IMDb > Ulli Lommel's Zodiac Killer (2005) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Ulli Lommel's Zodiac Killer
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Ulli Lommel's Zodiac Killer (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 36 reviews in total 

34 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

Even worse than it looked

Author: hadmatter from Chicago
18 July 2005

Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Worse than a blind date w/ 40 year old ashtray

Author: Katybug007 from United States
1 April 2006

At least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, my guess is the cover to the DVD case cost more than the entire movie. And saying that it is the same director as The Boogeyman, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, it was misleading enough to rope me in. The only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. Usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. The film looks like it was shot by a D+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, less is more buddy. Through out I would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. All this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Unbelievable garbage!

Author: analog411 from United States
18 September 2005

I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst "film" I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.

Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

A 10 year old could have shot this in his back yard with a VHS camcorder (and it looks like they did)

Author: Jeff Chitty from United States
20 December 2005

1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:


Author: korlat2 from United States
1 November 2006

This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Worst Movie ever put to video

Author: tapedit from United States
28 August 2005

I can't believe that this movie even made it to video, and that video rental stores are willing to put it on their shelves. I literary asked for a refund. Take away the fact that the movie has no historical truth it, and it is still the worse movie ever found in a video store. It is not even good enough to be called a B rated movie. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie. Just listing to the voice over and the horrible music made me sick. Anyone involved with this movie should be pulled from the union, gives the industry a black mark, but after watching most of this movie I really don't think anyone involved is a union member.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

worst movie i have ever seen!

Author: actr206 from pittsburgh, pennsylvania
28 June 2007

This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Horoscope says you will tear your eyes out in pain

Author: julian kennedy from Clearwater Fl
9 October 2006

Zodiac Killer. 1 out of 10. Worst acting ever. No really worst acting ever. David Hess (Last House on the Left…. No the one from the seventies…. Rent it it's really good) is the worst of the bunch (Pretty stiff competition but he is amazingly god-awful.) One would be hard pressed to find a home movie participant with such an awkward camera presence. The film actually screeches to a stunning painful halt when he is on the screen.

Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry …. No the one from the seventies…. Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 18 people found the following review useful:


Author: fatbast-1 from United Kingdom
9 September 2005

Awful, awful, awful.

A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.

I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?

Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

86 Minutes of Torture! (Spoiler)

Author: Dale Dewoody from United States
17 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual "warning" on the film. When it started the following "warning" was displayed: "The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic." I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: "I'm at the glue factory." It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big "twist" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an "army of one" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at "Satanic Worship" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great "computer hacker" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.

So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history