Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

Boy, I hope I see ZODIAC soon.

I can’t even read this review. I don’t want to know anything. I don’t want to see anything. I just want to walk in cold and see what Fincher’s done.

Here’s someone I hate because they’ve already seen it. I’d give them a spy name, but I hate them. Grrrrrr.

This is Memflix writing in to let you film lovers know a bit about David Fincher’s Zodiac. I have posted reviews here before, but under a different moniker. From here on out, I will be known as Memflix.

I was a freshman in college when I saw ‘Seven’ in the theater. The college was in a podunk town and I knew no one. The theater was where I found my company. It was a rather lackluster year compared to the previous one, but all that changed when Seven was released. I was blown away. I loved films before this, but Seven made me really see how a genre, when approached from a fresh angle, could be completely turned inside out. I have loved every one of his films since, with the exception being Panic Room. It was a solid thriller, but I felt the story could have been told by anyone. I wanted something much heftier.

It was almost as if Fincher felt he owed more to the genre than he had supplied.

Seven was geared towards the theatrics of the serial killer genre, where “Zodiac’ seems more concerned with telling a well rounded and detail (maybe too much at times) oriented story. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the plot, it is based on the book by Robert Graysmith. Graysmith was a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle back in the late sixties. Around that time, a serial killer made himself known by sending in a letter and a cipher. He called himself ‘Zodiac.’

I haven’t read the book, but I would be surprised if this film wasn’t a faithful adaptation. There doesn’t seem to be a climax in the movie. It flows like a written account of the events that unfolded over years and years. That may sound boring, but it wasn’t. At least not until the halfway mark. It started to seem a bit too tedious after sitting in there for over an hour. I knew how long it was going in, so I was starting to look at my watch every 5 minutes. However, once Graysmith starts piling all of the evidence into his book, the steam picked up. As with a lot of films, the middle is its weakest point, but Zodiac shouldn’t be faulted for this. It stayed true to the style it started. it was a good overall film. It isn’t my favorite Fincher film, but if you go in expecting an extremely well-made retelling of a horrific time in San Fransisco’s history, then you should have no problem enjoying it.

There were good performances by the cast. The standout here is Robert Downey Jr. He played an arrogant, alcoholic, drug addicted reporter. I’m sure several comparisons to his off screen lifestyle will be made, but it would be a shame to overshadow his brilliant portrayal of a man during a downward spiral. The big surprise here is Ruffalo. I grew tired of his schtick in the first movie I saw him in, You Can Count on Me. Up until now, I thought that was his entire bag of tricks. I was wrong. He has far more range than most actors working today.

There were only a few scenes where you could see the Fincher from Seven standing proud and that was when we see ‘The Zodiac Killer’ earning his name. The murder scenes are the most intense and suspenseful bits of film I’d seen in quite awhile. The most bone chilling scene involves Ione Skye and her characters baby. The scene alone should revitalize her career.

It wasn’t exactly an ‘out of the park’ addition to Fincher’s resume, but it is definitely a different film than we are used to expecting from such a talented director. It is always inspiring to see a director drift away from the comfort zone.