The Zodiac (2005) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
52 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Waste of time...
Mam-ma30 August 2006
Anyone who has spent any time at all studying the Zodiac murders will find this movie to be dull and pointless. They "hollywood-ize" the premise of the movie, while in the mean time, they cut out all the twists that make this story so intriguing. -They made no mention of Robert Graysmith (a very integral part to the investigation) -They didn't even attempt to give any history on the victims (especially that of Darlene Ferrin- that is of utmost importance) Overall, I feel that the movie can only be enjoyed by those who don't know better. It is on the other hand unfortunate, that the majority of people who watched this movie do not know better and believe that what was shown is the truth. I am looking forward to the 2007 "Zodiac" coming out. Hopefully they will get a few more things right.
60 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One word: boring
Ithilfaen19 March 2007
I'll start by stating a few facts. I am not a thrill seeker. I am not a serial killer movie junkie. I didn't watch this movie expecting gore or disturbing images. In fact I was expecting nothing in particular and that's what I got. Nothing.

This movie is a big empty void of a plot certainly not helped by the bland direction hoping to surf on the serial killer curiosity. I have rarely seen a movie with less tension and less ambiance. Instead it comes as a dry recital of bare facts in chronological order. There is no insight, no psychology of the killer or the detectives who go from one crime scene to another. There is not even the slightest effort to understand or analyze the killings.

If you're interested in the real story, I recommend you read any Wiki or report on it you can find online and you can skip the movie altogether. If you're interested in a more in depth view of the crimes, you can probably find a book that'll give you more in 10 pages than this horrid empty flick does in 1 hour.
36 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If the real Zodiac sees this he kills himself!
jpgonc19 March 2006
Calling himself as "The Zodiac", this mysterious San Francisco serial killer confounded investigators for over 30 years with weird threatening letters and random killings in the outskirts of Vallejo, Lake Berryessa, Riverside and probably in Gaviota (Santa Barbara County).

One of his most famous quotation was: "I am waiting for a good movie about me". He can repeat it again, because this film will frown in every person who sees it.

If you know about the regretful work about this unsolved case you should know that this would provide sufficient material for a tauting and suspenseful thriller but... that was plain wrong after seeing this.

The movie explores the seemingly random shootings and stabbings of the killings and it began well with a well-shot scene of the 1st murder but then, it goes all down the toilet. The action is guided to focus on the lead investigator on the case and his annoying son. The movie then runs between the detective, his son, his wife, a reporter and the killer. It's a mixture of police business, killings and monotonous domestic drama making the characters seem dull, gloomy and depressing. Unfortunately for the Zodiac fans this shows an extremely inert directing and apathetic editing and the ending just slams into nothing... so you'd better wait for the, most probably, upcoming excellent and thrilling movie that'll be directed by David Fincher next months called Zodiac(2006).
52 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Portrait of an unsuccessful Hunt
Thorsten_B17 August 2005
Although David Finchers look at the infamous Zodiac Killer is due in a few months, Alexander Buckleys version need not be ashamed of comparison. That's what can be predicted in advance, since Buckleys film looks at the Zodiac killings from the perspective of one involved policeman's family; Fincher is hardly to repeat that. Buckleys approach, at first, is very realistic - not surprising, since the incidents he portrays are historic facts. Later on, he fuses facts and fictions, which weakens the picture a bit. But in general, he sticks to the facts and manages to fit them into interesting 92 minutes. No gore here, only a few harsh visuals, but still disturbing. In total, it succeeds in creating a sense for the madness and absurdness behind the killings. Recommended for those looking for a thrill of quality.
32 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Being based on true events makes it all the more chilling
boyinflares31 July 2006
"The Zodiac" is by no means a blockbuster film, and if not for the fact that it is based on real and terrifying events, it probably wouldn't be that good at all. But because it is based on real events, it is rather chilling and effective. The production values are better than one might suspect, and the acting from the three main characters, the Parish family is very good.

Hottie Justin Chambers plays Sgt. Matt Parish and does a terrific job. At first it seemed odd that his character was put in charge of the horrifying murders that were taking place, due to his young age and possible inexperience, but I suppose it means the older police officers do not have to take much responsibility for what turned out to be a very tough case. Tough also on Parish's personal life, especially when his young son Johnny takes an interest in the case, and when his wife Laura gets neglected.

