 "Photo: Paramount")
In Theaters
'Zodiac'
Let me start out by saying I recognize what an undertaking "Zodiac" must have been.
It is based on an as-yet unsolved serial-killer investigation that spans several decades and encompasses numerous suspects, victims and crime scenes. The body of material is staggering, and to its credit, the script tries to cover all the bases.
Yet one of the jobs of a screenwriter when adapting from another source is to weed out the details that will not add to the spirit and effectiveness of the film. What writer James Vanderbilt seems to do in this film is to cram in every piece of information he can find.
When the filmmakers announce at the beginning that the film is "based on actual case files," they mean it.
It feels like you're actually reading them.
The movie follows a meticulous timeline, from the late '60s to the early '90s. It starts with a murder on the fourth of July, which you soon find out is the second killing by the Zodiac. The killer sends letters to the major newspapers in San Francisco announcing what he has done and that he will do it again. He includes codes he wants run on the front pages, daring anyone to crack them.
Hot on his trail are the central figures of the story: the cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhall), the reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) and the detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo). When one of the codes is cracked, they race to figure out the vague references in the message to stop him before he kills again.
This eventually leads to several suspects, but the Zodiac continues to terrorize the city and the surrounding areas. The three men spend years giving up their time and happiness to try to catch him. They hope desperately they will uncover a crucial clue.
I hoped that too, at least for the first half of the film.
Because he follows the case files so faithfully, Vanderbilt falls into a natural dramatic flaw in the narrative. A little more than an hour into the two-and-a-half-hour film, the killings stop. The men continue to work at the investigation, but the imminent danger that gave the film its suspense is gone. It just keeps going with no end in sight. When it finally does end, it is wholly unsatisfying considering what the audience has just endured.
Director David Fincher, the man behind "Se7en," does provide some style and skill to the proceedings, creating scenes rich with tension through timing and camerawork. However, when many of these tense situations end up being false alarms or narrative dead ends, they only add to the overall frustration.
The cast plays along admirably, trying to hold up the vague underlying theme that this case is consuming their lives. But the way they pop in and out of the story inconsistently ruins any dramatic momentum their characters had.
"Zodiac" is quite an ambitious project, I will give it that. But with such a wide scope and such a small attempt at narrowing it, the film plays more like a ridiculously long episode of "Law and Order" rather than the true crime masterpiece it could have been.
dcoley@unews.com
In Theaters
'Breach'
From the first moments of the film "Breach," we know we are enmeshed in history. From the presence of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, we know it's recent. Ashcroft's speech tells the end of the story we are about to see. Because Robert Hanssen's destiny is already laid out before us, what follows becomes a strong character study rather than the latest cliché spy thriller.
The film stars Chris Cooper as Hanssen, the infamous traitor in the FBI. Hanssen sold secrets to the Russians from the mid-1980s to his capture in 2001. He was highly elusive and very adept at covering his tracks, even being appointed to find a mole in the Bureau. Essentially, he is asked to find himself.
As the film begins, the top minds at the FBI (Laura Linney and Dennis Haysbert) are preparing their last push in gathering evidence to indict him before he hits the mandatory retirement age.
They enlist Eric O'Neill (Ryan Philippe), who serves as the film's protagonist. He is a surveillance operative trying to reach agent status when he is pulled into a seemingly boring desk job alongside Hanssen, presumably to keep an eye out for Hanssen's reputed lewd conduct.
When O'Neill is informed of what is really at stake, he has to employ all his skills of manipulation toward getting Hanssen to incriminate himself.
The bulk of the film follows O'Neill as he delves further into Hanssen's treason, and his attempts to assist the Bureau in its investigation. All the while, the job strains his marriage, exacerbated by Hanssen's constant attempts to interfere in Eric's home life.
Through Cooper's performance, Hanssen becomes a fascinating character, and the exploration of his actions and reasons behind them become the strongest part of the film. Hanssen is a family man with seemingly strong Catholic convictions, and he continually pressures Eric to attend church and convert his wife.
This upstanding moral behavior seems contradictory to his treasonous acts, and indeed, that complexity seems to be the center of Cooper's approach.
What would lead a man to such despicable measures? No easy answers are given in the end, although Hanssen offers several possible reasons for his actions.
But which is the correct one? It is impossible to say.
It is said a couple of times in the film and in the trailers that this was the worst security breach in U.S. history. This is certainly ample fodder for a film, but the writers do themselves credit by leading the focus away from the cold hard facts, and not indulging in conventional spy thriller elements.
The acting is quite solid. Philippe does a good job making his character believable in his ability to manipulate Hanssen, who is most likely the smartest character in the film. The power play between the two men is the central conflict. While it's significant history, the human drama that plays out is more interesting than any leaked information or stolen documents.
dcoley@unews.com
