Zodiac (2007) - Crime, Drama, Mystery

Hohum Score



In the late 1960s/early 1970s, a San Francisco cartoonist becomes an amateur detective obsessed with tracking down the Zodiac Killer, an unidentified individual who terrorizes Northern California with a killing spree.

IMDB: 7.7
Director: David Fincher
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr.
Length: 157 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 153 out of 689 found boring (22.2%)

One-line Reviews (779)

Individual scenes are gripping and, on occasion, suspenseful, but the gentle viewer must slog through mundane procedures that lead nowhere.

Rigorous and long but compelling just the same.

The yawning of the Age of Aquarius .

But ultimately an intriguing story does not necessarily make a great film, as is evidenced here.

I was literally on the edge of my seat.

Its a long film but completely engrossing, which can't be said for every lengthy film these days.

Boring, far too long .

It becomes downright boring in some places, and really begs the question of just how much material Fincher originally had covered in the film.

The characters are compelling, be they reporter, cop or possible killer.

It's mind boggling.

There's no denying that it is a sinister film yet there's plenty of morbid humour to be found here, plus there's also one particular sequence where the tension is far more unbearable than imaginable & you'll know when you get there.

Long, boring, overrated - want more.

The second act which delves into the investigation is one of the most intense act in a movie.

Because it's a dull movie.

When it did threaten to wind up a bit of tension, it dragged it out so long that the effect was certainly lost on me.

Too Long and Boring .

and how the detectives trying to track down zodiac amidst a lot of confusion.

there were some intense scenes and some creepy scenes, all in the calling card of David f.

It's spine tingling, it's on the edge of your seat, it's Fincher.

The story is compelling and the cast is strong, although some characters feel unnecessary and the pacing is very slow.

Surprisingly suspenseful .

It is a long, slow, and mostly boring movie.

In a genre that leans toward the stalk-and-slash mentality, Zodiac stands out as an absorbing, intelligent and tightly constructed entry that is more than worth a look.

First the movie starts out slow, the actors acted slowly and talked slowly.

Fincher has been highly regarded for his very stylish edge-of-the-seat suspenseful thrillers, like Fightclub, Seven, Panic Room.

Good) Crazily thrilling and thought provoking, great acting, doesn't "overdue it" Bad) a little foggy here and there Jake Gyllenhall) Quick at picking up the phone Not as bad as it really was) Zodiac's portrayal of late 70s and early 80s clothing styles

Both sequences are tense and slow paced and the director's refusal to make them overly melodramatic adds to the sense of genuine brutality.

Good: The story is very interesting with immeasurable tension brought from a fascinating real life event.

Thrilling with a Really Interesting True Story, .

if you enjoy falling asleep during movies this is the perfect movie for that.

I was bored throughout the entire film, and my mum and my sister felt the same way.

Zodiac is lead by three good central performances, Jake Gyllenhaal never really looked 'obsessed' to me, but at least he's an engaging lead.

However, as the film carries on the intensity wears away and instead focuses more upon the lives of the cartoonist, the journalist and the detective, which is fair enough, but I would have personally liked to see a more intense and gripping second half.

Some may say that it is a boring movie but the slow pace inserted after the first half of the movie is just to make feel the audience what investigators and media overall felt : and that is the absence of the Zodiac.

With Fincher's "Se7en" ingrained in my mind from repetitive viewing, I was ready to expect another film in the same realm.

It is shot perfectly and the story is gripping.

It was decent, but I wouldn't watch it again or highly recommend it, especially compared to Fincher"s more unique movies such as Seven, The Game, and Gone Girl.

Mark Ruffalo is especially compelling playing the lead detective who becomes obsessed with the case, and Robert Downey Jr. does his best macabre comic relief job as the boozing and drugging reporter Paul Avery who was targeted for a brief time by the infamous killer.

The pace is slow and two and half hours are spent.

Decent crime flick, but way too long and more of a "run of the mill" type .

I wonder why I found it so boring then?

Even so, I found the acting to very convincing and enjoyable in itself.

The first 20 minutes (before the huge evidence overload came into play) were exciting and I was thinking it was going to be great.

At 2 hours and 37 minutes, it's probably longer than it needs to be, but overall this film had me on the edge of my seat the entire time.

The second act had 3 main characters but the third act has only one, so when the movie narrows the focus down to the one person it lost it's ability to switch characters when a story arc becomes dull.

The Zodiac, probably the most boring film in world history!

A fast paced thriller that keeps the audience so focused.

David Fincher put together a very intense and suspenseful crime-drama / mystery film.

But believe me the imagination of this master at work is both brilliant and compelling and you wont regret seeing this film.

Robert Downey Jr's portrayal is stunning, and he builds much empathy for the character.


The first few murders are thrilling, the last 15 mins of the movie are thrilling, but the "in between" is absolutely boring and not saved by the acting.

I can't recall the last time I saw a crime drama that so widely covers all angles of a true event – maybe Richard Brooks' masterpiece IN COLD BLOOD, the granddaddy of true crime thrillers, or Richard Fleischer's riveting THE BOSTON STRANGLER.

The movie was suspenseful.

More in line with the crime epics of directors like Michael Mann than with the typical serial-killer thriller, "Zodiac" is propelled by inventive direction, a great cast, engaging attention to detail, and a killer soundtrack of classic songs from the late 1960's and 1970's.

The cinematography is quite stunning, the dark, gritty city feels all too real to the audience.


I like both Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr, but what a great boredom!

I am usually one of those people in the audience who savors a film that runs two and a half or three hours, because I think longer movies tend to leave a deep impact, they're more passionate, and they have longer, more drawn-out stories and even single scenes.

Intriguing Who-done-it.

But it is about facing the true banality of evil from the viewer's perspective which have a strange effect on the viewer that make it a weirdly tense, intoxicatedly gripping and at times frighteningly creepy experience.

Found it to b very fascinating, very gripping n historically accurate film.

They accurately capture a morbid, dreary mood of frustration which won't let go.

The movie is gripping and full of tension from start to finish even though the story of the infamous "Zodiac" killer of northern California is well known to many of us who lived through it.

"The strategy of the movie is this: To show how frustrating and tiresome a murder investigation can be, the movie wants to put you through a frustrating and tiresome experience.

Bore-Fest .

The longevity of the movie helps us as an audience feel the frustration and confusion, the obsessiveness of Paul Avery and Robert Graysmith as they try to track down this man.

The cast is amazing here, everyone in this film gave stunning performances.

I thought Seven was an excellent thriller but Zodiac is boring.

Fu*king boring to death.

I was sorely disappointed and came out of the cinema bored and tired.

Zodiac is an intriguing film, based on a true story about a notorious serial killer in California during the 1960s and 1970s, who fashioned for himself the name "Zodiac".

The film has a gripping slow build that is a welcome relief to all the add directed movies of today.

The second is the scope of the movie, it's an ambitious project to show decades of police work with the intense beginning and the dreary and long investigation, long after the media interest has died down.

Enjoyed movie, but drawn out and relatively unexiting .

Seemed OK for about the first hour and then it just dragged on, nothing was happening, just constant dialogue between characters.


Though it cannot be denied that the plot itself being very intriguing has helped the director in a manner in holding audience interest.

Bonus: The script is full of unexpected witticisms that will make you laugh out loud.

Fincher relies more on visual moods and scene settings; the suspenseful scene in the basement, as Gyllenhall suspects he is in the presence of the killer, is unique and reminiscent of Hitchcock.

Found it a fascinating film as it went along, and I can certainly understand how investigators (eg the Jake Gyllenhaal character Robert Graysmith)could become obsessed with their quest, particularly given the long time-frame involved.

Yes, I understand many people's frustration with this movie: it is very long.

However his gradual fall into obsession is well documented and intriguing to watch and when he really gets into investigating the case it really does move the film along and his discoveries are downright fascinating.

For me, it was a fascinating experience to see what was going on with California and how they were responding to this threat both in terms of its people as whole and its small fragments that tried to piece this whole thing together.

Fincher knows how to create some beautiful well choreographed crane shots, and other well framed long shots but put them altogether and you get a poorly boring paced film.

the manhunt which follows is authentic and superbly documented the attention to detail is simply stunning as is the production design.

Waste of time.

At first they show you ciphers and codes, you get excited thinking this will be a great mystery movie based on code breaking.. WRONG.. they skip that part pretty quickly.. next.. you see patterns in murders.. you think you'll see a thrilling chase on how they'll track the killer by figuring him out.. WRONG.. they focus on the most trivial aspects of a murder.. next.. they show you that the killer was challenging the police.. don't get any ideas.. WRONG!!!

"Zodiac" is a fascinating movie with lots of suspects, holding you in its grip from start to finish; gets to maintain a rhythm of both anxiety and fear and it's certainly a must - see film despite not being as considerable as "Seven".

Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is one of the paper's most respected journalists who takes a very intense interest in the case.

The fact that Fincher's project feels a touch fact bloated at times, especially in the middle section is a shame indeed, for when the film is good, it is a rousing success.

Fascinating and successfully chilling .

Crimes are quite intense and give us some of the most dramatic scenes.

Based on the book by Robert Graysmith (played effectively here by Jake Gyllenhaal), "Zodiac" is meticulous in its details (both in dialogue and Fincher's finely painted visuals) and sprawling in plot and its parade of intriguing characters.

Wonderful acting, a really well done script that is true to the actual events and characters involved, a lot of dry humor which adds a much needed levity to an otherwise intense drama.

both these films were dynamic and exciting..film-making at its best!!

One of the most intriguing unsolved serial killer cases of modern times.

With its excessive length of over two and a half hours one would say you get bored at any time in this film.

It's so compelling, going from the actual investigation itself to Graysmith's obsession towards the end.

Having an undeniably fascinating story to work with Fincher crafted a truly fascinating film.

