This is an example of how a film can flounder and fail even if the execution is skilled. I like Fincher’s style a great deal, but I find his project selection process to be a bit questionable. There are more duds than masterpieces in his filmography which leaves me puzzled because I find that his talent is clearly evident. My thoughts at this point is that he is brilliant at sculpting individual scenes but he is sometimes lacking in maintaining a holistic view, bringing a cohesiveness to all the separate parts.

“Zodiac” has a lot to like. It boasts a dream cast and a lurid, open-ended, true crime case full of sinister twists. Individually, all the actors are superb, especially Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr. The feeling of dread incited by the Zodiac killer’s games are intensely chilling. Despite all of this, the film doesn’t seem to know what it’s trying to be. Is this Robert Graysmith’s story about how the case became his obsession? If so, why do Gyllenhaal’s scenes feel less than integral to the momentum of the film except for the last quarter of it? Is this a film about the Zodiac’s overall impact on the people ensnared in the hunt? Then why do the characters fade out from the story without any intimate examination of how they felt about the case?

It’s worthwhile seeing this for everything that it does so well, but it will leave you hollow, having gained so little from watching it.