Customer Reviews

Zodiac Killer

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(25)

 

 

UGGHHHH...... is it possible to really TRY to make a film and have it be this bad ?

I have seen High School film study projects that were 200% better !!

Seriously !

... and I didn't even get paid for it... despite the director's (ulli) promises. So - maybe that's a measure of how bad a production it was...? But I thought I'd get this out to the public - just let people know what sort of production and director this is... I played the computer hacker. (it was fun to do, though! - and I'm not even an actor!)

What a waste of time this movie was. I could not wait for it to end. To call this an amateur film is an insult to amateurs.

While I was watching it, the power in my house went off. I kinda hoped it would stay off.

What I liked about it was the cover, thats it. I think they should just sell the case without the DVD. Or throw a blank DVD in the case.

Here is the movie in a nutshell: horrendous acting, garbage script, filmed on what appeared to be a $50 video camera.

AVOID THIS TRASH! The 1971 Zodiak Killer was bad too, but it was the kind of bad that was worth watching. Not this movie.

Ulli Lommel, the director, was quoted in Fangoria as saying he made this film for $200,000 on digital. This film looks more like he spent $200. A real utter piece of cow droppings. Ulli Lommel ranks right up there with Uwe Bolle as the worst director of all time.

I am banning all Lion's Gate products from now on. Now and again they give us a good one like Saw, but they release so much junk. They will buy anyone's film as long as it's horror and release it in a nice package. Stuff like S.I.C.K. and this junk film, Zodiac Killer. Almost all of it shot on mini dv. They have a nerve. Junk. Junk. Junk.

And that's not saying much. Believe it or not, I actually liked this movie. Well, to be honest, I liked the concept behind the movie, but this flick otherwise sucked. The history of the Zodiac Killer as recounted in this movie was almost completely fictitious, and it looked like some of the "crime scene photos" were pulled from a website specializing in gruesome pics (which made the Zodiac Killer seem to be more like the Zodiac Butcher. He didn't seem to have a problem dismembering his victims in this flick).

There were holes in the plot big enough to drive a truck through. Simon Vale, the retired Zodiac Killer, wrote a book in the 1970's in which he detailed the life of the Zodiac, and yet it never occurred to anyone how he could possibly have known anything about it. No one suspected that Vale was the Zodiac Killer despite the intimate details he revealed about his young life that only the Zodiac could possibly have known!

The Zodiac "copycat" (he wasn't really) buys a nerve agent in pill form (at $50 each!), uses it to knock out prospective victims, then kills them. In one absurd scene, a gasses a pizza delivery girl, decides against killing her, then chows down on the pizza! In other words, he just blew $50 on a single pizza and didn't even kill anyone! Riiiiight...

Then we find the Zodiac Killer, who for years never had a problem murdering and butchering his dozens of victims without a second thought suddenly feeling remorse when he sees how a family member of his last victim was traumatized by his crime! Huh? Then he turns his back on his evil past, becomes good and writes a book about himself, and no one figures out who he really is?

The cabal of black hooded men are suddenly thrown in for good measure (although I still can't figure out why they're in the movie in the first place), but the gratuitous gay sex scenes left me feeling like I'd accidentally walked into the wrong theater and was watching a cheesy porn flick instead.

The acting was terrible, the dialogue trite, and it looked like it was shot on Lommel's camcorder. It was especially amusing to see the copycat Zodiac, a good 30-40 years younger then the real Zodiac, suddenly cower in fear when he realized who Simon Vale really was and try to escape, but how often do we see this kind of cliché in the movies where the characters suddenly turn stupid and don't know what to do? Why he didn't pull his gun or even just punch the old man out is beyond me.

That being said, I liked the idea of the original Zodiac Killer stalking the younger Zodiac "copycat." It's too bad Lommel otherwise had no clue what he was doing behind the camera. Give this one a miss.

Firstly, I love bad movies. Cult and horror movies are usually my favorite genre. They are usually so bad they are good, if you get me.

This movie is just bad. I believe that high-school kids with a camcorder could have produced a better film than this. In fact, I demanded a refund from my rental store and they happily obliged having received many complaints from other outraged customers like me.

I cannot believe a movie this terrible could be released and sold. It is like a bait-and-switch, because many people are interested in the story of the Zodiac Killer, however, this movies acting, pacing, sound, visuals, and anything else you could name is absolutely horrible so no matter what angle you view it from , it gets a big, fat, F.

I gave this film one star because of the attempt of making a movie. I expect some level of quality when choosing a movie from a Blockbuster shelf of all places, and this movie did not deliver. I did not like the homemade film quality of the production, which instantly brings out the acting in the movie and makes it completely transparent. I also did not like that guys haircut. I had to stop it half way through, and I had to make myself watch that much of it. I understood that it was a lowbudget film from the first frame which is why I gave it a shot, but I soon realized that the film would have received more funding if the director was better, which he is obviously not. I can understand how an indie film buff could justify this as being somewhere close to a mediocre movie, but I'm not calling it that. I don't know anything about Ulli or his other works, I am reviewing this from the perspective of an adventurous movie renter, and I cannot recommend this to anybody.

this movie is so incredibly bad that i almost think it's supposed to be some kind of joke. it's so ridiculous that i don't even know where to begin. just don't see it.

Hands down one of the worst movies I have ever watched. It wasn't factual, the actors stunk, and the quality was horrible. A total rip-off.

The movie was horrid. My sister saw it and rented it for me,knowing that I read the Robert Graysmith books and found the Zodiac to be intresting. I had a hard time even watching a few minutes. I went and grabbed my computer and looked it up. From the promo on the DVD and the title it looked like it was something recording the Zodiac murders, like the the Graysmith books. I was mistaken, this wasn't about the movie about anything. It was a poorly written film and looked like CSPAN filmed it using the same planted camera. Not only was it bad in that sense, but bad in all the others. The poorly spoken "copycat" that didn't really copycat anything. His claiming to be the "real" Zodiac killer (who would be in his 50's at the earliest and more likly in his 60's or 70's and almost beyond doubt dead). Then there is the whole other parts of the plot. Simon Vale was dumb and that isn't even mentioning the whole little "jury" of hooded men. I wish I could rate it lower and get my 3 dollars I spent renting it back.