The slow paced story allowed the characters to truly interact with each other and become fully developed, thus conveying the concept of obsession enigmatically.

But,the fail I found on this movie is that there's a part of the film which is pretty slow and boring.

The dramatic confrontation scenes crackle with sheer intensity, and the criminal investigation for the most part (especially during the film's beginning and end) is tense and engaging.

Overall, very long but still fast-paced and compelling.

Fincher creates a very absorbing, tense, and ultimately paranoid film that will creep the hell out of you after you've left the theater...

We see a few more of his killings then the movie changes pace from this disturbing and dark murder mystery to a slower, more character driven investigation into the Zodiac.

What makes this film so compelling is that its based on a true story and the story is well crafted which gives it an even more spooky atmosphere.

It is packed with suspenseful scenes, including the one where Jake Gyllenhaal's character enters a suspect's basement, and we are feeling the same way he is.

Unfortunately, the "decent pace" box cannot be checked as I found the film to be just a bit too slow, and I actually found myself struggling not to nod off about halfway through.

It is also fascinating because it shows how police departments and newspapers ethics worked in a not so distant era.

In Se7evn, he is able to manage the cold and suspenseful atmosphere of the story.

However, the film does seem to over do its welcome especially with the run time at 2hours and 37minutes, towards the second half of the film and into the third act, the lack of action scenes can make it feel tiresome, despite Gyllenhaal's and Ruffalo's astounding performances barely holding it together.

One could make a very compelling argument that the final scene is one of the best in the film.

Zodiac: A dull thriller .

Shot in high definition digital video by Harris Savides it is evocative of the times and seamless.

It honestly isn't worth more than a 6.2 rating here; The story seems to have no moral to it, it comes across as useless, the scenario is often too difficult, slow and uninteresting, and I blame those who created it for pretending not to know or see this.

For moviegoers looking for a hard-nosed, brutal serial-killer story, this must have been a disappointing film because it turns out to be a character study of "Graysmith" plus an in- depth behind-the-scenes look at police procedure which, as any cop could tell you, can be tedious work.

I highly recommend it.

There is little dropoff in quality as you get into the supporting roles and bit players, Chloe Sevigny as the long suffering wife, Anthony Edwards as the bland partner and an amusing turn from Brian Cox as the pretentious, self-absorbed Melvin Belli.

For me, one scene in the third act, which features a gripping performance by Charles Fleischer (A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT), is a chilling, nerve-jangling sequence that captures the creepy essence of the entire film.

Unlike, say, "Panic Room" there is no real sense of tension in Zodiac, a film which moves at a slow pace and, at over two and a half hours, is seriously overlong.

Effectively Creepy and Engrossing True Crime Tale .

Edgy, suspenseful and filled with '60s and '70s period details, "Zodiac" is David Fincher's meticulously researched thriller focusing on the infamous serial killer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area for almost two decades.

As usual the camera work is stunning, as it tends to be in Finchers' movies.

This lengthy crime mystery murder movie in a way reflects a more realistic scenario that crime investigations actually take, but unfortunately the expected dramatic path is strewn with such a slow pace unlike classic "All The President's Men" (1976) released only two years after Watergate occurred (of which that movie was about).

For some reason as the film shifts from focusing on Downey Jr. and Ruffalo to him, it just feels awkward, and is one of the reasons the film feels dragged out.

Granted I've been watching mostly three-quels and missing the compelling fix of an original story, Zodiac passed the radar until I recently checked it out.

The movie is way, way too long.

Very watchable, though slow paced and does require a level of concentration.

It completely doesn't work as a creepy, suspenseful serial killer movie, which requires long slow takes full of dread and anticipation.

Based on Graysmith's best-selling books about the crimes the film is fascinating in its process of detecting but it's also compelling in showing how the obsession to discover the identity of Zodiac impacted on the lives of three men.

The author of "Se7en" took me by surprise with this often hyperrealistic, documentary-mosaic-like police procedural which could have been even more impressive, would the ending of Gyllenhaal's storyline have been more in tune with the underlying concept that life is often unpredictable and illogical, and that reality does not always create clear, pointed stories (or, maybe, that the Great story's point lies in its pointlessness ?

A long watch and a film not made for the average popcorn muncher that floods our cinema screen in this day and age in search of their next CGI spectacle, Zodiac is a meticulously crafted and tension riddled journey through a time in American history that to this day remains an intriguing and engaging subject matter, Zodiac is the hidden jewel of Fincher's filmography and a film well worth a repeat viewing for those that may've only watched once.

Throughout his career, Director David Fincher knows just how to jolt his audience into intense feeling relays.

It is very well made and very entertaining and like the case, fascinating.

Boring stuff.

He gets the right combination of the period piece (several decades are covered) and a hint of the film noir that makes this gritty story all the more dirty and suspenseful.

I fell asleep half way through this film and left before the end as did a few other people.

The screenplay for this film by James Vanderbilt is quite intriguing.

A very engaging film .

Just a waste of time.

The film does run a bit long, but because the story is so fascinating I doubt you'll even notice how long it truly is.

It is far too long and has very few interesting moments.

There are times when the film becomes bogged down with police procedural aspects, and its epic runtime is apparent, though most of the slow parts still remain engrossing.

But with this time given he is able to pay in many a suspenseful scene, and- to make another famous cinematic comparison- like Lang's M really becomes more fascinated by the process of how to make a criminal investigation a purely cinematic endeavor.

This is true crime film-making at its very best with a slow pace but stark atmosphere, lively soundtrack, and suspenseful and puzzling relationships with complex and engaging characters based on real people and events.

So if you're after an adrenaline rush, look elsewhere.

It's a slow paced movie with little action, more of a police procedural as the viewer becomes enveloped in clues and mysterious over an incredibly long period.

The movie "Zodiac" tries very hard to stick to the facts which makes it very hard to follow at times.

A serial killer movie based on Robert Graysmith's non-fiction book, Zodiac, is directed by David Fincher who has directed several exciting movies including Se7en and Fighting Club.

The movie has an interesting story line and the fact that it is true makes it even more exciting.

Every dead-end, every empty alley, every frustrating act of red-tape and bureaucracy.

His character is far superior to the Ryann Phillippe character in Breach, more intense and believable.

You'll not feel like you see a thriller but drama, Dark, creepy, stunning, should be replaced by wearisome, boring and ridiculous.

Suspenseful thriller is based on true, unsolved case...

frightening, engrossing account of the hunt for a notorious Bay Area killer .

The acting is top class across the board, with Mark Ruffalo, a character actor who has gone underrated for far too long, standing out in the least showy role of the lead trio.

Long, too long and quite boring, there is no real story here, you never get the sense that they are after the killer hot on his heels like you did with Se7en and there is none of the visual flair that made 'Fight Club', 'Panic Room' and essentially Fincher a force to be reckoned with as a director.

Real life has too many boring bits.

I kept wanting to see more killings happen because they were exciting but, the investigations just dragged on and on.

Choosing to highlight specific moments from the investigation, some of which happen years apart from one another, can make the film difficult to follow and leave the viewer feeling as though something is being missed out.

It's extremely gripping, compelling and haunting all without splattering you with over exaggerated (and overused) gruesome blood scenes like other films do, which really made me love it all that much more.

The result is a boring film where the director could simply blame editing for being lazy (I would not blame the editor for given up on this one!

This is Boredom Speaking .

Overall, it's a fascinating, disturbing look into the lives of men who lost their lives looking for a serial killer.

Zodiac is a great film despite its disappointing last act it's got amazing performances a compelling mystery and a surprisingly satisfying pay off.

From the first excellent opening sequence involving the first murder I knew it was going to be an intense watch.

However, I can comment on this film for what it is - a fascinating story of a cartoonist's search for the identity of a serial killer who all else seem to have given up on ever finding.

It is slow (purposely, as the Zodiac is a very detailed case).

A slow burner serial killer movie that focuses more on "police procedural work" .

I thought that it was too long and slow.

" Robert Graysmith--played in the film by Jake Gyllenhaal in a subdued, fascinating performance--is an editorial cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle who gets caught up in the hunt after the killer sends a coded letter to his employer.

Despite being a slow burner, this mystery will keep you glued to the screen.

The movie jumps around between so many characters and makes so many leaps in time that it feels very disjointed and unfocused.

well, actually robert downey Jr played the character of that mad reporter greatly and jake either, but still, the plot was so boring.

The narrative is dark but powerful and at most times creepy and thrilling.

This is why we go to the movies to experience the riveting drama and emotions, folks.

Why will people you talk to say how boring this movie was?

The film has a couple of confusing moments or loose ends ...

This film is more about a cartoonist's obsession with a serial killer than the serial killer himself, but it is nevertheless exciting.

This was actually pretty surprising for me since this is a true story, I expected them to use as realistic cinematography as possible but instead, they went for a slicker, more stylish direction which is actually quite a positive because to me, realistic cinematography is boring.

On the inside, brilliant, thrilling and suspenseful .

But the movie does have focus, and it presents a compelling case against one of the suspects in such a way that it delivers as much closure as you can expect.

Its riveting, and I think the film portrays many of the real life events very accurately.

Waste of time historical thriller with no thrill .

After over two and a half hours of the movie I walked out of the theater stunned… stunned at how hugely disappointing it was.

The movie opens in 1969 on the 4th of July with a stunning panoramic shot of fireworks over the city - an unforgettable image.

In the beginning and in the end there were truly great and exciting scenes, particularly the murder scenes.

Actually it can be a pretty big bore unless you're really fascinated with the subject, as Fincher obviously was.

10 years later and still nothing happening.

Although fascinating initially, this approach becomes somewhat tiresome after a while, especially considering the running time of nearly three hours.

For me the problem is tied together in the fact that we are asked to give up three hours of our lives to a story that has no, and will probably never have, final solution.

