As a standalone fictional film David Finchers portrait of the Zodiac killer would comfortably reach 4 stars, however it in reality it's meant to be telling a true story which David has fabricated in order to gain a better box office figure. The story should've concentrated more on the killings which in reality is what happened, the obsession with the letters never really took place to the extent the film details. When time passes by in the film Jake goes from no stubble to stubble, a poor attempt at showing 10 extra years of age.

I did however enjoy the film; however it felt like it dragged when it could've been made more interesting. If you are planning to watch this film, please watch the 2005 version first, it's more chilling and a much more accurate representation of how the people living during this time experienced the events.

A very well made movie that is not all that predictable, well worth viewing

I knew very little about the real life story of the Zodiac killer when I saw this film in San Francisco. It was a strange chill walking back to my hotel past the San Francisco Chronicle building where much of the story takes place.

This film's observations of the case take a look the case of this killer from the view of Gyllenhaal, who plays sleuth detective whilst working in a junior role at the new papers office.
I found the story fascinating but there are so many details and thus many VERY long dialogue scenes, so that there were times I found myself looking at my watch wondering when the conclusion to the story would come?

I do think that fans of true crime cinema will enjoy the movie.
For people looking for a thriller or even a horror film this is not a film for you. It is not an edge of your seat thrill ride, rather a recreation of the sometimes mundane detective work that spanned several years, but a well told and sad story of how people were killed by a mad man.