Robin Tunney gives a surprisingly good performance as Laura Parish, showing a lot of compassion and while she no doubt loves her husband, she also expresses her fear of the Zodiac Killer, which Parish thinks is unfounded, and at the way she is being neglected as her husband is so caught up in work. As the film is set in the 1960's, both Chambers and Tunney give very good portrayals of what might be seen as stereotypical husband and wife roles. Following in the footsteps of his older siblings, Rory Culkin does a good job in his role as Johnny Parish, however he also seemed a bit too young to figure out the various clues that are in the film. William Mapother is underused as inquisitive reporter Dale Coverling.

Aside from "The Zodiac" being a film based on real events, it is interesting to watch a thriller set some time ago, before all the advanced technology that the police seem to have at their disposal these days in other films and television programs. The murders are all shown and quite saddening, as there is a brief moment of build up before the characters deaths, then the Zodiac Killer makes his presence known before killing them, so you get to experience their fear also, particularly the opening scene murder.

So while "The Zodiac" probably won't change your life, it is a very good thriller with a difference, a hot lead, and some tense moments, which are made even more chilling because the film is based on real events, and apparently, the Zodiac Killer is still out there. Scary huh?
19 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Phantom Killer
Lechuguilla25 September 2011
The real-life Zodiac killer, who terrorized the California Bay Area in the late 1960s, was never caught. That fact in itself renders the potential for a most compelling story. But if you're going to make a movie about this case, who or what does your movie focus on? You can't focus on the killer himself because you don't know who he is. This might seem like a problem for movie makers. But for a clever film producer the killer's anonymity presents an opportunity.

"The Zodiac" (2005) focuses on a fictional lead detective, a man named Matt Parish (Justin Chambers), his wife and his young, never smiling, son who fixates on his dad's detective work. The plot thus gets sidetracked onto this fictional family, their home life, and how this unsolvable case affects each of them. And we have lots of filler scenes with archival footage of the era, including the moon landing, Vietnam, Nixon, but precious little about the Zodiac. The film thus comes across as tedious, trite, and largely irrelevant, lacking suspense and tension.

Visually the film trends dark with a moody tone, both appropriate for the topic. Casting and acting are acceptable except for the annoying and unnecessary William Mapother. Cinematography and production design are competent. But the music is overly dramatic.

My impression is that the film's producers wanted to capitalize on this famous case with the word "Zodiac" in the title. The film could then show how the phantom killer, never seen, always in the background and obscured, could affect the lives of ordinary people in the community. The result is a mostly generic, opportunistic script that could be applied to almost any unsolved serial killer case.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
He Is Waiting for a Good Movie About Him… Me Too
Claudio Carvalho15 November 2006
On 20 December 1968, in Lake Helena, a couple of teenagers is brutally murdered by a killer while dating nearby the lake. The young Sergeant Matt Parish (Justin Chambers) is assigned and becomes obsessed for the case, neglecting his wife Laura (Robin Tunney) and his son Johnny (Rory Culkin). On 04 July 1969, another couple is shot in the golf course of Vallejo, and the killer sends letters to three newspapers with a riddle and promising more deaths. He kills again, and the police force is not able to arrest him. On 24 April 1978, he writes to a newspaper telling that he is waiting for a good movie about him.

"The Zodiac" is actually focused in the dramatic story of a detective that becomes obsessed by the case and practically forgets his former beloved family. The plot of the serial killer is based on a true story of a criminal in the Bay Area of California that has never been even identified by the police; therefore the movie gives the sensation of disappointment in the end since the hunting is unsuccessful. The production is careful, using cars, costumes and some footages of the 60's, the actors and actresses have good performances, but the screenplay goes nowhere. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Zodíaco" ("The Zodiac")
17 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The most infamous serial killer of our time... is still out there.
Spikeopath8 June 2013
The Zodiac is directed by Alexander Bulkley who also co-writes the screenplay with his brother Kelley Bulkley. It stars Justin Chambers, Robin Tunney, Rory Culkin, Philip Baker Hall, Brad Henke, Marty Lindsey, Rex Linn and William Mapother. Music is by Michael Suby and cinematography by Denis Maloney. Story is based on the true events involving a serial killer known as The Zodiac who terrorised the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1960s. He was never captured.

