|
Just got back from seeing Zodiac. Don't rush out.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. First of all, though he's top-billed, there simply is not enough Jake Gyllenhaal in the film. Alas, that's a fault common to all too many movies. (le sigh)
It's the story of four men trying to crack the Zodiac killer case of the late 70's/early 80's ... two San Francisco cops and two San Francisco reporters - - or, more precisely, one reporter and one unlikely cartoonist (swooon, Jake) - who stays with the case longer than anyone, eventually writes a book about it, and seems to have been the one to solve the identity of the killer.
The thing is, though the movie focuses on Jake's decades-long obsession with the case, it never becomes clear why he's that fixated on it. The other top obsessory, Mark Ruffolo's cop character, at least has the motive of a cop. Anthony Edward's cop retires from homocide investigations at some point before letting the case dominate his psyche. And Robert Downey Jr.'s crime reporter seems to fall off the scene simply because he's an alcoholic.
Of the two staying with the case through the long-haul, Ruffolo's character is semi-interesting ... but, with a throwaway reference to him being the inspiration for Steve McQueen's "Bullit," you get the impression the movie's not quite doing justice to this particular character.
Which leaves Gyllenhaal as the most interesting fella in the film. Just not quite interesting enough. Though he does have some lovely close-ups. Yum.
A bit more mainstream and toned-down for a David Fincher effort, but I found it unFincherly weaksauce.
|