Ulli Lommel's Zodiac Killer

I'm not sure if this is the most incompetent horror movie ever made or a satire of unparalleled genius. As a long time fan of Ulli Lommel and his unique brand of film-making, I guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt. I would watch Zodiac Killer again in order to make a more informed decision but I'm afraid I might burst a lung by laughing too strenuously. Regardless of whether the film is intentionally comedic or not, the fact remains that Zodiac Killer has to be seen to be believed. I guess that is reason enough to hire it.

Zodiac Killer begins inauspiciously. Michael, a pretty typical psycho, works in a home for the elderly and overhears a man plotting to kill his grandmother. Michael takes it upon himself to be an avenging angel for the aged and blows the man away. It is only when reporters compare the shooting to the infamous and unsolved "Zodiac" murders that Michael decides to be become a Zodiac copycat and impersonate the Zodiac killer. Up until this point, I had assumed that this was going to be a typical zero budget slasher film but Ulli Lommel is nothing if not innovative. Instead, the film becomes something of a cinematic collage of flashbacks, stock footage, still photographs, interviews and recycled clips from old Ulli Lommel films.

In addition to the disconcerting and unusual story telling techniques, the film also clearly switches tone. I refuse to believe that the clips of war footage, interspersed between Michael's ranting about how serial killers are pursued by the authorities while soldiers are allowed to kill with impunity, could be anything other than satirical. The same goes for the hilarious e-mails Michael exchanges with Zodiac expert, Simon Vale. Michael begins his correspondence by describing his mental illness and asks for further details about the murders. This doesn't appear to bother Simon at all and before too long he is leaving long winded messages on Michael's mobile phone. The inane happenings continue with a series of mind boggling TV interviews, which I somewhat optimistically believe to be a parody of the cult of celebrity that surrounds many serial killers. I also hope that the actual murders are a send up of the unbelievable scenarios that pollute most horror films. For example, Michael breaks into a house wearing a gas mask and opens a cannister of nerve gas - while literally standing less than three metres away from two women, who rather amazingly fail to notice his presence. The scene where Michael hides behind a victim's couch and observes the man watching TV is as illogical as it is hilarious. The entire scenario with the pizza delivery girl is one of the funniest things I have seen. I really, really hope the humour was intentional.

The gore is generally quite poorly done, with the exception of the crime scene photographs which are genuinely disturbing. This is most likely due to the fact that they look remarkably similar to the actual images which appear in publications like "Bizarre" magazine. The acting is pretty appalling. Vladimir Maksic who plays Michael, is either the finest comedic actor of his generation or utterly abysmal. The film livens up every time that horror legend David Hess makes an appearance, even though his performance is so over the top that it verges on slapstick. The acting highlight is Ulli himself, who delivers an intriguing performance as Simon Vale. Ulli's direction is resourceful - to say the least. His mixed media approach works occasionally but just as often feels like unnecessary padding. However, Ulli has an undeniable style and I would be interested to see what he could do with a bigger budget. Maybe Ulli could give his classic "Boogeyman" the sequel it deserves.

Your enjoyment of this film will depend on whether you think Zodiac Killer is a clever send up of horror films and a satirical look at the media circus surrounding serial killers, or simply a phenomenally incompetent piece of garbage. Wherever the truth lies, I found the film strangely mesmerising. I wanted to hate it but I was too interested in discovering which depth the film would plummet to next. Love it or hate it, Ulli Lommel's film is undeniably different.

At least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, my guess is the cover to the DVD case cost more than the entire movie. And saying that it is the same director as The Boogeyman, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, it was misleading enough to rope me in. The only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. Usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. The film looks like it was shot by a D+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, less is more buddy. Through out I would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. All this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!

1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.

This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.

Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.