User Reviews

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

"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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

The Zodiac is one of the many films made on the famous San Francisco serial killer of the same name. This film got completely overshadowed by the David Fincher movie which is vastly superior, but this isn't a bad film at all, more like just adequate. I remember seeing this and pondering why everyone- at least the critics- hated it. You can give this one a shot, it isn't as bad as the ratings imply.

"The Zodiac" was almost entirely filmed in the Vallejo area,where the real-life murders of the Zodiac Killer occurred,thus the film has a very authentic look and feel.The soundtrack is especially memorable.The acting is pretty good and there are few violent murder set-pieces.My main complaints as a true-crime buff:the names of the victims and crime locations are changed.Fortunately the letters and cryptograms of the Zodiac Killer are narrated by the murderer.If you are a fan of serial killer movies "The Zodiac" is worth checking out.However if you want to be shocked or seriously disturbed be sure to check out Gerald Kargl's fantastic "Angst".7 out of 10.

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.

"The Zodiac" is about Seargant Matthew Parish (Justin Chambers, of TV's "Grey's Anatomy"), a police detective in the San Francisco area in the late 1960s. On December 20, 1968, two young people are shot to death in their car late at night. This is just the beginning of a murderous rampage that continued until late 1969. The killer, who calls himself "The Zodiac", taunts the police with cryptic messages and letters, and terrorizes the city residents. And while the Zodiac causes chaos for the citizens, relations in Matthew's family, with his wife Laura (Robin Tunney, of "The Craft"), and his son, Johnny (Rory Culkin) begin to crumble as he is consumed by the disturbing case.

Based on the real-life unsolved serial killing that took place in the late 1960s San Francisco, "The Zodiac" is a well-told and interesting thriller that was much better than I was expecting it to be. I personally don't know a lot about the actual Zodiac case (I just know the basic things), but from what I've been told, this movie does leave out some elements in the actual case and twists things a bit for storytelling purposes, which isn't necessarily bad. Nonetheless, the story is well told here and will give a nice insight into the Zodiac killer for those who aren't very familiar with the real case. It doesn't lose it's focus either, which is a good thing. However, I did feel that it kind of dragged it's feet a bit in certain areas, but after awhile it began to pick itself up again.

The 1960s setting is brought through here very nicely with the costumes, cars, locations, etc. It does bring you back to the time of the real incidents, which is effective. Vietnam and a country in chaos is an ironic backdrop for the chaos caused by the Zodiac within San Francisco, and the time period is brought to life with numerous clips and footage from the era, including footage of actual things related to the case. As for the murder scenes, they are surprisingly saddening, and brutal to say the least. The presence of the killer himself is eerie enough, and he is only really seen in a couple of scenes, but of course his face is never shown. Good acting here as well from Justin Chambers, who was an odd choice for a lead, but pulls off the role. Robin Tunney is great as his sympathetic wife, and Rory Culkin is also good as their son. The conclusion is a bit empty, but what can you really expect, seeing as the real killer himself was never caught? The reality is that these things did happen, and that is what gives this movie it's creepiness.

Overall, "The Zodiac" is chilling and eerie movie that chronicles one of the most infamous serial killings of all time. It's not perfect and it has it's flaws, but it is a decent account of the crimes, and does put on display the Zodiac's mystery and intrigue. The actual Zodiac killer himself sent a letter to police asking, "When will there be a good movie made about me?". Well, people's opinions of this film will obviously vary, but I'd say this was fairly good and worth a watch, especially if you find the Zodiac killing case of any interest. 7/10.

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

At the end of the movie, the killer was wondering who would play him in a movie. I think he is still waiting as this was probably the most boring show I have ever seen about a serial killer.

When the script is already written for you, you would think you have time to focus on some other parts of the movie to make it interesting. Not here folks. There was nothing interesting about this movie. I thought there was one part where it was going to get interesting, but I was mistaken.

I don't watch "Grey's Anatomy," so I have no idea who Justin Chambers is, but he showed me nothing here. He spent the entire time drinking and yelling. I don't watch "Prison Break," so I know know Robin Tunney either. She spent all her time at the kitchen table whining.

There is no one else here that I recognized either. I don't know why I watched this, but I recommend you let me suffer for you and avoid it at all costs.

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.

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.