Sadly Over-hyped

Fantastic!

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

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

This film takes an interesting approach to the story of one of the most sensational serial killers in American history, but it proves that interesting is not necessarily the same thing as entertaining.The Zodiac was a multiple murderer in California who, between 1968 and 1970, shot two young couples in their cars late at night, stabbed another couple repeatedly during the day while wearing a costume, shot a cabbie and sent several disturbing letters to the newspapers. The Zodiac was never caught and by most accounts, the cops never even got close. This retelling of the tale focuses on Inspector Matt Parrish (Justin Chambers), the handsome and smart cop who gets handed the case after the first couple is slain. But while some detective work goes on, that's not at all what this movie is about. Instead it dwells on Matt, his wife Laura (Robin Tunney), their son Johnny (Rory Culkin) and how they are affected by the Zodiac killings and the frenzy that grows up around it. The movie also disconnects the murders from the broader social and political tenor of late 60s California and concentrates on the town of Vallejo, where most of the known Zodiac killings occurred. The filmmakers cast Vallejo as an all-American small town where folks don't lock their doors and all gather in the park to watch fireworks on the 4th of July. Rather than try and understand the Zodiac as a part of his chaotic era, this story considers him only as a malevolent force threatening and poisoning the decent lives of good people.Treating the Zodiac as a singular evil and showing his effect on one family isn't a bad approach to this well known story, but it proves to be a better idea on paper than in practice.Firstly, if you're not going to cast the Zodiac as an aspect of 60s social anarchy or moral degeneration or pick another cliché, you've still got to do something with the character. He needs some form, some depth, some dimension to him. But these filmmakers choose to say nothing about this killer that isn't established fact, and since so little is actually known about him, this story gives us very little. He's a generic monster, something that is emphasized by the hackneyed way the movie shows him on screen. It's the whole thing where you only see the mysterious killer's feet or his hand or the back of his head. We never see the Zodiac's face. We never hear his voice as anything but a dull monotone. I'm sure it's meant to be creepy and unnerving, but it's just boring.The scenes with the Parrish family aren't much better. You can tell the point is that the demands of the case are keeping Matt separated from his wife and son and that separation combined with the looming fear generated by the Zodiac is breaking the family apart, but we never get to see any of that happen. When the first killings occur, everything seems okay with the family. Then we cut to the next killings several months later and things are bad. Then months after that are the next killings and things with the Parrish family are even worse. But we never actually see what makes things bad and makes them worse. The characters get angrier with and more distant from each other, but those changes are not connected to or flow from anything we see in the movie. It's like the audience is just supposed to imagine in our heads all the stuff that must have happened off camera to this family to tear them apart . I don't know about you, but I don't watch a movie so I can tell myself a story.The Zodiac is one of those films you can't really give a "thumbs up", but you can't really give it a "thumbs down" either. There's nothing precisely terrible about it, but the movie just doesn't work. I think I'd have to give it a "meh". If you're intrigued by the real story, want to watch a movie that won't splash a bunch of ridiculous nonsense all over that real story, and you can't watch the much better film version of this story (2007's Zodiac by David Fincher)…you could give give this one a try.

The Zodiac Killer was one of the most famous serial killers in history, being one of the few to murder so many and get away. The Zodiac Killer, to this very day, has yet to be caught. Chances are, he never will be. And it's of no surprise that sooner or later, a movie would be made about him. In the 70s, the villain of a Clint Eastwood movie "Dirty Harry" featured a murderer based off the Zodiac Killer, but this is a film that is based around the Zodiac himself and the terror he created in San Francisco."The Zodiac" is a film with great potential for zest and entertainment, but it unfortunately does not reach those points to the expected level. Really, the very beginning of the film was executed and shot perfectly and yes the film had some other moments throughout. But overall, it's a very bland and uninteresting film. The filmmakers played wisely by not showing the Zodiac Killer's face on screen, we never see him clearly. We can hear his voice many times, which is a cold, blood-chilling tone. They chose the right actor for that job. However, the other actors, while not bad at their job, had to suffer from playing boring characters. Characters that made no sense and in scenes that oftentimes made no sense. Some scenes seemed very pointless, such as the prelude to an obvious sex scene that never unfolds and is overall uninteresting, no matter what you were looking for.It was a film that I had higher expectations for. I have heard recently about another movie based on the Zodiac Killer, released in 2007. I have yet to see this one, but hear it is highly acclaimed and a masterpiece. I aim to see it as soon as I can, but this version of the story was overall, iffy. Acceptable, but not special.