Customer Reviews

The Zodiac

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As filmgoers might anxiously be awaiting the 2007 release of David Fincher's "Zodiac" with Jake Gyllenhaal, I thought it might be prudent to point out that this is not that film. No, this is 2005's "The Zodiac" which covers much of the same territory. Over a period of years during the sixties and seventies, the San Francisco area was plagued by a series of seemingly random murders perpetuated by a man known only as the Zodiac killer. Using the press and taunting the police, Zodiac became one of the more prominent "celebrity" serial killers with his need to be in the spotlight. There are many different angles that a movie of this type can take-- standard police procedural, through the eyes of the murderer, showcase the press involvement, highlight the victims and a community in fear. "The Zodiac" certainly dabbles in all of these areas, but without providing much insight about any of them. Strangely, though, much of the film is spent with the lead detective's son and his growing interest in the case.

But this being a fictional account, I was open to see what this might add to the drama. Sadly, not much. "The Zodiac" covers the early days of the killing spree centering mainly in the Vallejo area. Justin Chambers (TV's Grey's Anatomy) stars as the detective obsessed with finding the murderer. With his low-key speaking voice and stoic facial expressions, Chambers lacks a big-screen presence that might have made this more compelling entertainment. Of course, it doesn't help matters that we don't really know anything about him. His wife, Robin Tunney, has a thankless role--playing equal parts frightened by the killings and annoyed by her husband's absence. But again, we don't really know anything about her. As for their son, Rory Culkin, guess what I'm going to say--aside from his interest in the case, we don't really know anything about him. This might be one of the blandest, most unremarkable families to hit the screen in quite some time. Why focus on the family aspect if you're not going to develop anything with it?

The police procedural is not a strong factor, either. And the press? That story thread is so vague that when the detective is openly hostile toward the reporter near the end of the picture, you wonder why. The film never delivers the answer. This film literally touches on everything, but delivers almost nothing. Of course, the serial killer is represented with the requisite quick edits and jarring camera angles-- a device that became cliche' 15 years ago. And through various TV clips and radio announcements, the movie seems to be making a social statement that the violence of the era is what produced the Zodiac killer. But it's not a particularly effective or original idea. The one thing, however, I did like is that the moodiness and sense of dread increased as the picture moved on. Then just as something interesting happened and you think things might turn around, stunningly the movie just ends. I was caught completely by surprise.

I didn't expect much from "The Zodiac," truth be told. If this screenplay had to be produced, it was probably more suitable to a TV production. I wouldn't recommend this picture unless you have a die-hard interest in true life crime stories--even then, there's not much meat on these bones. KGHarris, 02/07.

With a much higher budget Zodiac could have indeed been a much better film, but as it stands, the movie is a bit of a grind. Based on One of California's most infamous unsolved killing sprees, director Alexander Bulkley and his co-screenwriter brother, Kelly Bulkley have made a rather strange film based on the string of murders that terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1960s and '70s.

Taking place almost entirely in Vallejo, the filmmakers essentially end the movie halfway through the narrative, so we only get part of the story of this killer, who even today remains at large. The hero of the film, fictitious Vallejo police Detective Matt Parish (a very good Justin Chambers) who becomes obsessed with cracking the case, to the detriment of his family. Repeatedly beaten down, he becomes consumed, spending long nights at the office and finally turning to drink.

As pressure from his chief (Philip Baker Hall) to solve the crimes mounts, Matt loses himself emotionally in all the ciphers, codes and clues the murderer uses to taunt the police and press. At home his wife Laura (Robin Tunney) waits, becoming increasingly paranoid that the killer is coming for her. Their son Johnny (Rory Culkin) mopes through the film becoming as obsessed by the case as his father, but nobody really notices or cares.

The film's biggest problem is that it has the look of a straight to video production, with most of it shot in irritatingly close-up so that at times it becomes almost impossible to see what is going on. The period detail however, when you can see it, is mostly well done. On a limited budget, Bulkley does a good job of situating the story in a definite time and place.

Images of the moonwalk, Nixon, Vietnam and Black Panthers flicker across TV screens. Period details in the rural communities of the North Bay Area read convincingly without calling too much attention to the cars, hairdos and clothes. Bulkley ends up telling the story without embellishments but also without much excitement.

The scenes showing the zodiac killer (Marty Lindsey) are your usual serial killer clichés, with shots of the back of his head, and walking from a phone booth, and in his lair. The only journalist (William Mapother) seen covering the case - who ironically ends up having a lucrative career from the killings, ascending to the job of network news anchor - is portrayed as ruthless and self-righteous as he reports that the police are inexperienced in the matter and totally oblivious to the real identity of the killer.

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the Zodiac murders, the story is indeed quite compelling, but also somewhat frustrating. With no one ever caught, there can be no resolution to the story and there's also no resolution for the characters in this movie who deserve some sort of closure for all their angst and torment.

At the end, we are told that the Zodiac's final letter included the line "I am waiting for a good movie about me." He may have to wait a bit longer, for David Fincher's bigger budget version starring Jake Gyllenhaal is due to be released next year. Mike Leonard September 06.

