A "C" list actor from "Grey's Anatomy," Bookman the library cop from "Seinfeld," creepy dude from "Lost" and random guy from "October Road" trying to carry a movie about a serial killer from 40 years ago, said film being released at a similar time as basically the same flick with a bigger budget. How can "The Zodiac" miss?
Oh, let me count the ways.
First of all, slapping a "The" in front of the title doesn't quite throw people off the scent that this is a different movie than "Zodiac" (Scooter & Hum review here), the acclaimed Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo vehicle of the same timeframe. The creepy opening montage and lover's lane scene—shot very similarly to how "Zodiac" handled it—got the movie off on the right foot, but for some unexplained reason, director Alexander Bulkley elected to shoot the movie sort of from the perspective of the lead detective's son, a Damien lookalike played by one of the creepy-time Culkin kids (the one who wasn't molested by Michael Jackson, I think).
The overly dramatic scene where the detective's wife breaks the biggest glass of water in the history of the world after being startled by their son tips you off that this one is not going to go well. The bad feeling starts to gain momentum as you realize that this is a fictional account of the search for the Zodiac Killer, with fictional characters and dramatized scenes. Part of the movie feel like an after-school special and others feel like the X-Files. Throw in the fact that the lead detective, Parrish, doesn't look nearly old enough to have a 12-year-old child and appears to be confused by just about everything he comes across, and … well, you start checking how long this flick is.
"The Zodiac" theorizes that much of the case involves a police coverup to try to keep the community calm, and tries to lead you to believe that the crime-beat reporter could even be involved in the killings. Bulkley does attempt to tie the killings into the times they happened—racism, Vietnam, drug culture, etc.—but this is done more in random montages than in any actual effort to establish a background.
I had a lot more to write about this film at one point (I will say that the scene involving the couple by the lake was pretty well-done), but it is exhausting to even rehash. One of the banner moments involved the detective coming home after being in a bar, and his wife angrily askikng him, "Have you been drinking?" Meanwhile, several scenes have already indicated that the guy HAS A BAR IN HIS HOUSE and the first thing he does at the end of every day is come home and fix himself a drink. So the teetotaler approach is a bit, shall we say, confusing.
Thankfully, this movie was barely 90 minutes—compared to more than two-and-a-half hours for David Fincher's "Zodiac." The final quote from the Zodiac Killer is pretty creepy and a nice touch—"I am waiting for a good movie. Who will play me? I am now in control of all things"—but most "experts" on this serial killer believe that was a forgery that can't be attributed to the actual killer. Anyway, there was a very abrupt ending without a clear focus or perspective, so maybe this review can save you an hour and a half and many head-scratching moments.
On a side note, there has been a potential break in this case, 40 years after the first murder. The stepson of one Jack Tarrance has come forward with evidence that he believes implicates his father as the Zodiac Killer. Apparently, the FBI is looking into the possibility that this could stand out from the many hoaxes and false alarms as the real thing. If it is, you can expect another round of movies shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment