Watch Video Review
Common Sense Note
Parents need to know that this three-hour movie about the investigation into a string of real-life serial murders during the early 1970s is too violent and disturbing for most teens (and probably even some adults). While some violence takes place off screen, what does appear is brutal and bloody: The Zodiac shoots a couple in their car, stabs another couple in the back (the victims' pained, horrified faces are shown both times), and shoots a cabbie. Police officers and reporters discuss the deaths in some detail. Characters drink heavily and smoke frequently (one also uses hard drugs). References are made to the killer's "latent homosexuality" and a suspect's pedophilia. Language includes repeated uses of "f--k."
Families can discuss the media's relationship with serial killers. How do the killers use the media to gain attention? How do the media use the killers to gain ratings? How do viewers and readers respond to such coverage? Think about how movies portray killers and their pursuers: Unlike The Silence of the Lambs, this movie focuses on the investigation, with very little information about the killer. How does that affect the film's narrative and displays of violence? Is violence more effective when it's shown, or when it's implied? Why?
Common Sense Review
Reviewed By: Cynthia Fuchs
An intelligent, sinuous mystery, ZODIAC is less interested in sensational violence than in the ways that the media affects such violence. Based on the notorious, still-unsolved early-1970s Zodiac murders in the San Francisco area, the movie focuses first on efforts to figure out the murderer's motives and then on the ways that the Zodiac "imagined" himself into public consciousness by writing letters to the San Francisco Chronicle and leaving clues to taunt the police.
David Fincher's excellent movie includes several violent murder scenes (a stabbing is especially grisly), but it's more interested in the consequences of the brutality: crime scenes, investigative procedures, fear in the community.
The film begins with a murder -- the first one for which the killer took public credit. The camera slowly tracks the victims as they drive to a couples' parking area; a subtitle marks the date and place: July 4, 1969, Vallejo (this sort of detail recurs throughout the movie, both anchoring events on screen to events in history and asserting the irresolution produced by such particulars). After the shooting, Zodiac calls the police and sends a letter to the Chronicle, demonstrating -- in his mind, anyway -- that he's smarter than all of them.
The Zodiac's much-discussed need for publicity set a standard for serial killers. As he uses the media to "make himself up" (he claims some murders that the police believe he didn't commit), the movie considers the effects of the case on those who pursue him, including Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) -- from whom Steve McQueen borrowed details for the movie character Bullitt -- and his partner, Inspector William Armstrong (a superb Anthony Edwards); as well as earnest cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) and brilliantly self-destructive crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.).
They run into problems at every turn, from law enforcement officials in different jurisdictions who don't want to work together to handwriting experts, fingerprinters, and even celebrity lawyer Melvin Belli (Brian Cox). With egos getting in the way, only rudimentary technologies (the "telefax") to work with, and legal impediments, no one cracks the case (though the film provides a half-comic, half-thrilling near-discovery when Robert visits a witness late in the game), and everyone loses themselves to it. In a mess of intersecting obsessions and deceptions, Zodiac finds remarkable coherence, tracing the similar needs, means, and fictions that structure truth.
Fans might want to read more about the Zodiac case, particularly Graysmith's book, Zodiac, or the Court TV write-up. Movies with similar themes include Dirty Harry and 2005's The Zodiac, as well as The Silence of the Lambs, From Hell, and Fincher's grisly Seven.
Rate It!
| Content | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS | adults | kids | ||
Sexual ContentSuggestion of sexual desire as first victims "park" (they're shot before they even kiss); Paul reports that the killer is a "latent homosexual." |
 |
 |
|
|
ViolenceExtremely bloody crime scenes; violence includes shooting, stabbing (especially brutal), fighting; much discussion of means of murder, ammunition, and gun types; letters from killer describe plans to kill children on school buses (a boy hears this on TV and looks worried); mention of gas chamber; woman in prison appears with dark bruises on her arm; scary scene in basement when Robert thinks he's met the killer by accident (jump shot, dark shadows, tense music); discussion of a suspect's deviant history ("touching kids"). |
 |
|
|
|
LanguageRepeated profanity, especially "f--k," as well as "s--t," "hell," "goddamn it," and other colorful language ("Sweet mother of Christ," "Jesus on crutches," "Tell him to screw," "crap," "getting your rocks off with a girl") and name-calling ("shorty" and "retard"). |
|
|
|
|
Message |
|
|
|
|
Social BehaviorSerial killer is cruel and plainly deranged; cops and reporters argue amongst themselves and become obsessed with the case to the point of ruining their home lives. Paul gives his editor the finger. |
 |
|
|
|
CommercialismSome references by name (Folgers, the movie Bullitt), plus background imagery (Coca-Cola and Campbell's soup in vending machines, Slinky on TV); Dirty Harry on movie screen. |
|
|
 |
|
Drug/Alcohol/TobaccoDrinking to drunkenness in bars (Paul and Robert favor blue drinks called "Aqua Velvas"); more drinking at Belli's Christmas party (he offers a "toddy"); frequent cigarette smoking; Paul looks high/wasted at work -- he snorts cocaine and keeps a full bar and other drugs in his home. |
 |
|
|
|