There's a lot of scorn poured on Bulkley's movie, which on the surface is understandable given that it's neither an in-depth examination of the actual case or a terrifying serial killer thriller. It's cause isn't helped, either, by David Fincher's meticulous version that followed in 2007. Yet there's value in The Zodiac, even if it's difficult to recommend with confidence.

The Bulkley's choose to focus primarily on one policeman and his family and how they are deeply affected by The Zodiac case. This involves Detective Matt Parish (Chambers) coming under increasing pressure at work, where his superiors are demanding a result, and at home, where his wife Laura (Tunney) grows frantic/frustrated by the day and his young son Johnny (Culkin) becomes unhealthily fascinated by the case.

The director paints a very good period backdrop whilst deftly filling the narrative with a sense of paranoia that surely enveloped the Bay Area as The Zodiac enacted his crimes. The killer's face is rightly never seen, though we get POV shots from the killer and glimpses from afar or from behind him. While interestingly there's a link between The Zodiac and young Johnny as each go about their respective ways.

The colour schemes used at various points of the story are well thought out, providing the film with a documentary feel for the exteriors and a saturated neo-noir universe for interiors. There's a spareness to the production that really aids the subject matter. Cast performances are fine, with Tunney really getting to grips with her character, and Suby's score rumbles along ominously.

Not to be sought out by blood hounds or Zodiac historians, this is still a better than average picture that holds some interest as it rises above its modest budget limitations. 6/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Captures the story of the Zodiac as well as essence of the Sixties
hauptmann-116 February 2007
The only reason I didn't give this a "10" is because there are a couple of slow spots - but those do not detract from the very faithful telling of the story of Zodiac.

If you're a Zodiac scholar, as I am, you will not be disappointed. Even more than that, though, is the way the film captures the very essence of what it was like to grow up in the Sixties, and not in the 'in your face' way that most films ('Forrest Gump' comes to mind) do these days.

We did not live our lives to a soundtrack done by Buffalo Springfield and Creedence Clearwater - though those bands were there, there was a lot more music around that's not as overused as in today's films, and 'The Zodiac' filmmakers get it.

Not everyone wore tie-dye & flashed peace signs all the time, some of us owned a plaid Thermos, people wore Capri pants.

I was unable to catch an anachronism, which is my favorite thing to pick on.

The horror of the Zodiac crimes taking place against this very accurate background is compelling.

Solid 9 for getting it exactly right.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What the .....? Where's the ending?
dededexter11 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I spent 90 minutes watching this movie only to be disappointed. The beginning held so much promise. The opening scene starting with the first recorded Zodiac murder and then following up with the introduction of the characters, all well done. But thats when the movie takes a turn for me. The lead policeman is not engaging at all. When he become obsessed with catching the killer, resorting to smoking, drinking and bad temper, you do not feel for him. I felt that he was a jerk not considering his family during this time.

There are hints that the son connects with the killer - like a profiler, as he seems to collect everything he can on the crimes including breaking into his fathers office, but this not explored.

The policeofficer's wife and son are going to leave him, them nothing happens, it was like it didn't happen and they were all back together again.

The ending of this film is what is the most disappointing. Ending with the Zodiac threat to kill school children on the bus and the police tailing them. This movie could have been so much better.

P.S. The night camera work is way to dark to see what was going on
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
92 minutes of my life that I will never get back
sferg6231 August 2006
Excruciatingly slow-paced. I have seen documentaries on the Zodiac killer that were much more interesting.

The only reason I didn't rate this a 1 is some of the acting talent involved. The script was more like a soap opera than a movie about a serial killer, focusing more on the obsessive behavior of a policeman and his indifference to the potential danger of his wife and equally obsessed son.

There was very little time devoted to Zodiac, the way he taunted the police, the actual investigation, suspects or any other aspects about the case that make it one of the most intriguing mysteries of the 20th century.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not a "true" serial killer film
jrosenf122 July 2006
This film either suffers from poor marketing or from having the wrong title; it's no more about the actual Zodiac killer than "Summer of Sam" was about the Son of Sam. It merely uses the infamous slayings as a backdrop for how a community, a police department, and one officer in particular were affected by the traumatic events.