I must admit, (and hence why I scored it 7 out of 10,) I felt the ending dragged.

The result is an epic accumulation of circumstantial evidence that, despite heavy doses of foreboding bass notes, is mildly intriguing rather than exciting.

By the last 40 minutes or so, you'll be checking your watch and yawning a bit so this film certainly isn't a light, breezy watch.

I saw this film last night and really enjoyed it.

Director David Fincher provides the most compelling drama of this real-life serial killer despite most of the scenes leading to several false leads and one man's complete obsession to get the right man.

" Boring, tedious, and annoying.

David Fincher continues to be a breath of fresh air, a meticulous storyteller who mixes style and substance with compelling results.

With the exception of a handful of memorable shots including a shot of a letter inside a mail box being walked through a building until it reaches its receiver, and a brilliantly engaging shot that follows a taxi cab from a helicopter view, Zodiac seems very lackluster especially considering this is coming from the man who brought us the visually stunning Fight Club.

My only problem with it was it got a bit boring at times.

In a Nutshell:a) Highlights: Great crime story, fine direction, acting is enjoyable.

On the whole, while it is so truthful and authentic in its depiction of the Zodiac case, it just feels overlong and becomes boring too soon.

The fact that it is based on real-life events makes it even more intriguing.

Slow, uninvolved, and unemotional, Zodiac goes on much too long at 2 and a half hours.

No story.

David Fincher's Zodiac is a very intriguing film that manages to make the viewer become more obsessed with the outcome of the film as the main characters become more obsessed with the case.

That it's based on history is part of its power: seeing young lovers necking early on in the film becomes squirm-in-your-seat suspenseful when they realize that they are being cruised by...

Downey's not nearly as subtle, but riveting all the same, his Avery a grandiloquent reporter who seems as addicted to the electricity around the case as he is to the various substances that keep him going.

Zodiac is far more suspenseful, more intricate and entertaining than Breach.

The acting is good, and the main reason this film is enjoyable.

Zodiac is often compelling, with solid performances, a good sense of place, some really disturbing and suspenseful moments and a great soundtrack.

It is a completely fascinating crime drama, one which I think actually surpasses Fincher's noted "Se7en" in quality.

Basically, a serial killing movie must have fast paced screenplay.

The film drags on for what seems hours, to then rush a span of decades into the last ten minutes; yeh the director may have got bored, because I sure did.

Shockingly incohesive and boring .

Save yourself three hours of agonizing boredom.

I've been so bored, nothing was happening in this movie after 1968.

Maybe that is why films based entirely on fiction are more thrilling, they don't have to go out of their way to do justice to the lives of real living people who worked so hard.

It's a very compelling 2 and a half hours though, and I had no problem sitting there and watching this case unfold.

This is one of the most exciting and engaging movies based on a true story that I have ever seen.

Overall, Zodiac succeeds to such a great degree in so many aspects, it is unfortunate to see the more engaging elements of the plot weighed down by so many plot points which feel repetitive and unnecessary.

Dull, Dull, Dull.

Don't expect anything like Se7en or The Silence of the Lambs, but it is thrilling and involving in its own way.

But if you're looking for a compelling and enticing thriller, then this is hands down worth watching.

Engaging and Intriguing .

Also, the Jake Gyellhaal/Reporter aspect of the story was boring, clichéd and basically the same thing as that straight-to-video Zodiac movie made recently with Rory Culkin in it.

I thought this was quite an intriguing and engaging thriller that very well manages to keep one on his toes.

What makes Zodiac engaging is that the movie engages you right from the start, as you take on this investigative journey with the main leads in Robert Graysmith (Gyllenhaal), Paul Avery the Chronicle's senior crime report, played by Robert Downey Jr, and Inspector Dave Toshi of the San Francisco Police Department, portrayed by Mark Ruffalo.

Fascinating and compelling stuff from start to finish, Zodiac is set (along with Fight Club) to go down as part of Fincher's finest works, and is testament to the age-old adage; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

After all, this is a film about the case, so such close observation is as vital as it is entertaining.

Goddamn this movie is boring!

Which is the point of the movie, I think, that life is flat and empty.

As interesting and as tedious as a thirty-year unsolved case .

This is a long movie but it never feels that way, we really get into all the characters and the film is riveting from start to finish.

A bit too slow...

Most of the people got bored in 2 hours and 37 minutes.

They're continually vexed by the technological limitations of their time, yet they somehow keep plodding through.

Disappointingly rote, a numbing excess to this strenuously factual crime drama, relaying mysterious events surrounding a decade-long search for California's Zodiac killer, proves opposite of the engaging, palpable thriller it aspires to.

The only thing I can think of, is that it lasts way too long.

If you praise one of his worst movies as a perfect movie, you are only hastening the director's slide into mediocrity.

Nothing happens.

My friend and I kept looking at each other asking if the other wanted to leave.

The film is a little tedious and runs long.

The movie is too long, and the story is told in a way that it won't make you hold on to your chair hoping to see the case solved, as any good detective story will.

The first hour of the movie moves very quickly with witty and intriguing dialog that keeps the viewer anxious to see how the events work themselves out.

I found this movie to be nothing more than average, not gripping at all, and far, far too long.

The movie is too long, there is too much focus on too many characters and too much varying information given.

It was a rather boring police drama.

You have to stick close to what happened in real life whilst making your movie entertaining for the viewer.

Turning into an obsession for each of them that affects their lives in unexpected ways.

David Fincher has taken nearly five years off between films, and he has returned a more mature and accomplished director with his fascinating "Zodiac.

It's boring, too drawn out, and falls apart about halfway through.

"Zodiac" is a great movie about a highly intriguing killing spree that took place in the U.

As the film progresses, the Zodiac killer himself fades into the background, and the movie turns into a meticulous and engrossing document of the investigation to track him down, an investigation that includes countless blind alleys and false clues and which to this day has not reached a conclusion.

some people would say it was slow and dull but i beg to differ, it was very captivating and thrilling.

The period detail is evocative without resorting to kitsch or heavy nostalgia, for example, the primitive state of telecommunications is conveyed perfectly in a scene where the various city police departments try to coordinate the sharing of evidence.

The movie was good but too long and drawn out.

Just a waste of time .

The exciting scenes consisted of opening letters from the zodiac and Jake scratching his head.

The plot is excellent and intriguing based on the real story.

I found the "Golden Gate Bridge" shot in this movie to be very reminiscent of the famous shot taken from the top of the Library of Congress in Pakula's thriller and the entire movie details a similarly intense, relentless quest for the truth as in "All The President's Men".

I was a class-room clown, in grammar school, when most of the events, in this highly suspenseful true story, took place.

The Cast is superb and the Direction from David Fincher is pristine and Paints the whole affair with a matter-of-fact Palate with just enough Style to make this absorbing and mesmerizing.

Zodiac is an expertly crafted mystery picture electrified with scorching narrative complexity and gripping suspense that dares to you guessing at very turn.

Yes, what could have been just another insipid who-done-it is a well-acted, intense movie about actual events.

And the last and biggest issue is that it is TOO LONG!

All very realistic, given all are playing 'real people', but pointless if the script cannot be heard or understood, especially as every actor seems to be battling against intrusive incidental sound effects such as type-writers, telephones or traffic.

The lighting is grim, the story slow paced, the male-centric cast obsessive and paranoid and by the time the deliberately ambiguous ending rolls around, your eyes will be gaping wide and you'll be lucky to sleep for a week.

Even when you see the film and know where the shocks are, the creepy vibe Fincher sustains is riveting.

How to make a suspenseful movie without action, violence and profanity .

The material IS rather fascinating, remaining one of the most fascinating unsolved cases of all time.

I felt that Zodiac was way too long.

Those flaws prevent Zodiac from reaching its full potential, but it is nonetheless a great movie worth watching.

If you get bored easily, just go watch '300' instead.

Some sequences are genuinely terrifying, and yet nothing happens in them.

Extremely Intriguing .

Absolutely brilliant piece of work by Fincher, suspenseful and loaded with excellent performances, highly recommend it.

If you love a good mystery, a good police drama or just want to learn a little history of the Zodiac, I do highly recommend it..I bought the DVD.

Following Robert Greysmith's book on the story fairly closely this is a gripping tale that will annoy some people since, and its not rally giving anything away, there is no definitive ending.

The story of these 3 men, coming together to try solve this thing and the effects that the pursuit of this goal has on each of their lives is really compelling to watch.

or Law & Order), but it also a very engaging character study about how, like the tag line says, 'there's more than one way to lose your life to a killer.

Absorbing, taut thriller about a serial killer in San Francisco and the resulting havoc that is caused.

The dramatic exhale Fincher builds to never arrives, for credit to his craft as a film maker, makes Zodiac compelling viewing for a film that reaches no real conclusion.

However, what made the Zodiac so intriguing was the fact that he began to send a series of taunting letters to the press and the police, challenging them and including cryptograms with hidden messages.

Well crafted Zodiac a suspenseful search.

Tense and thrilling - the pace never lets up.

Zodiac is one of the most detailed and absorbing crime dramas released this decade, and marks a major return to heavyweight film making for it's director after the inconsequential Panic Room.

Robert Downey jr's performance is exquisite, especially his timing and presence, but also the slow , almost invisible sliding of his character into drug and alcohol abuse.

Slow .

The first murders are staged brilliantly by director David Fincher, and the film becomes a gripping search for the sadistic killer.

Dull movie.

In the meantime its just a play by play of what was happening that anyone watching the news in the 70's could have seen, mixed with a ho hum story based on the paranoia of a local reporter.

I first heard of the Zodiac on A&E's Cold Case Files, and I remembered everything I saw on that show when I saw the movie, such as how pretty much nothing happened for a good 4 or 5 years (hence the slower half-hour in the middle of the movie).

But, it is too long.

I wasn't aware that David Fincher directed this film until after seeing it, and unfortunately it's only fitting as the ending to Se7en was left equally as pointless.

Zodiac Offers Compelling Guessing Game ***1/2 .

The investigation is always compelling your always engaged by it and are desperate to see the case solved so that the characters can feel some piece of mind.

This makes for a really entertaining and enjoyable movie.

So much potential, so boring .

Judging by the near empty theater I saw it in yesterday I'd say the latter seems to be the dominant opinion.

It seems to be purposely bland.

The scene in the basement was beyond tense and thrilling.

The film is very long but worth the watch if your patient enough to watch an amazing truthful story about a serial killer.

It's fascinating in its dark undertones and the lack of flashiness.

The main problem with Zodiac is that the second half of the movie seems to do nothing except review all the info you got in the first half, only it does it all in a very slow fashion and with a lot less of that Fincher flair.

Intense movie that grabs a hold and doesn't let go.

But do expect a highly gripping, well-acted, painstakingly detailed and compelling character study thriller.

" (one cliché I find it still harder to brook) it suddenly dawned on me how far this movie is from one of the great disappointments of last year, "Black Dahlia", with its "you'll-never-guess-this" absurdities and its nonsense solution of plot.

But the film deteriorated steadily from that point onwards, having me fidgeting in my seat until I was too lethargic to move.

The story is intriguing and gripping as is the searing acting capabilities of Downey Jr and Ghylenahall.

Very boring,Over rated & over ratings with average twistr .

The cinematography is excellent throughout and there are two particularly breathtaking shots in the movie, one of the valley around Modesto, California at night and another taken from the top of the Golden Gate bridge.

How can I get 3 hours of my life back please?

The director's pacing was off.

An absorbing 160 minutes' viewing.

I felt humbled by their patient & enjoyable presence -- Zodiac the movie receiving the respect through appreciation for the conveyance of top quality film art as entertainment that also rivet & educate.

Overall, "Zodiac" is a suspenseful and unsettling crime-thriller that cannot be missed, especially by those who find interest in the Zodiac case, or anyone who has read Graysmith's novel.

Based on the actual case files and studies, such careful and tedious research went into this underrated film, that every frame is a duplication of the story as it actually happened as far as the facts are concerned according to the author and police reports.

All in all, I quite enjoyed it, despite it being long.

This movie was a complete bore-a-thon.

Here the pursuit is just as thrilling as coming face to face with the villain.

It is always spookier when you dont know who is attacking you as is the case in this riveting movie that is based on a true story, depicted in several books by author Robert Graysmith.

Zodiac is a thrilling film .

Forget the tedious, suspense-less "Panic Room", "Zodiac" is Fincher right back on form.

As a docu-drama, it is surprisingly entertaining.

The film is far too long and slow.

An Engaging Mystery Thriller Filled with Unexpected Twists and Genuine Tension .

The predominant tones are blacks, browns, greys and dull yellows.

While there are some very intense scenes, Fincher takes a somewhat unexpected approach on the subject.

Stylish, compelling, gripping work .

But ultimately it's an experience as maddening, detailed, demanding and repetitive as the obsession it depicts.

All in all Zodiac ends up being an enjoyable ride, that, if nothing else, whets your appetite for more darkness to come from his singular mind.

Since he created that unnerving, psychological journey in 1995 all I've seen from him has been one mediocre formulaic thriller after the other with the complete disgrace that was Fight Club in the middle.

Now it's just slow and at times rather boring film that leaves its viewers unsatisfied and disappointed.

ZODIAC - riveting "mega"-serial killer .

Fincher did his homework, yes, but forgot to deliver a compelling film.

However, the movie takes a turn down an investigative lane that only people with interest in this particular case would love and the rest would just fall asleep.

Toschi shows a softer side of obsession, hiding it better, but you can see his intense desire to uncover the truth and you see it more when he unwillingly helps Graysmith.

At two hours and forty minutes it is too long.

I'll never hear Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" the same after how it plays over the opening scene, maybe one of the most intense openers since "Jaws".

'Zodiac' is engrossing, intense & disturbing.

Had trouble staying awake.

His direction is stylish, and the cinematography, like in all his films, is stunning.

The ending was a bit abrupt and disjointed.

Zodiac is thrilling and suspenseful and is by far the best movie of this new year.

I drifted in and out of consciousness, not because i was tired, but because of how boring this was.

Let's say, just ignore the haters out there that this movie is dull and slow.

The director should have made it a horror movie because it was intense without having the gore or disturbing images that are so common today.

Zodiac is just an excellent film, and I highly recommend it.

Both movies take on the guise of a suspenseful, character-rich detective story that highlights the obsession that takes over the police and the press in uncovering high-profile crimes.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Fincher's 'Zodiac' is an engaging suspense thriller.

*Yawn* .

The movie is thrilling all the way through,as we go from detectives and journalists investigating the Zodiac killer to actually seeing the criminal in the act.

The look of Zodiac is flat and empty...

An intense, albeit slow, telling of the story of the Zodiac killings, this movie transports its audience back to the 60's and 70's, and makes them relive the tension and paranoia that shrouded the lives of the public back then.

A Fascinating, Disturbing Look into the Men Who Lost Their Lives Looking for the Zodiac .

Gritty and engrossing describe it best I think.

I was bored in the middle of the screening.

Conversations that would normally make an American yawn are surprisingly in-depth and interesting, all the while not going overboard to make an overly-complex story.

The film started off very promising, with some rather brutal scenes filmed intimately for maximum impact - had me squirming in my seat and I was set for an hour or so's worth of engaging cinema.

If you want to learn the most tedious activities of reporters and police, then this movie is for you.

If they wanted to give moviegoers a sense of how painstaking and tedious soving a serial killer case can be, they succeeded.

Running time was way too long.

On one hand it's more faithful to the true events, but on the other hand it turns the film a bit boring and not suspenseful.

Based on a true story in the late 60's and 70's, David Fincher (Fight Club) delivers a tense and intriguing plot revolving around a cartoonist, a journalist and many police offices, in which lies an interesting and sentimental ideology.

This film is 2 hours and 42 minutes long, but it does not feel close to that because it keeps you guessing, you care about the characters through their development, and it is also is just entertaining which is a quality that some great films lack.

There is so much suspense in the film that keeps me on the edge all the time.

It's got great performances all around, the pacing is fantastic, the characters are well-developed and interesting, the whole story is fascinating and tense, and the choices in presentation are smart.

This a top-notch crime thriller, and the best part about it is that it is true, which makes it even more compelling.

animal crackers, etc.) Delivery was very flat and uninteresting, not to mention obvious mistakes/gaps in investigation that any ardent CSI viewer would pick up on in a flash.

A more concentrated study on a more definite event or part of the investigation perhaps would have made more engaging viewing.

THIS MOVIE WAS FREAKIN GREAT Im sitting there on the edge of my seat just driving my self crazy wanting to know what is about to happen.

If you're looking for an action packed thriller, this movie isn't for you.

I found that the second half moved faster and was more intense and exciting.

You have a murderer who commits a few crimes in a 2-3 year span, and then you're left with most of the film, where there is no participation of the killer, no new clues, just the (real story or not, it's the same) cliché of the guy who becomes so involved with the case that he loses touch with his family and blah blah.

I cannot believe how dry, dull and drawn out this film was.

If the viewer has insomnia problem, try to see this film instead of using sleeping pills because it will be more effective.

Mysterious and intriguing, but misguided and drawn out at times.

For a movie which is 2 hours 45 minutes long, it feels extremely enjoyable and never boring.

The detailed facts which make the book exciting reading material distracts and takes the pace out of the movie.


Today I have just watched most of the 158 minutes running time version of David Fincher with my wife and when I did not sleep, I found it painfully long and boring (my wife agree with my opinion and she slept less than me).

This movie is VERY LONG, so be prepared!

The murder scene at a public park was my favorite as it was so so real and riveting.

This is the main feature of the movie sometimes a bit thrilling but most of the time rather dull and monotonous like a not very exciting investigation documentary report.

Add to this, a drunken Robert Downey who's speech is so slurred and confusing, I didn't know if he was a sleuth or playing "Hamlet.

It has one and very serious problem - this movie is very slow.

People get killed everywhere, under fascinating circumstances, and this is what you come up with?

And he does manage to create one of the most entertaining and shortest 2 hour and 40 minute films in its place, which is a high honor for a film within the hackneyed genre of the crime drama.

Out of the four people that I went to the movie theatre, 3 of us fell asleep.

Boring and stupid.

While it kept my attention for most of the duration, the ending left me a little bit empty because there wasn't much of a point to it that I could see.

The actors are great (especially Downey and his welcome comic relief), the atmosphere is foreboding, and the investigative process is engaging.

Leisurely but gripping .

The movie is quite long (157 minutes) and the non- exciting plot may make people sleepy.

This is the most time I've spent bored watching a film and I've seen Tree of life (2011)!

Meticulously detailed and authentic, but overly boring in some cases .

The possible killer's are fascinating.

This is one of those thought-provoking films that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Two-and-a-half hours seems like 4 in the drawn out portions of the plot that need not be shown.

Disappointing snoozer.

When a promising lead falls short, the film seemingly could end, but Fincher keeps the film running for another hour, always entertaining the whole time.

And I mean way too long.

Robert Downey Jr. and his performance was entertaining and more interesting wasn't a far stretch nor unique as a personality than his other on-screen personas.

Although this would seem to be unwieldy at two hours and 37 minutes (two hours and 43 minutes if you're watching the directors' cut), it remains utterly absorbing throughout, making the most of the police-procedural aspect of the storytelling.

The film of course started well..Zodiac. then..?? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzodiac you won't be awake to see the rest.. guaranteed!!!

