It’s brave making a movie about an unsolved series of killings; after all, you’re proclaiming from the start that there will be no neat ending, right?

Instead, this film follows a group of characters involved with and affected by the Zodiac murders. The police on the case, the journalists reporting it. Mainly, it tells of the cartoonist who became so obsessed with the case that he quite possibly solved it – but at what cost?

I did enjoy this movie, but it’s quite unlike anything. There’s no real suspense, because you know there’s no answer coming. The various stories of lives entangled in the case are interesting, but this is ‘real life’, not fiction, and as such most of the threads just peter out.

I suppose ultimately the strength and weakness both of this movie is that it’s entirely about the surrounding ‘cast’ rather than the actual serial killer. Kudos for managing to sustain interest in the story even when the killings stop. Marks off for ultimately not being quite as interesting as I just thought the whole thing could have been.

This was a bit on the long side, and as the titles kept flashing up “one week later”, “four years later”, “one day later”, etc, I just kept thinking, ‘come on, get on with it!’ Having said that, I really did enjoy this film. I thought it was really interesting, and the way they told the story through the characters involved was a great way to show how the lack of resolution became, for some, an obsession. I do think it is worth seeing, but the length might become a problem once it is on DVD - if a movie is over 1 1/2 hours and I’m watching it in bed I tend to fall asleep!

At several points in the very long run time of Zodiac I found myself wondering exactly what sort of movie it was trying to be. It’s an impeccably made film with a lot of fascinating and pretty surfaces, but almost no depth. A not particularly suspenseful thriller as motivation for an unrevealing series of character studies. By the end, the biggest mystery—the motivation for the legendary killer, the police investigators, and the obsessive journalists—remains (perhaps brilliantly) unrevealed.

What’s the matter with this film? It’s not the actors. They all give great performances, from the leads all the way back to the set dressing. It’s not the story itself. The Zodiac murders have remained in the public eye for so long precisely because they are both horrifying and intriguing. It’s not the pace. Though slow, I was fully engaged throughout the entire film.

No, the problem with this movie is it’s the length. There is no reason this film needed to be 2 hours and 40 minutes long. NONE. Though I was very interested in the story, the throbbing that began in my crunched up knees just short of the 2 hour mark kind of detracted from my enjoyment of the rest of the film.

Here’s the thing; even though I thought it was way too long, I did not feel there was anything extraneous in the movie. Every scene, shot, interaction that was included in the final version was necessary in order for the Director to tell the story he wanted to tell. But that’s the rub. The story the Director wanted to tell was too long. I think he could have easily told a story, if not exactly the same, then similar, while not going over the 2 hour mark.

Zodiac follows the original investigation of and journalism related to the initial killings. Once the killings stop and the case goes cold the focus turns to Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle who becomes so bent on keeping the murders in the news and finding out who the killer is he decides to write a book on the subject and embarks upon his own investigation. So, really this movies tells two stories; the story of the murders, and the story of the writing of Graysmith’s book. I think Fincher would have done better to focus on telling one of those stories rather than both.

While the story of the murders and police investigations are fascinating, alone they’re not very interesting. There is no tidy ending and no moral to that story. The story of how Graysmith wrote his bestselling book does have a tidy ending and a moral. There is a reason to tell and listen to that story. If Fincher had just focused the Graysmith investigation he could have incorporated all the background information in flashbacks, interviews, and simple conversation. And I’m betting that movie would have clocked in at or under 2 hours.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, I just could have used an intermission. You are probably better off saving the ten bucks you’d spend on a theatre ticket and just waiting until you can get Zodiac from Netflix.

How can a three-hour film about a famous serial killer, made by a leading director, cast with talented actors and marked by strong production values, be devoid of dramatic tension?

I hope the Fincher that made Seven and Fight Club returns soon.