While ZODIAC is in the theaters and people want a sneak preview of what to expect from that film with Jake Gyllenhaal, this little version called THE ZODIAC is available and has some merit. The search for the still unknown serial killer of the late 1960s in the bay area is a creepy enough story that it is difficult to imagine a telling of it would not make us shiver. This film directed by Alexander Bulkley and written with the director's brother Kelley Bulkeley (sic) keeps a fairly low key and while it does manage to depict some of the slayings, much of this version on the Zodiac killer is focused on the personalities of those desperately seeking the perpetrator.

Justin Chambers portrays Inspector Matt Parish who becomes obsessed with the search to the point of excessive drinking and neglecting his family; the manner in which Bulkley depicts him seems more focused on Parish's chain smoking than anything else, an example of using the cigarette as a constant prop when there is no apparent reason for pushing the habit into the public's eye. Parish's frightened wife is ably portrayed by Robin Tunney, and his son who is obsessed with the multiple fascinating aspects of the Zodiac mentality is well handled by Rory Culkin. Some fine actors flesh out the cast - William Mapother, Philip Baker Hall - but they are given little material to use.

The production values (night atmosphere especially) are strong for an Indie and the film does convey a creepiness that lingers. If only the writers would have shared some insights into the characters on screen the film would have been far stronger. But for another look at Zodiac, until the real one comes out on DVD, this little film is a good teaser. Grady Harp, April 07

The story of San Francisco serial killer is so famous that I don't think I need a plot summery here. The strength of "The Zodiac" directed by Alexander Bulkley lies in the minute details of the terrifying murders in California's Bay Area that started in 1968. It is a bit unfortunate, however, that this was soon followed by David Fincher's version, which boasts more minute details about the gruesome murder cases by the Zodiac Killer.

It is obvious that director and co-writer Alexander Bulkley and his brother and co-writer Kelley Bulkeley (different spells) did extensive researches for this film as the film's references to several key items (like one Fay Wray film, for instance) testifies. The re-created murder scenes are pretty scary and the photography is decent.

But ... sorry, the film stops there. Anyone who has read books and articles about the Zodiac Killer (or those who have already seen Fincher's film) would not find anything new here. And what is more disappointing is that the characters - Justin Chambers as the inspector; Philip Baker Hall (also in Fincher's version) as his boss; Robin Tunney as his wife; Rory Culkin as their kid who is, it seems, attracted to the case - all these elements are thrown in the film's standard crime thriller sub-plot, which is not interesting.

This is not a bad film, but it still needs a new, original approach to the material.

THE ZODIAC chronicles the killing spree of the infamous serial killer who between 1969 and 1978 claimed responsibility for 37 killings. The madman changed his victim backgrounds, his modus operandi and his weapons in his baffling spree (someone on the IMDB says the killer was identified in the past few years, but I'm not sure of that?). Anyway, this movie is more documentary in style, and the producers did well in capturing the ambience of the late sixties. Justin Chambers (GREY'S ANATOMY) stars as Detective Parish, who becomes saddled and obsessed with finding the culprit. Robin Tunney and Rory Culkin are his family and the movie shows what a drain the murders have on them, especially the son who becomes as obsessed with the killings as much as his dad. The movie tends to focus on the media's sensationalism and while it has its merits, it doesn't give us enough of the Zodiac to entice us into being totally absorbed in the film. Heartthrob Brian Bloom supplies the voice of the Zodiac and is effectively creepy. Nice try but not a total success.

THE ZODIAC

There have been many films about this guy who just wanted to be famous, that is absolutely what this guy was about nothing deeper regardless of what any one says. Some killers do it for fun some do it because they are truly deranged and need some help. This guy did it to be famous that is all; sending the letters off to the newspapers and NAMING HIMSELF are signs of this. If he was real about it he would have made sure he killed every one, a couple of his victims lived and he just walked away, some eerie killer [no disrespect to any of the victims or their families who I am sure found him very eerie. Any way with that out of the way I must say that this is a pretty good film about this coward who named himself. I think most fans of this kind of film would enjoy it.

Naturally the movie is about the Zodiac [self named] and the killings and not so fatal attacks he did in California during his time there. The movie though is mainly about the inspector who was after him and a cool new take on it using the man's son. This is the most interesting thing about this movie to me, following the son and how the case was taking its toll on him. Inspector Matt Parish and his family are impacted like crazy by this guy and his son Johnny starts to feel like he is connected to this case just as much as his father. Of course the inspector's wife Laura is arguably feeling it the most as far as the family unit goes, her husband seems to be letting this take him over.

Writer/director Alexander Bulkley and his brother Kelley Bulkeley it seems have done their homework since this movie sticks to as many facts as they could fit into their story. The movie moves along nicely and actually feels like it ends a bit early so maybe there could have been more added. Still the direction is good and the script seems good since the film did feel believable. Still I think the cast is what makes this movie interesting and it was really interesting to see a new Culkin. Rory Culkin plays Johnny Parish the son of our lead detective and feels believable in the role. It was just crazy at the time when this first came out to see a new Culkin in this type of film, although the more famous one did "Party Monster" which is another true story about murder.