You know whats also slow and unappealing?

Audiences can be thankful then, that the story was snapped up by the more than capable director David Fincher, himself no stranger to serial killer films after 1995's brilliant Se7en, who blissfully resists the temptation to morph the story into an uninspired, turgid teen slasher film, and instead present the tale as it actually transpired - as an engrossing crime drama.

Read the negative reviews before you waste your time .

"Zodiac" starts out with the potential to be an exciting movie.

Nice cast but slow.

David Fincher could have taken a narrative style very functional to the commercial format, which has already been used time and again – serial killers – till we are bored to death seeing those movies.

Well I am not, I give it a thumbs up because it's creepy and entertaining.

The film isn't as shocking as Se7en, nor is it as jaw-dropping in its execution, instead harking back to the days of slow burning paranoia-thrillers like The Parallax View, Marathon Man, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon and All the President's Men.

and this of course amounts to a very satisfactory finale, for us-the viewer, as up to this final point we have been on the edge of our seats guessing Graysmith's (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Inspector Toschi's (Mark Ruffallo) next move.

The film's score by David Shire also proves highly effective, both at amplifying the tension and dramatic punch of the confrontations with the killer, and helping bring the slower scenes to life more.

It keeps you on the edge of your seats.

Boring for at least an hour .

He took an empty pride in leaving a case open and a criminal uncaught, to show us a failure of Act of Justice.

One could easily argue that the movie has a right to be so uneventful because it is a "realistic" reflection of police procedure and of, well, reality.

Once you stop expecting the typical Hollywood fare, it's easy to appreciate Director David Fincher's "The Zodiac" as a welcome change to the usual, unrealistic, predictable crap.

that's also enormously entertaining and will scare you more and more..the longer you think about it.

With the exception of a brief moment of tension in a potential suspect's basement, the film never attempts to engage the viewer on an emotional level, and the result is a very dry watch—dare I say it, even boring at times.

While this viewer would hesitate to come right out and call this "perfect", he will say that it does come pretty close, entertaining and informing its audience and never making the film seem as long as it is.

The actors are fine, but the weak plot is blotted by an unbearably slow paceThis creepy thriller movie too is way too confusing for kids and just plain horrible for adults.

A waste of good time.

But let me just put it this way: I nearly fell asleep in school that day that I saw this movie.

It rambles on for 160 minutes and gets tedious more than once.

Otherwise, it seems like a dull "America's Most Wanted" re-enactment.

The movie makes so many leaps through time and recounts so many investigations that lead nowhere, it is easy to forget that it began as an exciting movie.

Some may call it slow or even dull, but having an attention span longer than 30 seconds, I found it very exciting.

It has a gripping background score.

Having never actually heard about the real killer in real life, I found it interesting to see how this film went about portraying a real life murderer and was very gripping.

Fincher gets 10/10 for Se7en and Fight Club - I liked his unique style, snappy editing, camera work, effects etc...

All in all, a little to serious and slow-moving for my liking...

Based on the autobiographic book by Robert Graysmith, David Fincher creates an intense and enjoyable (if a little sagging in some places) movie that manages to be a tense and scary thriller in the first part, and then suddenly shifting focus from the now-inoffensive (or is he?

Save your money, stay at home, sit in a dark room and just think about how bleak, underwhelming, flat and empty life is.

Thrilling and suspenseful .

Sure, the serial killings in the California Bay Area was tragic and for all I know, the killer might still on the loose but to torture the movie goer with nothing but a million aimless characters popping up all over the place, running helter skelter from building to building, from block to block, from car to car and each trying to thwart the efforts of one another in trying to find the ID of the maniac, and for CLOSE TO THREE HOURS, was unbearable.

In the end, whilst 'Zodiac' is a fascinating and clever exploration of a real crime and its consequences in 60s and 70s America, it's hardly the gripping thriller it was marketed as, and given that we are being asked to follow and digest over two and a half hours of information relating to the investigation, holding the viewer at the mercy of actors who 'method mumble' whilst imparting this information is unforgivable.

Mixed with stunning casting (especially Ruffalo, who finally proves himself), a beautiful chronology that never seems to slog the film's pace, and a feeling of overall realism, Zodiac really is a director at the top of his game.

i actually think this stuff will be more compelling than the movie.

The colors are reduced but heavy, the camera-movements are as slow as is the editing.

Going from the creepy, and brutal killing of two teenagers in the beginning and plunging into the cop world of 1960's-'70's it becomes clear that Zodiac is not a straight thriller or suspense film, but an intense police procedural, a dramatic character study of the four men who were most affected by the Zodiac murders, as well as frequent splashes of classic white knuckled Fincher suspense.

Though, I thought that the film was rather slow.

I seriously admire the work that went into this, because it was interesting to watch and had a lot of engaging scenes in it.

Zodiac's premise and grisly portrayal of the murders are certainly where it shines, along with the terrific acting of its cast and intriguing, mysterious atmosphere which leads us guessing and wondering at every turn.

Among the many cases of serial killers that have become part of popular culture over the years, the case of the Zodiac killer is probably the most intriguing and fascinating of the modern era due to fact that, like the infamous British killer, Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac was never caught and his identity remains a mystery to this day.

All the facts are laid out, a straight forward and such a little slow moving account of an infamous crime spree .

It was such a long, slow, endless, vapid, dull, energy-lacking epic.

Complaints about Zodiac being 'too slow' and laboured compared to David Fincher's other thrillers are not unfounded.

Many of my colleagues who saw this film complained that it was far too long and in the end, lacked a satisfying resolution.

Gripping and fascinating without having to bombard you with special effects or cheap gimmicks.

The fact that this crime is still unsolved makes it all the more intriguing.

As the cult grows the panic and frustration starts gripping the investigators and the reporters who end up loosing everything for finding the killer, coming chillingly close to many suspects and the real one.

The ending, in my opinion, was even more tedious.

The average movie goer will find this movie slow, disjointed and cold.

This is an excellent, compelling film for anyone interested in true crime and general detective work.

Too much dialogue, and unnecessary sequences, especially in the film's middle Act, render considerable boredom.

Even though he doesn't come out with many new films…with the exception of maybe "Panic Room", those that he does direct are both highly innovative and entertaining.

Fincher also does a great job telling a story that lasts the course of more than 30 years in a compelling way.

Boring serial killer .

The film is slightly slow though and the attempt to dramatize it does not succeed entirely.

Movies based on true stories tend to fall into one of two traps- either they embellish until the "truth" is barely distinguishable or they work so hard to tell the "true story" that it becomes dry and boring.

So we have been breast fed on hour and a half movies that anything over 100 minutes bores most people unless there is a large amount of violence or explosions.

Perhaps if the ultra-objective script had it's actors trying to dress up some of the boring details they would have kept interest longer, but impressions during this lengthy film will sadly veer from cold to dull way too quickly and rarely come back to anything else.

Uninspiring .

It needed a thrilling pace like "Panic Room".

So boring.

Cast is good, atmosphere is great, but it's long, boring, doesn't give any emotions

Fascinating And Clever .

What he was trying to say was that because I was exceedingly bored by the movie that I have a short attention span and that I am ignorant --- and that I shouldn't trust my own dissatisfaction.

Much like the great opening scene in Fight Club, Fincher blends the use of his camera and the power of a computer to make some very compelling and awesome shots, for example the quick ten second shot of the entire construction of the Transamerica Tower.

The slow obsession the character goes through and eventual realizations are all very well depicted, and only continue to show off his true acting chops.

It's a gripping portrait from end to end.

You will find yourself on the edge of your seat for almost the entirety of this gritty and dark mystery drama that follows the zodiac killer murders and the investigations that followed throughout the late 60's and 70's.

There are few scenes here and there which create suspense, but they are few and the movie feels like a slow burn than an explosive suspenseful thriller.

"Zodiac" rides in a paranoia rumbleseat all along, but floors it over potholes during a spine-tingling climactic basement scene — evocative of how discovery and understanding come to supersede sanity, safety, justice or reason.

The whole ambiguity of the killer, the ciphers, the numerous murders that may or may not have been committed by him, the perfect camera work of the director and the acting of Gyllenhaal, Downey and Ruffalo provide for a really intense experience and I'm just sorry for all those people who had particular expectations about this movie that were not met.

Overall, it remains a good psychological thriller that is worth watching.

Bland Acting.

ZODIAC is a slow-burn, like a wave it leaps up and down into thrilling moments and slow, down-paced sequences focusing on the main character's personal issues.

This is thrilling stuff from David Fincher as people really fear the Zodiac.

Fincher who has outdone himself weaves a timeless trail of gripping shots and angles that make you sit back and enjoy.

It's an entertaining if sometimes slow-going thriller, and certain to give you your own theories about this ongoing real-life murder case.

The dialogue is gripping.

The case of the Zodiac Killer is one of the most famous in criminal history and notorious for being unsolved, even if the evidence was rather convincing, and David Fincher uses this opportunity to gather together a thesis of sorts that combs through substantial pieces of evidence and uses the medium of film to piece it together in a highly entertaining way.

My friends and I were ready to hang ourselves and make someone send our bodies to the director with a posted note stating: you bored us to death.

The film is perfectly-paced and immaculately production-designed and for anyone wanting an absorbing chase (in the plodding, police-work sense) and a world you never have need to doubt is exactly the time and place it professes to be, Zodiac is the film for you.

I found it to be a great story told in a remarkable way, very entertaining, with great performances, and wonderful direction.

She was of the opinion he was a former policeman in the bay area who worked peripherally on the case and who bore a striking resemblance to the sketches, and his daughter.

In that respect, the mood reminded me of Oliver Stone's slow paced thriller "Talk Radio", or the conspiracy mystery "The China Syndrome".

