Christopher Nolan is no different.

I think the film is great
as a film
. Unfortunately, the subject matter being what it is, people inevitably mistake
Zodiac
for an accurate version of events. But yes, Graysmith is a truly execrable human being: he saw an opportunity (his
very
marginal relation to the Zodiac case as it was unfolding), and has been lying his sorry ass off for decades.

i don't think it's a good movie and just like the author, Fincher made up his mind with zero investigation or evidence to back up his beliefs.

The film is great and surprisingly more accurate than I expected, but I wish it would have shown more suspects that were investigated rather than focus on Allen. I do think there is a good chance Allen did do the first three attacks, but it would have been cool to see more of Rick Marshall and to see Larry Kane and Fred Manalli. Well, actually, Kane was still alive when the movie was made so scratch that idea.

He is really pathetic. And it says a lot about Fincher that he decided to did this film.

I'm not going to disagree with you He did give some great facts and evidence to the case, but also made up a bunch of stuff as well.

Why would I even register it when he's not the zodiac?? I couldn't care less.

Clearly not if you can't even say the name of the main suspect correctly. Edgar Allen???

I know the main facts of the case.

I didn't say read the book. I said you act like you know this case inside and out and don't even know the main suspects name. I knew about Zodiac since 2002 and didn't read the book until 2011. I had already seen the movie and knew from various account the author lies in his book.
I didn't have to read the book to know it but I did have to know the main facts about the case like the main suspects name which is on every single zodiac website regardless of how different websites view him.

I don't have to read the book to know he is an idiot and a charlatan.

So you act like you know this case inside and out when you clearly don't even know the main suspects name calling him Edgar Allen. I wouldn't be shocked if you proof read the authors book.

When did the film ever say that? The film just perpetrates his insane, stupid, obtuse theory of Edgar Allen or whatever being the killer in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Why are you trolling this board? You made 2 separate threads based on the same thing. I agree Graysmith is a liar and loves making up anything to make his theories correct. The movie even hints at that. It hints his obsession that even the prison visit scene with Darlene's sister showed he doesn't like to be proven wrong.