Aside from him we also have Justin Chambers as his father Inspector Matt Parish who does a good job as well; his scenes with his wife in particular are great. I like how he played the obsession out gradually getting deeper and deeper into it. And speaking of his wife that part is played by Robin Tunney and she as well does a great job especially during scenes involving the family going crazy. The rest of the cast who are all familiar faces all do good jobs on this movie but it still seems a little short are something to me. Maybe I need to watch it again and re-rate it if I feel the need.

This is a good movie and is definitely worth the time to watch it maybe a rental or if you are into this type of film a purchase. It stays with the facts as much as possible but of course some things are changed to fit the story but over all good. This is a 3.5 to maybe a 4 star film so you may like it, check it out. Oh and unlike other Zodiac films that actually show his face and give him a character that was actually a suspect this movie is very different. You never get to see his face since the case was never actually solved.

I had high hopes when i first heard of this movie but when i saw it my hopes were dashed.This movie starts off by saying that it is "based on true events" which is a nice way of saying that they are gonna make up a whole bunch of stuff because they didn't want to do any real research into the Zodiac killings.The names of victims,suspects and detectives are all made up,i can live with that because they want to protect the real people who were involved with this case but when they pay no real attention to the case itself,then i start to not like this movie.This movie is about the Zodiac killer,a man that stalked the Northern California area in the 60's and killed people using guns and knives.He was never caught but there were many suspects in the case and the killer wrote letters to the news papers in different areas and also to the police.This movie gets me mad because they present the Zodiac killer as if he has some kind of supernatural powers and never leaves any real evidence behind.There is one point of the movie where the lead detective sais in frustration to his cop buddies "This guy moves in and out without leaving a clue!" in reality the Zodiac killer was very sloppy and left evidence behind like fingerprints.This movie is also not very well made either nor is it well acted by the people in it.The people in this movie are not bad actors,it's just the fact that this film does not have a good script or even a good backdrop for most of the scenes.If you want to watch a good movie about the Zodiac i would watch the one with Jake Gyllenhaal,at least that one has a solid plot.Stay far away from this one.

I should have been more skeptical. The zodiac, on DVD, at Woolworths, for £4.97, when the film is still on release at the cinema? Of course it isn't the same film. The production values are good enough to make you think that it nonetheless might be, but a few things didn't quite hang together (careful - there are some sort-of-spoilers in here):

* The cheesy incidental music, which sounded like it came straight from the William Peter Blatty school for freaky music;
* The rather conventional editing and shooting style. Not entirely conventional - The Zodiac kind of hints at Se7en stylings, but in a drastically scaled back fashion, rather like a TV Movie trying to "do" Se7en. (Obviously, the directors weren't to know that David Fincher would subsequently dramatise the same story, so they can hardly be blamed for attempting to ape his style);
* The "nutmeg" in the script represented by the Detective's son, his relationship with his mother, a teenage girl and the case itself, which gives every indication of leading somewhere, but evaporates without trace;
* The fact that, on 87 minutes, without warning, the film suddenly stops dead - nothing resolved: not the murders, not the detective's relationship with his boss, wife, son or the killer, not the "your wife and children are vulnerable" subplot, nor even the motivation of the killer (who had graduated from son-of-sam style killings of fornicating sweethearts to indiscriminately murdering of taxi drivers and whose MO had changed from shooting, to stabbing, to shooting *and* stabbing). One gets the sense the producers ran out of money.

This is a competently shot, acted and edited picture, but the screenplay is just hopeless. There is no story arc (it's basically "some innocent people get shot. The killer taunts the police. He never gets caught", which would almost be ok if there were a character arc, but there's not one of those either. The characters' relationships just deteroriate, a bit, but never fatally.

Some (possibly unintentional) humour at the death, when a letter from the Zodiac is read out in which the Zodiac brags that his exploits would make a good film (well, maybe, but as this effort shows, not necessarily!) wonders who might play him in the movie: In this treatment he remains a silhouette throughout. Never mind.

Olly Buxton

In my opinion, this one is way better and more personal than the version with Jake Gyllenhal! Robin Tunney is amazing in this movie! If you are looking at this, then you must already know the background story. Do not hesitate! This is well worth watching!

it wasn't what I expected. I didn't realize that there were two movies with this title, so great, now I have to watch the story over again when I see the other movie. Well, that's my problem, so why do I only give it 2 stars? I liked the suspense and it did capture my interest, however, I was upset that the movie continually used a child as a centerpiece of suspense when, in fact, a child was never threatened.

I understand that as a parent you wouldn't know if your child may be endangered, but the movie makers knew the story and they exploited the role of a child to help their movie. That bothers me.

Look, I lived through an actual serial killer spree here in the D.C. area including one killing in front of a store my family frequently shopped. I know what it means to be afraid for your child and it is insulting to have a child used in this manner. If it was only a small part of the movie, then I'm not upset, but this was the entire movie.