While long and intricate, the development of the story is remarkably good in its narrative, as the slow way clues are unveiled helps to keep the suspense rising and makes the plot captivating and never boring.

Save your money and your eyes from this movie.

yawn..the first movie was better .

ZODIAC starts off with a bang, and then gets so bogged down in intense detective work that the thriller aspect is diluted by the time the first hour is over.

I highly recommend it to any crime/mystery-thriller fans.

Top notch direction by Fincher n engaging screenplay by Vanderbilt.

But the middle 2 hours were just too tiresome for me.

It has similarities with how bored I got with Gone girl.

The second is the length of this movie--it's way too long.


If you're expecting an action packed thriller which keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout, then you'll be disappointed.

It takes pride in its detail, grinding out excitement within the most mundane of activities.

It is refreshing that in a time of constant film rehashes and cliché endings some directors dare to offer unique and fresh approaches to story telling.

The film is quite long at 158 minutes, but the intriguing subject matter and the incredibly detailed scrutiny of the case makes for compulsive, if occasionally heavy-going, viewing.

Also a very suspenseful scene down in the basement!

The film is slow and lacks ups and downs.

This film really shines in it's understated, realistic and yet wholly entertaining dialog and characterization.

Sometimes we are left hanging in empty air, with no paths left to search and investigate.

I saw it with my friends and we all enjoyed it.

The story jumps around from the murders to each of the three main characters (the cartoonist, the news reporter, the detective) so it feels it a little disjointed.

And we have our narrative connections through plot cohesion and repetitive characters common in each piece: mainly Robert Downey Jr. and Elias Koteas.

And I'm impressed with the way Fincher was able to take these known facts and create such an entertaining movie.

Ahem… Zodiac is a movie of many genres: it begins as a horror, then dives into an intense drama.

The rest of the movie was interesting, but after about two hours of Jake Gyllenhaal talking with various people about the zodiac it becomes a little repetitive.

In spite of this, David have finally made a masterpiece that is so unique and completely otherworldly that it's a mind-bendingly absorbing movie-going experience.

As Zodiac makes its way through its excruciating two and a half hours, the attention gradually, and necessarily, shifts from the elusive killer to a straight arrow named Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a newspaper cartoonist and former Eagle Scout whose obsession with the case is marginally intense enough to keep us going.

I must say this was a real snoozer and should be watched at home on a night you can't seem to sleep, as it will do the trick.

Zodiac is the low-key, character-driven companion piece to director David Fincher's earlier serial killer film Se7en; albeit, with this picture replacing the former's grim violence and biblical depiction of hell on earth with a more routine and realistic depiction of the slow corruption of innocence and the lure of obsession, as three disparate individuals are united in their desire to "unmask a mysterious and enigmatic murderer terrifying the San Francisco area".

It just seemed like a long, boring investigation of little things that suggested who the killer might be.

It was good and very suspenseful from the beginning.

I was bored through the whole movie.

One cannot brand this as a standard "whodunnit" either because some clues are dropped overtly and blatantly, and when confusion manifests, it becomes a story device to keep you guessing.

With Zodiac, he's managed to take a riveting story and make it even more compelling - even without a compelling ending in real life.

Taking in its absorbing 2 and a half hour running time, you can tell that everyone involved wanted to get every last detail just right.

We see the wide-eyed wonder and utter determination and obsession of Gyllenhall's Graysmith, the cynical and drunken musings of Paul Avery (Downey Jnr was born to play this role) and the slow disintegration of Det Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo's best performance IMO).

Save your money and catch this one when it comes out on DVD.

This is due in large part to the fact that the actual case is so disturbing / fascinating on its own, and, as of this writing, remains unsolved.

The pace is nice first 30 minutes, but then, all other 2 hours, the film becomes a terrible drag, so moody and so boring.

Zodiac is a waste of your time.

I've come to regard David Fincher as a dynamic filmmaker with slick fast moving films which keep you on the edge of your seat.

a fascinating film .

Tedious, Lifeless Presentation of Evidence & Dead Ends .

Fincher does a great job of making a "cold case" into a movie that actually has a resolution that is satisfying, and he is able to make even the boring stuff seem interesting.

Fincher could have used the heavy artillery at his disposal: fantastic stars, a terrific script, intriguing real life events, to have given this film some weight, some gravitas, some center, some trajectory, that it currently lacks, had he explored these questions, questions inherent in the material itself -- a killer who demands the front page, and who promises he will kill if he does not get it.

An enjoyable and well-crafted movie that gets a little mired in the facts .

Authentic and Compelling one the best film's i've seen .

With a real documentary-like feel, in an entertaining fashion, this story unfolds in a timely manner, and really delivers.

:this film is so boring and so pointless that the audience is carried for 150 minutes only because they started watching and want to see how it ends.

Too long and boring!.

I was pretty shocked that this film came from the same director of very cinematically gripping films such as Fight Club.

The whole thing just enthralled me from beginning to end and I especially was on the edge of my seat when Graysmith visited this man's house who used to work at a theatre where a Zodiac suspect was a projectionist.

I can understand people being bored with it, but it was engrossing for me, at least, and should be for people who don't go into it wanting it to be a thriller or a highly fictionalized sensational story or anything like that.

does one of his usual mumbling but somehow gripping supporting roles (gripping mainly because you're straining to her what he's saying).

But if you're truly in the mood to get immersed in a detailed movie, this would at the top of my list of recommendations.

This makes for a fascinating journey.

The long runtime and slow pace the movie has will definitely be another of the elements that may cause some discomfort; although as written above, Fincher managed to keep the movie moving with a good rhythm.

Based on the true story of one of the most intriguing unsolved crimes in American history and the book by Robert Graysmith.

Yet Zodiac is as completely fascinating as All The President's Men in its roller coaster ride through tips, secret meetings, false leads, and hopes raised and then dashed.

Hell, I think I would have walked out of the film had the acting not been so great.

David Fincher does a stand-up job of recreating 1960s San Francisco in this meandering real-crime thriller, but at two and a half hours it is simply too drawn-out to be enjoyable.

Most of the public will hope the case is solved so they can stop watching the movie as soon as possible, because unfortunately, it's boring!

Readers of books on true crime like "Zodiac" and "Helter Skelter" will find this especially interesting, but it should play out as a thought-provoking and entertaining character study for any inquiring mind of unsolved mysteries.

The story covers decades and lacks an ending that "traditional" serial killer movies normally have – the difficulties in delivery are obvious and it is to the film's credit that it still manages to be interesting and engaging.


--- Yes, because I was wasting 3 hours of my life on this.

This movie, which revisits the events of San Francisco's Zodiac killings (as fictionalised in Clint Eastwood's first Dirty Harry movie) and the subsequent long-drawn out pursuit of their perpetrator, is not a particularly fast moving affair.

The real thing is much more complex and painful, but also, in the end, far more compelling than the usual mainstream product.

David Fincher put together a very intense and suspenseful crime-drama / mystery film.

While the second act is filled with mostly talking and some may find that boring these actors with Fincher's direction makes for some of the most interesting dialogue scenes.

Admirable in it's objective ambitions, Fincher largely misses the entire point of making a movie like this for the silver screen and instead bogs the viewer down with unnecessary minutia; information that is certainly relevant to the plot's hunt for this elusive killer, but nonetheless will become entirely formulaic, leaving many viewers apathetic way too quickly.

What I loved about this thrilling tale of the Zodiac killer was the narrative point of view.

Saw Zodiac this past weekend and was bored out of my mind.

Believable, real, nothing too crazy, lenghty, if you are into movies about homicide investigations, you should check this out, since it brings something new to the table and i worth watching after all.

Yes, the audience recognizes a bad looking film with an uninteresting actor as its lead!!

More like Zzzzzzodiac .

A fascinating and engaging thriller.

--- Try mind-bendingly dull.

Intriguing and suspenseful .

Paced, suspenseful, gripping - the first real must-see of 2007.

The first hour of the film was steady, but after that, the film dragged and drifted from different scenes about prank callers, kooks on the street who claim their the "Zodiac killer", and far-fetched theories that both the police and the news reporters try to figure out with absolutely no luck.

Some movies I'd recommend instead, somewhat neglected, but actually more worth your time: "Wolf Creek", "The Matador", "Blood Diamond", heck, I'm sorry for those involved, but even "Vacancy" and "Hot Fuzz" were more exciting to watch than Zodiac.

A mixed bag of good and tedious scenes.

A good, suspenseful, fascinating film.

The sad thing is that even the plot from the first film was fairly bland.

Intriguing, chilling and highly recommended.

I found myself thinking about this movie long after I'd watched it, and the mystique of the entire case and the particular storytelling here is all really intriguing.

" For Lee, that was intriguing and radical.

This is a vast, sprawling, and lengthy film directed by David Fincher, which gets nowhere in the end, and was probably a pointless exercise.

If you're going to have a predictable film, DON'T MAKE IT ALMOST 2 HOURS AND 45 MINUTES!!!

We are given an entertaining first look at Zodiac's first string of murders.

For those who like films that are suspenseful then you will find a lot to like here.

It moves too slow for my taste, especially in the first half.

Just plain dull .

May look like a simple who dunnit story, but this David Fincher classic is truly riveting.

Under the cramped confines of a major studio, he ambitiously created a film both artistically satisfying and utterly entertaining.

The movie Zodiac was quite entertaining and the actors used in this movie did an outstanding job, especially Mark Ruffalo playing inspector Tochi.

This movie is very, very suspenseful at times and some viewers might find it to be a bit long.

Oh wait, you will remember two things: spending your money and nearly three hours of your time to see this egghead movie.

He really gets across the lengthy, sometimes lethargic nature of the case and the boring minutiae of police work.

Towards the end of the film, it has started to drag on a little and the plot has begun to get a bit wavey and meandering, but generally Fincher has crafted a gripping tale that won me over more than Se7en.

