This film has an absolutely star studded lineup and a really fantastic story to tell, but yet in the end it is just a bit boring. There is a good reason for that though and I will get to it a bit later.
This film was released in 2007 and was filled with A-list actors and a great (and true) story. The movie had a relatively massive budget and didn't manage to make as much money as the producers had hoped i would imagine.
With the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo , Robert Downey, Jr., Anthony Edwards, and many others, it is no surprise that this movie gathered a lot of attention.
The plot focuses around the Zodiac, a serial killer who tormented California during the late 60's and early 70's. The killer was never found and this movie focuses on the tomes of information that was collected by the individuals that were dedicated to the case and the various problems that it caused in their lives.
The case carried on for many many years and is still an open case to this day. This film focuses on the closest guess than anyone can make and if the movie presents the available facts appropriately, it is very easy to understand why people would be pointing the finger the way that they are. No one has been convicted of these crimes and the closest that they could get was to Arthur Leigh Allen, and even he doesn't match up with all the clues that were collected over the years.
I don't think that he is a terribly appreciated actor and i think he deserves more recognition but John Carroll Lynch does a wonderful job in this film (I think he does in other films and TV-series too, but just doesn't get many chances.)
I generally love historically accurate films and it was evident that this film was trying very hard to maintain a historically accurate portrayal.
I appreciate that they did everything they could to protect the innocent and to show the facts as they exist as accurately as possible in the movie. However, this creative honesty might actually be the main reason why i found this film to be so boring. So i am on the fence here: Do I dock them points for being boring because of honesty? Or do i award them points for being as exciting as they possibly could with what amounts to a boring timeline? I'll be diplomatic and meet them in the middle.
I can't really recommend this movie because well, it is slow. I suppose if you want a piece of history and a relatively accurate portrayal of it, then this movie is for you. If you want something that is going to ensure that you don't yawn while you are watching it (I did, many times) then it might not be.



