Robert Graysmith

Zodiac runs almost three hours in length, but when it's over, you'll find it moved so fast and kept you so enrapt that only three minutes will have seemed to pass. I remember watching Dirty Harry as a boy, which was loosely based on the Zodiac serial killer, but found that particular bad guy to be fairly unbelievable like, this is just a movie, wouldn't happen in real life. That the Zodiac atrocities did occur makes this mesmerizing film that much more compelling -- and maddening. For crying show more out loud, the cops had this creep nailed multiple times (assuming the script closely follows reality, which, based on the books, I believe it does) and somehow, through either incorrect descriptions of the perp sent over police radio, or miscommunication & lack of evidence-sharing between police departments, or ineffectual handwriting analysis, let him slip through their fingers. Were it not for an amateur detective by night/political cartoonist by day, played by Jake Gyllenhaal (Robert Graysmith in real life), the true identity of the Zodiac would have forever remained a mystery. This movie holds up well under mulitple viewings. Robert Downey, Jr., reprises his role as Julian basically, of Less Than Zero, and mixes booze, self-destruction, and investigative journalism to the max. Don't bother so much with the books, the movie is far superior. show less

The other reviews are correct... this book could have been a LOT shorter. The same information was repeated again and again. We GET it, Robert Graysmith.

Truth is, everybody wanted Arthur Leigh Allen to be the Zodiac, including Allen himself. But he probably wasn't. Sure, there were a lot of coincidences that make Allen look like a good match for the killer, but the DNA didn't match.

Ugh. Long and repetitive. Obsessive. Don't read this. Read Graysmith's other Zodiac book. That one is excellent.

It is difficult for me to understand how this book has gone through multiple printings and is still being sold. Presumably the readers are people fascinated with these unsolved murders from 50 years ago and drawn in by the promise of never-before-available details. Unfortunately the book is so poorly written that I had to force myself to finish it (and then only because the "Z" title fit nicely into a current reading challenge).

Other reviewers have complained about the amount of detail show more Graysmith includes, but IMO that's not the problem. It's the wretched writing! Much of the book alternates between police-blotter-like recreations of events, and descriptions of the author's efforts at detective work (for which he frequently applauds himself, albeit sometimes putting the words of praise into the mouths of other individuals).

I found myself wondering more than once why the publisher hadn't forced Graysmith to submit to an editor with a well-sharpened blue pencil. This selection from page 2 is typical of his graceless efforts at description: "He put his Timex wristwatch with chrome case and band on his left wrist, and shoved a dollar and fifty-five cents, all in change, in his right front pants pocket. He pocketed a white handkerchief and a small bottle of Binaca breath drops." Seriously? He put his wrist watch on his wrist and pocketed items in his pockets? Sheesh!

With so many wonderful true crime writers at work, it's unfortunate that this admittedly fascinating case was left to a cartoonist who happened to be at the right place and time. (No general criticism of the writing of political cartoonists intended - Tom Toles certainly excels at both.) But just because you work at a newspaper clearly does not mean you can write! show less

I’m a fan of Graysmith’s first Zodiac book, and of Fincher’s film; I read this sequel in a spirit of sympathy. But in addition to being poorly written, indifferently organized, and sloppily proofread, it has an ultimate effect precisely opposite to Graysmith’s intention. It leaves an objective reader pretty much convinced that Arthur Leigh Allen probably wasn’t the Zodiac, only a pathetic child molester with a lot of unfulfilled talents who loved the idea of people thinking he was show more the Zodiac. Graysmith’s books should be read: his inside access and marshaling of facts are essential to anyone who can filter out the often specious use to which he puts them. But what’s badly needed is a comprehensive account of the case written by a skilled crime historian without a vested interest in proving “his” suspect guilty, even at the cost of vapid speculation, implausible rationalization, and rampant elision of contradictory evidence. show less