Part of what makes the movie so engaging is that it is based on thorough research of the real facts of the Zodiac Killer.

After the first hour and a half, the film felt endless and dragged on to boredom, just like the original Zodiac case did.

Personally, I enjoyed it very much, and was very inspired to go and find out more about the case.

Zodiac is a truly bold, truly intense and truly intelligent movie....

Zodiac is a suspenseful and entertaining account of one cartoonist-turned-writer's attempt to identify the Zodiac Killer after investigators have given up.

For an un-shut case, Fincher with James Vanderbilt's screenplay, wring every note of tension, with bated breathlessness, from the eerie opening scenes, to an ending that dwindles into thrilling nothingness.

It is also way too long by at least 20 minutes.

'Zodiac' is a compelling and very well-made film focusing on an amateur detective's investigation into the infamous Zodiac killer, whose identity remains a mystery to this day.

Entertaining, engrossing, the kind of movie you compulsively watch again and again...

And, further, Graysmith must have found himself with a fascinating and commercial story that had no satisfactory ending, which is why Truman Capote was being driven nuts in the case of "In Cold Blood," and delayed finishing the book until the killers were hanged.

Just to come up empty?

This movie is a compelling from start to finish.

This film is highly entertaining.

Gripping tense thriller .

The soundtrack of pop songs is evocative and appropriate without being too cutesy.

Good film, a little long in story development, and tedious in the obsessive Graysmith part(J.

Based on the actual case files of one of the most intriguing unsolved crimes in the nation's history, "Zodiac" is a thriller from David Fincher, who cut his teeth on the genre.

Maybe catch it on DVD if you're REALLY bored one night.

But the clear and present difference between the two films is that, as sleek, engaging and entertaining as Se7en is, it's nothing more than entertainment.

They're engaging, unique, and have great arcs.

It also kept my ass on the edge of my seat.

Equally impressive is the story, it is a very intriguing one and told very cleverly as it probes the limits of knowledge and evidence with startling power.

The story of the Zodiac murders is interesting, intriguing and well told!

In my view it is just a rather dull police procedural about how the police spent many years in failing to solve a crime- even with the aid of a cartoonist.

His style is very subtle and dry, yet he is such an engaging presence on the screen and his wit is so sharp that I honestly would watch any movie with Robert Downey, Jr., in it and probably enjoy it.

The results, despite some disgruntled remarks from Gyllenhaal, are stunning performances from all the main players.

And director David Fincher does a magnificent job in bringing this fascinating story to the screen.

3 Hour BOREfest!!.

This basically mirrors the story, repetitive and a bit boring.

Firstly,it moved at a snails pace and how it can be described as gripping is beyond me.

Overall "Zodiac" is quite intriguing and interesting!

There are also quite a few supporting players that are a joy to watch, such as Brian Cox, & the always intriguing Robert Downey Jr.Fincher is as precise to form & fact as he has ever been, & though I've heard tale of him being an overly meticulous director to work for, it seems it's not without its merit, & who can argue with it, when it works out, in the end?

The word beforehand ranged from "very good" to "unbelievably slow and boring".

Engrossing film.

~ Well the Zodiac STILL hasn't had a good movie made about him, and with a case as horrifying and extremely intriguing as his - I'd be plain pis*ed off!

Overall, the film's strong points still stand out fiercely over the slower bits, and it just feels like a shame whenever the film drags and starts to become uninteresting, since the stronger sections were so intensely engaging it feels almost unjust to begin to lose interest.

This very long movie is pretty horrible until we jump forward in time to the late 70's, when it finally finds its stride and becomes quite engaging.

A boring and overdone theme.

The script is full of fast and snappy dialogue and there's humour in surprising places to uplift some of the darker moments.

By constantly reminding us that this is a true story, and by keeping the attention to detail as accurate as possible, Fincher has masterminded an entirely engrossing police procedural, in which the obsessive but futile search for the murderer is more absorbing than the murders themselves.

Overall, the story of "Zodiac" is incredibly gripping and well done.

And what makes this film suspenseful, tense, even creepy, isn't something within the film, it is the truth.

He takes his source material in Graysmith's book and presents it in a thrilling movie.

Fincher's latest contribution is a compelling view for all those with strong stomachs and was eerily refreshing compared to what junk has been streaming out of Hollywood lately.

Equally fascinating is James Vanderbilt's screenplay who does a stellar job in adapting the story from the non-fiction book it is based on.

The film is much too long, the action is limited, and the storyline pointless..I was waiting for an explosive ending to make up for 3hrs of boredom.

Even though Zodiac shows gruesome killings and attempted killings, they feel ugly rather than exciting.

And balance was difficult for Fincher to achieve: eventually, the time devoted to the facts of the Zodiac case, and all that tedious police red tape and discussions about fingerprints and handwriting which may or may not have existed meant that the characters suffered.

While the details of the case are admittably fascinating, (though the supposedly objective portrayal of the case does feel rather biased at times, and it's clear who Graysmith, the author of the novel the film adapts, fingered as the real killer) and the film kicks off at a brisk pace, ensnaring the audience's attention right off the bat, it appears Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt have worked perhaps too hard to incorporate every last trace of information regarding the case.

Instead, Fincher let the story unfold itself through mood, dialogue, linear plot and editing, stellar acting by the leads & supports and subtlety of extraordinary cinematography and stunning visual effects.

"Based on the true story of the notorious serial killer and the intense manhunt he inspired, 'Zodiac' is a superbly crafted thriller from the director of 'Se7en' and 'Panic Room'.

Instead, I found myself mind-numbingly bored for two and a half hours.

In Mr. Graysmith's book, he basically leads the reader to believe that all the evidenece combined pinpoints to Arthur Leigh Allen, most of the evidence is circumstantial, but certainly compelling.

A slow burning thriller 'Zodiac' is on another level.

Utterly waste of time.

Still, it's good to have a film that puts as much attention on look as "Zodiac" does, and presents such a fine all-around cast in moments both suspenseful and funny.

Gripping .

It's main issue is that it is too predictable.

Unlike Pakula, however, Fincher does not propel James Vanderbilt's time-spanning script (based on Robert Graysmith's 1986 book, Zodiac) as forcefully and lets the story go on far too long to be consistently compelling, especially as he is forced by facts to leave the resolution open-ended.

However we've seen him make Se7en and Fight Club so something like this seems very "normal" for him to do and normal at times can be boring.

While your watching it, it will be very suspenseful and you will be at the edge of your seat.

It is slower but just as intense.

And although most of the movie's lead on by rumors and talks around the killer, it is the moments were "Zodiac" is portrayed that is the most scary and exciting, whether its the brutal stabbings of a loving couple at the beach or Gyllenhaal discovering he is in a basement-trap.

Not for every taste; however, as a portrait of hard-working people obsessed with solving a baffling case that dragged on for decades, quite riveting.

A truly informative and enjoyable film.

And it's this witness-to-the-scene-of-the-crime approach to storytelling that makes ZODIAC so riveting.

In this film about the hunt for the memorable killer that hit San Francisco in the seventies, Fincher again chooses an original approach, which results in an intriguing movie.

'Zodiac' is an Engrossing Murder Mystery .

'Zodiac' is still grim but instead of being fast-moving it's leisurely-paced at an unbelievably lengthy runtime of 160 minutes (2 hours and 40 minutes).

Zodiac I swear to god is the dullest, most long drawn out road to nowhere film I've sat through.

Zodiac is an intelligent, thrilling, well-written piece of cinema with some very good performances.

Even so, it's length, longer and slower than usual for this genre, can make some people lose their interest.

Since the facts, unlike a number of fictitious movies about the same subject, are as confusing as the mysterious killer himself.

Convincing crafted and engaging even if it does require patience from the viewer due to the nature of the material .

So we'd like to "thank" everyone who gave this movie a 10 rating and influenced our decision to see this dull lifeless movie.

It might not have a lot of action, and be 99% talking, but the subject matter is more engaging than most action movies.

The style fits the subject matter well, with the drama driven by dialog, performance and character interaction, while the suspense is bolstered by the slow, investigative procedures that the characters undertake in the valiant pursuit of the truth.

Engrossing Crime Drama, A Great Film Overall .

I mean the acting is solid for it is which saves it from being a complete abortion, but aside from that its just a slow paced snore fest that makes The Human Condition trilogy look like it has a Transformers like pace in comparison, and thats like 9 and half hours long.

However, if you truly consider yourself a moviegoer who plans on seeing the best of the best, David Fincher's exciting masterpiece "Zodiac" is a film that you definitely should not miss.

It's a in-depth look at a psychologically off-kilter time, and I highly recommend it.

its sooooooooooooooooo boring.

Moody, suspenseful, hair-raising ...

Mark Ruffalo, who I often find a little bland, is actually not bad as Inspector David Toschi who is put in charge of the case.

If I have any criticism, it is that David Fincher's characteristic impressionism--his mind blowing spontanaeity--is sorely lacking in the production.

It's a fascinating case, and I wanted all the information the movie was willing to give me.

If you ask me there's no plot....

For a serial killer mystery movie, what's so thrilling about it is that it defies all the typical Hollywood clichés for its genre, such as chases and blood & gore and sticks to the grounded reality tone with all the police investigative procedural work.

This is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.

A Fascinating Portrait of a Mystery by the Master of Loom .

I'm suspecting that this move is going to focus and highlight a lot of the mass confusion, paranoia, and anxiety during Zodiac multi-decade reign of terror.

but it was still pretty enjoyable and interesting.

So--it has good acting and direction but goes on far too long and was too disjointed.

We are immersed from the get-go.

I found this film extremely boring - I have never before seen so many people looking surreptitiously at their watches and/or checking their mobile telephones during a movie.

It is a dark, atmospheric and very suspenseful study of those four characters - San Francisco Chronicle Reporter Paul Avery,his colleague the cartoonist Robert Graysmith on whose book the film is based), San Francisco Detective David Toschi and his colleague Bill Armstrong - who are, and in part, keep searching for the scary serial murderer ,who kalled himself the "Zodiac",for 22 years; and it is also a study of the scars that their search is leaving on their minds and souls.

Audiences falling in line for Zodiac expecting another Se7en are likely to be bored and disappointed overall.

The plot is interesting and the mystery compelling.

There were many good actors in this movie and I highly recommend it.

Overall, this is a gripping, absorbing tale about the gruesome murders that took place over a span of many years with only letters giving hints about the murders.

Panic Room was an enjoyable technical exercise and not much more.

When you watch something that doesn't really offer that much in sentiments (be it fear, adrenaline, happiness or anything else) you will probably be bored after the first 90 minutes pass.

It is long(running around 2 hours and 45 minutes), repetitive, and just plain boring.

Filmmaker David Fincher hits a home run in this absorbing, unsettling true-life account of the infamous Zodiac killings in the San Francisco Bay area that haunted California, and in particular its law enforcement, for literally decades.

Gripping, slow-burning, character-driven detective thriller .

I guess when you have such a superiority complex you have to explain away why this "dense" "masterpiece" is playing in a theater that's "nearly empty" save for (and I'm paraphrasing a previous review) a few senior citizens who you somehow were able to ascertain "liked the film.

It's a long watch with a lot of attempts to make the time in between "action" entertaining and I'm not all aboard in that perspective.

The film is dense, thoughtful and at times seem slow.

It becomes quite confusing.

Yet, in the end, Zodiac is easily a waste of time.

There are slow passages where little new information is learned, and you long for either another murder scene or something crucial to happen.

It is slow-paced and feels closer to real life so some people might find it boring.

Alien 3 is the most fascinating movie in the Alien franchise for its bizarre, unconventional, depressingly pessimistic storytelling and troubled production that is eventually redeemed by the assembly cut edition.

I won't say too much about it here, but I can guarantee that you'll be on the edge of the couch when you see it.

However, if you have a short attention span,, or need a twist in a movie to make it enjoyable, please skip this.

The movie seems like 2 dull movies wrapped into one movie - (spoiler) first one being the cops trying desperately to adapt to the crazed media-loving killer, and the second one with the Gyllanthal character going on his own sleuth trail.

It amazes me that Fincher managed to take a well written script and strong performances and create a boring film that I turned off half way through it.

Well after listen many review & very high rating My expectations was very high ,also story on true incident but honestly movies was very slow,Bore, twist was very bad in fact nothing was suspensfull ,Surprising at all Korean movie (Chaser)on true story was 100 time better then this Movie

All of the actors deliver thrilling performances, many of them against the odds.

Thankfully, the film maintained enough interest later on to alleviate all desire to fall asleep completely.

I saw this film about three months ago and I kind of enjoyed it or should I say didn't find anything particular wrong in it.

I grew very bored.

This movie is big, is boring and leads to nowhere.

He is a director who manages to take traditional storytelling and twist it so much that it becomes fascinating just to watch the plot itself progress, even if every single other thing about the movie is weak or poorly done.

The Zodiac story still has eluded police to this day but the story is a fascinating part of history.

The film, based on Graysmith's non-fiction book, is intense and unsettling, though it does pack reams of detail and criminal minutiae into its running time--most of which dead-ends or winds up discarded.

However, despite its clunky moments of crass direction the story in itself is quite interesting and the film is made watchable by a very enjoyable performances from Robert Downey Jr. and Anthony Edwards.

It is utterly compelling to watch.

A really dull film...

Neither of those two options is perfect, but thankfully the process of the film is thrilling enough that a complete conclusion is never particularly necessary.

On top of that the movie was boring to begin with, the best part was the first 30 min and that's where it ends.

In the first twenty minutes, I was a little concerned that it was just a mere blood and gore flick, but the movie moved forward smoothly, jumping forward in time in big chunks with ease and became an engaging story.

But despite of those three weaknesses , mentioned before, it is still a strong, highly entertaining and almost hypnotizing retelling of a legendary investagition in a brave, and well fitting, semi - documentary - style, a film whose authenticity is maybe more chilling than the most thrillers are, a film that never feels nearly as long as its running time actually is.

By the end of the first 30 minutes I was lost in the many details of the Zodiac serial killer case, and 30 minutes later I was on the verge of falling asleep, after all this is the maximum duration I can hold on similar themed TV series, and then I usually go to bed.

Se7en, like Zodiac, concerns a serial killer, but the earlier film is shocking, thrilling, horrifying.

It's eternally fascinating to see what folks will do for dollars.

This is one of the finest thrillers of 2007, a really interesting, entertaining and gripping work.

What happens after this dampening of action and mood, is an acceleration of emotion that had me gripping the arms of my chair, truly on the edge, willing Graysmith on to whatever outcome the film has for us.

All told this movie is a fascinating look into one of the most mysterious and long-running serial killers in U.

But Zodiac is laid-back, slow and takes it's time.

I will admit I got lost slightly in a couple of places, and I think it could have been improved a little with more murders featured, but Gyllenhaal does well, Downey Jr. isn't bad, and Ruffalo gets his time, and of course the director does his best, it is in moments an engaging real life story, a watchable crime drama based on a true story.

A *very* long but extremely engrossing film.

Even by the time of the second murder, the scene was dragged out so much, you wish Zodiac would just get on with it.

But as the movie processed, the Zodiac killer himself faded into the background, and the film started to be a little boring.

It's just such a fascinating story, filled with all sorts of possible endings.

Painfully slow and given that they've never caught the Zodiac Killer, there was never going to be any pay off I guess.

This movie starts off exciting, the first half of the movie is pretty good but it gets really boring in third half.

Waste of time .

'Brilliant','tense','gripping','superbly acted throughout'.

But "Zodiac," David Fincher's scrupulously factual drama about the determined serial killer who eluded Northern California police for more than two decades, manages to be an absorbing and fulfilling experience -- even though it ends with a question mark.

The movie is engrossing and I was constantly waiting for the next clue, the next lead, the next anything, to lead the investigators to the killer.

This hurt the Box-Office and has some Horror Movie and Slasher Fans screaming for the Exits and shouting LONG, SLOW, BORING, etc. So back up a bit and define what this is about.

Then very late in the movie, when Robert's life is completely and utterly immersed in Zodiac and Zodiac only, his now-separated wife quickly mentions "When's the last time you ate?

Pakula's All the President's Men, Fincher manages to create with Zodiac a long and epic film based extensively on exposition, dialogue and phone conversations, featuring a murder case so puzzling it still leaves you asking questions and trying to follow leads after the movie is over, that despite all that remains relentlessly entertaining.

But that set aside, not even the great actors in this movie, could save it from it's downfall of boring, redundant, pointless dialogue.

The plot is simple, people are trying to find out the infamous Zodiac killer, but the nuances and details make this movie utterly fascinating.

Before seeing this movie, I had zero previous information about these murders (far, far before my time), so it was utterly fascinating to me to see the amount of time it took for everything to play out.

If the exact same movie was listed as being directed by someone like Gary Fleder the same critics would probably be calling this movie out for the long winded pointless choppy unemotional anti-thriller that it is.

The music, the way it's shot, the way that Fincher sets up every scene is breathtaking and entirely gripping and original.

John Carroll Lynch is not a big- name actor but he's good and, for obvious reasons, a fascinating person in this story.

THere are also some genuinely scary scenes, and despite the films length, it's paced evenly and stays engrossing throughout.

Taut, tense and thrilling!

On the Negative side the sound and dialogue is hard to follow at times and there are too many throw away remarks,especially from the Character "Inspector David Toschi", mumbling through the first 3/4's of the film, only speaking clearly at its conclusion, this in my opinion should have been addressed in post production.

A constellation of clues that may leave you bored with the puzzle .

The narrative flows so well, and you are constantly on the edge.

Robert Graysmith's book is a disjointed mess that focuses in on a suspect who quite clearly was not the Zodiac.

And when rumors trickled out that Fincher was going to ridiculous lengths to achieve the same level of accuracy—murder sequences are supposedly accurate up to the centimeter in terms of the choreography—I admit to having some worries over the same true crime boredom of the book's adaptation.

A rather slow speed, no action scenes, only a bit of brutality (and showed in a way, that the gore hounds don't get too much out of it).

The acting was very good it made up for the slow plot.

I remember watching this for the first time a few years ago thinking it was an unmemorable slow drag.

Extremely compelling saga of the "Zodiac".

The film is intriguing because it is an expose of an investigation that didn't work and led to a series of murders that could have been prevented.

Some scenes feels unnecessary and drawn out.

On the contrary, this movie keeps getting more and more intense towards the end.

If you made it through all 159 minutes of this uneventful non-thriller without falling asleep, pat yourself on the back and then go try out for Ninja Warrior because you truly are hardcore.

Utterly waste of time .

I also thought that some of it was boring.

An Superb and Intricate Telling of One of the Most Intriguing Serial Killer Stories of All Time .

The script is also great because it always avoids the cliché.

Fincher's style is only present in a few well done scenes, leaving most of the photography as boring and repetitive series of medium and close shots.

Zodiac is a dull thriller in which you know what is going to happened before it even happens.

People left the theater early, I even heard several sighs as the plot NEVER got any more interesting.

But the distinct advantage of this approach is that the movie feels less contrived and artificial and more akin to real life, as it captures the sometimes decidedly unglamorous nature and frustratingly plodding pace of actual crime detection.

If you're looking a fast paced thriller, this is not it.

Zodiac is gripping and involving in its own way and is a film that will surely have a better chance of withstanding the test of time than other films released these days.