Box office Opening in 2,362 theaters on March 2, 2007, the film grossed US$13.3 million in its opening weekend, placing second and posting a per-theater average of $5,671. The film was outgrossed by fellow opener
Wild Hogs and saw a decline of over 50% in its second weekend, losing out to the record-breaking
300. It grossed $33 million in North America and $51 million in the rest of the world, bringing its current total to $84 million. In an interview with
Sight & Sound magazine, Fincher addressed the film's low gross at the North American box office: "Even with the box office being what it is, I still think there's an audience out there for this movie. Everyone has a different idea about marketing, but my philosophy is that if you market a movie to 16-year-old boys and don't deliver
Saw or
Seven, they're going to be the most vociferous ones coming out of the screening saying 'This movie sucks.' And you're saying goodbye to the audience who would get it because they're going to look at the ads and say, 'I don't want to see some
slasher movie.'"
Critical response On review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 90% based on 264 reviews. The site's critical consensus reads: "A quiet, dialogue-driven thriller that delivers with scene after scene of gut-wrenching anxiety. David Fincher also spends more time illustrating nuances of his characters and recreating the mood of the 70s than he does on gory details of murder." At
Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 79 out of 100, based on 40 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by
CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B−" on an A+ to F scale.
Entertainment Weekly critic
Owen Gleiberman awarded the film an "A" grade, hailing the film as a "procedural thriller for the
information age" that "spins your head in a new way, luring you into a vortex and then deeper still." Nathan Lee in his review for
The Village Voice wrote that director Fincher's "very lack of pretense, coupled with a determination to get the facts down with maximum economy and objectivity, gives
Zodiac its hard, bright integrity. As a crime saga, newspaper drama, and period piece, it works just fine. As an allegory of life in the information age, it blew my mind."
Todd McCarthy's review in
Variety magazine praised the film's "almost unerringly accurate evocation of the workaday San Francisco of 35–40 years ago. Forget the distorted emphasis on hippies and flower-power that many such films indulge in: this is the city as it was experienced by most people who lived and worked there."
David Ansen, in his review for
Newsweek magazine, wrote, "
Zodiac is meticulously crafted – Harris Savides's state-of-the-art digital cinematography has a richness indistinguishable from film – and it runs almost two hours and 40 minutes. Still, the movie holds you in its grip from start to finish. Fincher boldly (and some may think perversely) withholds the emotional and forensic payoff we're conditioned to expect from a big studio movie."
Roger Ebert gave the film a maximum of 4 stars, writing: "The film is a
police procedural crossed with a newspaper movie but free of most of the cliches of either. Its most impressive accomplishment is to gather a bewildering labyrinth of facts and suspicions over a period of years and make the journey through this maze frightening and suspenseful." Ebert also praised the ensemble cast and, as a longtime columnist for
The Chicago Sun-Times, asserted
Zodiac was "intriguing in its accuracy" in showing the operation of a major newspaper.
Time Out magazine wrote, "
Zodiac isn't a puzzle film in quite that way, instead its subject is the compulsion to solve puzzles and its coup is the creeping recognition, quite contrary to the flow of crime cinema, of how fruitless that compulsion can be."
Peter Bradshaw in his review for
The Guardian commended the film for its "sheer cinematic virility," and gave it four stars out of five. In his review for
Empire magazine,
Kim Newman gave the film 4 out of 5 stars and wrote, "You'll need patience with the film's approach, which follows its main characters by poring over details, and be prepared to put up with a couple of rote family arguments and weary cop conversations, but this gripping character study becomes more agonisingly suspenseful as it gets closer to an answer that can't be confirmed." Graham Fuller in
Sight & Sound magazine wrote, "the tone is pleasingly flat and mundane, evoking the demoralising grind of police work in a pre-feminist, pre-technological era. As such,
Zodiac is considerably more adult than both
Seven, which salivates over the macabre cat-and-mouse game it plays with the audience, and the macho brinkmanship of
Fight Club." Some critics expressed disappointment with the film's long running time and lack of action scenes. "The film gets mired in the inevitable red tape of police investigations," wrote Bob Longino of
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who also felt the film "stumbles to a rather unfulfilling conclusion" and "seems to last as long as the Oscars."
Andrew Sarris of
The New York Observer felt that "Mr. Fincher's flair for casting is the major asset of his curiously attenuated return to the serial-killer genre. I keep saying 'curiously' with regard to Mr. Fincher, because I can't really figure out what he is up to in
Zodiac – with its two-hour-and-37-minute running time for what struck me as a shaggy-dog narrative."
Christy Lemire wrote in the
San Francisco Chronicle that "Jake Gyllenhaal is both the central figure and the weakest link... But he's never fleshed out sufficiently to make you believe that he'd sacrifice his safety and that of his family to find the truth. We are told repeatedly that the former
Eagle Scout is just a genuinely good guy but that's not enough." David Thompson of
The Guardian felt that in relation to the rest of Fincher's career,
Zodiac was "the worst yet, a terrible disappointment in which an ingenious and deserving all-American serial killer nearly gets lost in the meandering treatment of cops and journalists obsessed with the case." In France,
Le Monde newspaper praised Fincher for having "obtained a maturity that impresses by his mastery of form", while
Libération described the film as "a thriller of elegance magnificently photographed by the great Harry Savides." However,
Le Figaro wrote, "No audacity, no invention, nothing but a plot which intrigues without captivating, disturbs without terrifying, interests without exciting."
Top ten lists Only two 2007 films (
No Country for Old Men and
There Will Be Blood) appeared on more critics' top ten lists than
Zodiac. Some of the notable top-ten list appearances are: In the
British Film Institute's 2012
Sight & Sound polls of the greatest movies ever made, three critics and one director,
Bong Joon-ho, named
Zodiac one of their 10 favorite films. In a 2016 critics' poll conducted by the
BBC,
Zodiac was ranked at 12th place in a list of the 21st century's greatest films. In 2021, members of
Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) and
Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) voted its screenplay 46th in WGA’s 101 Greatest Screenplays of the 21st Century (So Far). In June 2025, the film ranked number 19 on
The New York Times list of "The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century" and number 41 on the "Readers' Choice" edition of the list. In July 2025, it ranked number 19 on
Rolling Stones list of "The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century."
Accolades ==See also==