Although most of the depictions of the murders were eerie and well-done, the real focus of the film is how the taunting nature of the killer and the lack of hard evidence plays havoc with the psyche of lead detective Matt Parish (Chambers). As the case wears on and the pressure mounts to catch the killer, Parish begins to distance himself from his caring wife (Prison Break's Tunney) and odd son (Culkin). Ironically it is near the end of the movie that we see one of the more dramatic scenes, when a drunken, frustrated Matt comes home to a locked house and orders his wife to leave the door unlocked, not to bow down to the psycho. She looks at him incredulously and screams at him, saying "he's still out there and he knows where we live". Matt stumbles out of the house, and a montage of the dramatic events that were taking place in the world at the time (moon landing, Vietnam, the Manson slayings) is run while the song "Time(Has Come Today)" by The Chambers Brothers plays. It leads up to a chilling scene of the killer donning his creepy hooded costume and committing one of his more heinous killings, viciously stabbing two lovers to death in a field in broad daylight. Powerful stuff.

Unfortunately the movie wraps up rather quickly after that, but it did leave some indelible moments. It was a serial killer flick from a different perspective, and I applaud the director for trying something new. "Time" will soon tell if David Fincher's soon-to-be re-leased version carries more weight and delivers on the killer's last words that he is "waiting for a good movie about me". This film may not be directly about him, but it's still pretty good.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very well made!
C_Spiner1329 August 2006
I think that this movie portrays the Zodiac Killer very well. Not allot of violence, just a very well made movie. David Fincher is going to have fun topping this one. The acting was great, the story was almost dead on to the real story. They didn't over-dramatize the killer or anything on that matter. When I first started watching this I couldn't leave my seat, I had to finish watching it. I have read allot on the Zodiac Killer, and every time I thought of something that wasn't put in, it came. Very historically accurate, put together very well, just flat-out very well made. It was good from the beginning to the end. This is by far the best serial killer movie I have seen, ever.
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not a documentary but a good movie
csxmph27 February 2007
I have read a lot about the Zodiac case and have even visited the locations where the murders took place (I did the same for The Onion Field murders). I lived the the Night Stalker scare of Richard Ramirez in 1985. Basically, I like true crime stories. I knew when I rented this movie that I would be watching a movie and not a documentary. So I can say that I enjoyed it. Since I knew the chronology, I knew which murders were going to take place. The scene of the two approached by the Zodiac Killer in mask made for a great scene. I strongly recommend this movie as a movie, not as a documentary. It's much better than the dramatizations of the movies Titanic and Pearl Harbor. Still, I can't wait for this years Zodiac movie.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Movie about the Zodiac. Duh!
siderite1 May 2007
It's hard to make a movie about a real event. Everyone knows the outcome. In this case, we all know that the Zodiac was never caught, so all we have to look for is the interaction between players and the general feeling of the movie.

But here the movie fails. The lead (Karev from Grey's Anatomy) is playing well, but doesn't really have much role to play. Just a work alcoholic cop trying to catch a guy that leaves no useful evidence. His wife, predictably, doesn't like being left on second place and tries to leave him. His work suffers. The cop's kid shows promise as he is both curious and intelligent. Alas, his mother discovers this and with a terrible "Oh my god" ends this plot line.

All in all, a rather accurate yet boring description of the insides of a police case from the point of view of the cop. And no, you don't get to see the Zodiac :-P
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great thriller. Amazing view of a real life serial killer who no one ever knew(spoiler)
The_Loonatic16 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Most of the film is a perspective on how the city of Vallejo was going through at the time of the killings. It isn't filled with every single aspect of the case and you are only viewing a single investigation with very little to tell. There's more to the case, obviously but the movie focuses on one main thing, The Zodiac himself. The film is accurate to most of the murderers except for a few flaws which isn't anything to complain about. There isn't much explained on the suspects of The Zodiac case and doesn't bother with bringing the rest of them up which is a disappointment since Zodiac fans were expecting more than this. Other than that, Mostly everything was fact on The Zodiac such as the letters, murderers(Except Lake Berryessa where Zodiac approaches in silence), and ciphers.

