At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

2 years after watching Ulli Lommel's would-be adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Tomb," I started to watch this on Fearnet a few weeks ago just to see how much worse he could be at directing. I couldn't survive even 10 minutes of it, it was so bad. Let's get to my reasons:1. The Zodiac's low vocabulary. He kept calling some guy through one of his letters, "fat f**k." Talk about originality. Then there's when he calls the prostitute a bundle of female slurs (I don't remember them all) put into one big word.2. The Zodiac's voice. In most Zodiac-killer based movies, there's something ominous about his voice. And yet, this guy's voice is so calm.3. The opening title card and credits. Lommel CLEARLY has no knowledge on his favorite serial killer. ZK killed 5 people, not 12. And the opening credits with a bunch of photos of corpses were flashing across the screen. I think I was gonna have a seizure.4. His appearance. This movie's supposed to take place in 2004, right? Three decades and five years after the Zodiac's last victim. And apparently, he's a bald man in his 20's or 30's. Although his face was blurred like it was COPS or something (why not use the hood instead?), I could see that he was clearly too young to be the San Francisco Zodiac Killer. Then again, I didn't see the whole thing, so I could be wrong.5. As with The Tomb, the terrible lighting.I regret EVER finding out about Ulli and his terrible movies. Apparently, he found god or something, so I can only hope we won't ever be seeing his horror "movies" ever again.Oh, and like someone below said, anyone who rates this over a one is nuts.Score: -10/10 (I'd rate it that if it were possible)

As I said earlier, I've always been interesting biography of American serial killers, especially I was interested in the Zodiac. He was mysterious, brutal and brilliant. It was never caught (probably). We have before us an example of how not to make movies about serial killers. It's just disgusting film, I absolutely did not like it. After viewing, I had a desire to give head to anyone who took it. Plot: Is he here? From an interesting and mysterious stories Ulli Lommel made some vague blur. Who knows, I remind, Ulli Lommel directed this under-painting. This man just turned on the theme of serial killers, especially, he loves every heresy to do with biographies. For example, the movie "В.Т.К.killer »(not with Kane Hodder), such a stupid and dull movie I have seen. The plot in this movie develops slowly, 82 minutes well, very boring. Yes there are murder, but they do not save, they look so primitive. You would have heard the voice of the zodiac in this movie, it's just awful. As if pensioner aged 167 years begins to read the book. By a single vote Zodiac is no longer wish to watch. There is nothing to not like it. Where all the actors were chosen? At the studio where they filmed porn movies? Well, looks like it. The most charismatic character here is ... a spectator who tries to watch this nonsense entirely. The viewer has to show all his willpower to overpower and as soon forget this nonsense. The voice of the Zodiac, I have already complained. But that's not all. There are many disadvantages. Other features: I think I misspoke. Well, features, and drawbacks. The film was shot in 2.000.000 dollars. But for that kind of money you can withdraw a masterpiece. In my if I give the old video camera and actors from the studio Asylum, I removed the better. Of boredom, I said about boring dialogs and disgusting characters already mentioned. About lousy voice Zodiac I said. For example, a detective film base quite lame, I can not. Here, everything is bad.It was after this movie I hated and Ulli Lommel. He's just lack of talent, why he takes? To annoy the audience? Probably. Let removes trash, but do not be touching biographies of American serial killers.It's stupid, ridiculous, boring, ugly and depressing. That impression will leave behind this film. Do not waste your time on this movie. It is better to look at the Zodiac in 2005, well, or a version of Fincher. That's really good films.

Curse of the Zodiac (2007) BOMB (out of 4) Ulli Lommel once again visits the notorious Zodiac Killer but I'm really not sure if this film is suppose to show the actual story or something connected to today's times. The film tells some story of a stripper who has dreams, which eventually happen to be the murders of the Zodiac. It seems Lommel is always trying to top himself by making worse and worse movies and this one here is among one of the worst I've seen from him. The majority of the movie has the stripper talking to her pimp about her dreams, which grows tiresome by the ten minute mark. The Zodiac also narrates the story and this leads to some of the worst dialogue I've heard in my life. Apparently the Zodiac likes to call people "fat fu*ks" as that term is used at least fifty times throughout the film.

Curse of the Zodiac (2007) is an updated/re-imagined version of the Zodiac murders that plagued the San Francisco Bay Area during the late 60's and mid 70's. While not as good as his other real horror genre, the movie is entertaining none the less. A mysterious psycho is taunting a useless detective whilst a poor lady relives the brutal and sadistic killings of a madman calling himself "The Zodiac". Can these two work together to stop this killer or will they wind up feeling his unrelenting fury? Why do people hate on Ulli Lommel? They talk about his bad directing skills (which is not true) and his films have horrific and ghastly murders. Well, murder is horrible and disgusting. That's the whole point of it. Herr Lommel loathes Hollywood's sanitized and glamorized views of murder on screen. They should be disgusting and stomach churning. No, you can not go out and have a few beers with your friends and make a movie with a $200 Camcorder and make a better film. It takes a lot of skill and talent (which he has) to make a decent movie. This is not the "worse movie ever made" either. I would rather watch some DTV film than some lame and overblown $150 million dollar one any day.Cheers,