the facts. The performances are excellent, especially from Mark Ruffalo, but also Jake Gyllenhaal and Elias Koteas (much better than in his terrible performance for Shooter). Two slight queries, however: would this film be as interesting to someone who knows already the details of the case, as I didn't? Would it be interesting on a second viewing? And the importance of solving the case is never properly addressed: is this killer really worth pursuing when there's no definitive evidence? Why continue to give him the attention he wants? The film clearly suggests that the lack of a credible suspect was due to police incompetence rather than the killer's intelligence. However, it does hint towards who it thinks the murderer is, giving some kind of artistic closure to what there never was in real life. This interesting element, though, isn't dwelt on for very long. Overall, I loved it, and I don't think it falters in comparison to something like All The President's Men.