The Zodiac cannot compete with the excellence of wonderful films on the chart. However, it isn't a bad film. It actually brings a close up to The Zodiac himself and not like those books by Graysmith that are highly exaggerated along with his negative views on why Arthur Allen is The zodiac when in reality, it has already been Proved that allen was not the zodiac. Not one film has given me a closer look about a real life serial killer as most of them aren't all as well as The Zodiac movie. Simply ignore the flaws and errors since it's only a movie and things are usually changed, which was only the names and some fact, and focus on one thing, The Zodiac and you'll get a closer look to the serial killer himself without ever knowing who he really was. A film to do that is worth another watch. Amazing thriller and by all else, a great film.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just throw your money out the car window on the way to the video store-it'll be more fun
cobyhectic-117 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The single worst film I have ever seen in my life.

I went to bed so angry that I had wasted my money and an hour and a half of my time on this.

Weak story, weak characters, huge gaping holes where characters relationships just totally change, no suspense, not even any entertaining gore and on top of it all no ending (which I've never had a problem with in films, until this one).

I really cant put this film down enough-if I was able to rate it at 0 out of 10, I would have.

I beg of you not to see it.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slow going
xredgarnetx26 August 2006
THE ZODIAC recounts the first several assaults and murders in the Napa Valley and Bay area by the infamous Zodiac killer. Unfortunately, this low-budget crime drama thinks it's a documentary, and not a particularly good one at that. It largely focuses on a young detective who is in charge of the team trying to capture the elusive killer. Their failure to do weighs heavily on the detective and costs him his family. And the movie ends rather abruptly with the killer still at large, which is all the more heinous when one knows the killer's identity was unveiled a few years ago and a short coda to that effect could have helped. ZODIAC is dull as dishwater, badly directed and written and acted. What more can I say? This is what I get for renting an STV named for a serial killer. I made the same mistake with the infamous DAHMER, another so-called crime drama short on suspense and high on the cheese factor.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
absolute rubbish!
virtthemaest8 June 2006
I'm so glad I downloaded this film! I almost bought it! after watching a couple of serial killer movies, just to name a few: Citizen X, Silence of the Lambs, Summer of Sam, Henry: Portrait of a serial Killer. I have to say that this one in particular didn't appeal to me. the actors don't suit there characters, and the directing was something from Days of our Life.

Right from the beginning, they used the wrong young actor in the car scene, so on, so on. Well I've had my say! Good to waist a couple of hours. But don't expect a Citizen X or in the like of the above mentioned style directing and acting.

Would have been good to see the methods of researching from the police detectives and forensic scientists as well as a portrait of the serial killers mind and behavior made by the polices psychiatrist

This movie does not portrait a thorough investigation; it's more of a police drama.

Giving it a 2 or a 3 because I fell I have actually lost I.Q points watching this film
10 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Watchable but nothing special
slake0911 June 2006
There's nothing new or original, but it's a watchable film. You keep thinking they're going to reveal something big, or do something exciting - but they don't. It's not boring or annoying, it just isn't particularly entertaining.

Mainly it's a look at the Zodiac killer's doings and how they might have affected the detectives and their families who investigated the crimes. Serious, thoughtful, not exciting - there simply wasn't enough information to work with. No big clues about the Zodiac's identity, no major show of new evidence, zip, zilch, nada.

They could have at least livened it up with some sex scenes or grisly aspects of the murders (why else are we watching this stuff?) but that didn't happen. No half-naked bimbos running around screaming, no bloody special effects. The lead detective seemed somewhat frustrated by the lack of evidence, I was hoping for a good S&M sex scene between him and his wife, but no luck there.

Looks like the Zodiac got away again - this time from the director.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
slow and dull
gandalf_a_19991 September 2006
This movie took forever to get to the point, and when it ended there was little explanation.

The build up of tension was at the same level throughout the movie right up to the end, very little was revealed about the killer and so many questions were left.

One could have fallen asleep during the movie to wake during the murder scenes, there wasn't much to keep your attention.

Having read a few other comments, the killer was found.

Maybe if this movie was made after this with the killer caught, it might be watchable.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best of all the ZODIAC movies, but that's not saying much.
rixrex28 October 2006
This is the best of all the ZODIAC movies, but that's not saying much because none of them have been very good at all. It's ridiculous that this one serial killer who was never caught could have so many crummy films made about him. This one is sluggish but at least tackles the material earnestly and not without some positive qualities. However, it just does not have enough substance to overcome a much too languid style. A better watch is the TV special documentary about the Zodiac that give the most interesting details of the unusual aspects of the case. At this film's end, we are told of a 1978 letter from Zodiac that states that he is waiting for a good film to be made about him. We are all still waiting.

