👀Matthew Ramsey📺’s review published on Letterboxd:
What can be said about "Zodiac", the thirteen-year-old crime drama, that hasn't been said already?
The movie is as meticulously and incredibly directed as one by David Fincher is expected to be (and maybe more). It's smart, mature, and well-paced for a two-and-a-half-hour flick.
"Zodiac" seems to had been carefully designed to get deep into your head and to crawl under your skin.
"Zodiac" feels like it was made in the styles of films from Classical Hollywood and 70s Hollywood. Most scenes show characters discussing in fast, smart banter with wit showing not too often. Throughout the movie, Fincher often keeps the shots still and holds back from using a close-up until it's needed. Aside from a few moments of celluloid, every frame in "Zodiac" is made with digital equipment/CGI and in such a spellbinding way that I can only imagine Stanley Kubrick just being so inspired.
While most of the performers are rightly chosen and displaying great work, I feel that Mark Ruffalo is a weak link here. He's not bad, but does it seems like he's restricting himself from emoting, specifically when he talks?
I particularly enjoy the actors chosen for the small parts, including John Getz, Phillip Baker Hall, Ione Skye, and...wait...Is that Charles Fleischer, the voice of Roger Rabbit, playing Vaughn during that tense basement scene?
While "Zodiac" is an engrossing and assured movie that has deservedly build up an audience since its modest theatre performance in 2007, I don't feel that I'm quite on the same level as anyone who just raves about this movie.
Although I just had my second viewing since my first one several years ago, I think I'm just now starting to more pay attention to the story than the aesthetics. More viewings are in my future for sure.