Update: No longer do we need to wait thanks to the superb 2007 version!
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
quite sluggish and not much substance...
Aadam Mahbubani22 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Even though this movie is based on a true story of a killer that has never been caught, there is no excuse for such a poor ending...

I felt like i just wasted 90 minutes of a movie that was neither going to teach anything nor at provide any entertainment.

If you want to know more about the zodiac, you can find all the information you need on the web, not worth watching this movie.. it has a weak ending and the story/acting isn't very engrossing.

The only good point of this movie as far as i'm concerned is that it is the best of the zodiac films that have been produced, but that isn't saying much.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't Waste Your Time
ellis07228015 March 2007
If you don't know too much about the actual Zodiac killings, then you might find this movie worth the rental fee, but if you do then I suspect that you will react by turning the movie off after the second murder. For whatever reason, the slaying of Darlene Ferrin & the attempted murder of Mike Mageau is set up as two teenagers who have parked in a lover's lane in Vallejo to I assume make out, which isn't the case at all. It doesn't state tell you that Darlene was a married waitress, who ran around on her husband with cops for the most part & that Darlene had been followed for months by a stocky man who went by a one syllable handle such as 'Bob.' Nor did it inform the viewer that Darlene new this man & was very afraid of him & would tell her friends not to approach him whenever he was around. Darlene had also confessed to a baby sitter who had spotted the man outside of her house that she had witnessed this man commit a murder. Nor does it inform you Mike was one of two twin brothers who were infatuated by her and rivaled for her affection. It doesn't seem to tell you that Darlene had predicted that something big was going to happen on the night of her murder saying quote,"Expect to see my name in the paper, tomorrow morning." Nor does it show the fact that Mike Mageau was wearing three sets of clothing in July for some unknown reason & that Mike had told police after Darlene's murder that she seemed to know the person who had attacked them. It is these sets of facts that make the Zodiac slayings so spooky & to show them as just random killings seems to trivialize the whole thing into nothing more then a glorified slasher film. Also, the killer had phoned the police afterwards from a pay phone that was in eye sight of Darlene's home & just across from the sheriffs department & the weapon was different then the one used in the David Faraday & Betty Lou Jensen murders. Igoring these kinds of facts are the reason I turned the movie off 40 minutes in. If you don't know much about the Zodiac killings then this might be decent introduction to them, but I would suggest starting with the Robert Graysmith novels or go & see 'Zodiac' the movie based off of the Graysmith novels which I hear stay true to the actual killings. It saddens me that Justin Chambers, Robin Tunney, & Rory Culkin were apart of this film because I could tell that there performances in this film were inspiring & it pained me to not be able to stick with them through the whole sham of a movie.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Ultimate Movie Review! - - @tss5078
Tss507824 January 2017
As a culture we are obsessed with serial killers. While some writers choose to glorify these monsters, others simply want to show the truth behind their crimes and the investigation that followed. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, the real story is no where near as interesting as Hollywood makes it out to be, that's where the based on a true story comes in. The case of the infamous Zodiac Killer was a fascinating case, of a man who not only killed at random, but who also taunted the police, by publishing cryptic ciphers in the newspaper, claiming if they cracked the ciphers, they'd know who he was. The man behind the crimes was certainly an interesting case, but the long investigation into finding out who the person might have been, was not. As a film, The Zodiac is said to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the crimes, the investigation, the paranoia than gripped the city, and the political pressure everyone faced as a result. The film makers didn't want to take liberties with the story, glorify the crimes, or present unproven theories from any one of the a number of books written about the Zodiac Killer. That being said, what happened was interesting, but also fairly slow moving and more than somewhat dry. For those people who are unfamiliar with the story of the Zodiac, they may enjoy learning about this case, but for those of us who know it, watching this film was like seeing a very long episode of the First 48. It's interest, the acting is suitable, and it passes the time, but if you're looking for a real entertaining, Hollywood version of the Zodiac story, you'll be much happier with the film simply titled, Zodiac, from 2007, starring Robert Downey Jr. That film is based on one of the more populist theories of the crime, and features more edge of your seat action than it's predecessor.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews