The Zodiac

The real-life Zodiac killer, who terrorized the California Bay Area in the late 1960s, was never caught. That fact in itself renders the potential for a most compelling story. But if you're going to make a movie about this case, who or what does your movie focus on? You can't focus on the killer himself because you don't know who he is. This might seem like a problem for movie makers. But for a clever film producer the killer's anonymity presents an opportunity.

"The Zodiac" (2005) focuses on a fictional lead detective, a man named Matt Parish (Justin Chambers), his wife and his young, never smiling, son who fixates on his dad's detective work. The plot thus gets sidetracked onto this fictional family, their home life, and how this unsolvable case affects each of them. And we have lots of filler scenes with archival footage of the era, including the moon landing, Vietnam, Nixon, but precious little about the Zodiac. The film thus comes across as tedious, trite, and largely irrelevant, lacking suspense and tension.

Visually the film trends dark with a moody tone, both appropriate for the topic. Casting and acting are acceptable except for the annoying and unnecessary William Mapother. Cinematography and production design are competent. But the music is overly dramatic.

My impression is that the film's producers wanted to capitalize on this famous case with the word "Zodiac" in the title. The film could then show how the phantom killer, never seen, always in the background and obscured, could affect the lives of ordinary people in the community. The result is a mostly generic, opportunistic script that could be applied to almost any unsolved serial killer case.

On 20 December 1968, in Lake Helena, a couple of teenagers is brutally murdered by a killer while dating nearby the lake. The young Sergeant Matt Parish (Justin Chambers) is assigned and becomes obsessed for the case, neglecting his wife Laura (Robin Tunney) and his son Johnny (Rory Culkin). On 04 July 1969, another couple is shot in the golf course of Vallejo, and the killer sends letters to three newspapers with a riddle and promising more deaths. He kills again, and the police force is not able to arrest him. On 24 April 1978, he writes to a newspaper telling that he is waiting for a good movie about him.

"The Zodiac" is actually focused in the dramatic story of a detective that becomes obsessed by the case and practically forgets his former beloved family. The plot of the serial killer is based on a true story of a criminal in the Bay Area of California that has never been even identified by the police; therefore the movie gives the sensation of disappointment in the end since the hunting is unsuccessful. The production is careful, using cars, costumes and some footages of the 60's, the actors and actresses have good performances, but the screenplay goes nowhere. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Zodíaco" ("The Zodiac")

"The Zodiac" is by no means a blockbuster film, and if not for the fact that it is based on real and terrifying events, it probably wouldn't be that good at all. But because it is based on real events, it is rather chilling and effective. The production values are better than one might suspect, and the acting from the three main characters, the Parish family is very good.

Hottie Justin Chambers plays Sgt. Matt Parish and does a terrific job. At first it seemed odd that his character was put in charge of the horrifying murders that were taking place, due to his young age and possible inexperience, but I suppose it means the older police officers do not have to take much responsibility for what turned out to be a very tough case. Tough also on Parish's personal life, especially when his young son Johnny takes an interest in the case, and when his wife Laura gets neglected.

Robin Tunney gives a surprisingly good performance as Laura Parish, showing a lot of compassion and while she no doubt loves her husband, she also expresses her fear of the Zodiac Killer, which Parish thinks is unfounded, and at the way she is being neglected as her husband is so caught up in work. As the film is set in the 1960's, both Chambers and Tunney give very good portrayals of what might be seen as stereotypical husband and wife roles. Following in the footsteps of his older siblings, Rory Culkin does a good job in his role as Johnny Parish, however he also seemed a bit too young to figure out the various clues that are in the film. William Mapother is underused as inquisitive reporter Dale Coverling.

Aside from "The Zodiac" being a film based on real events, it is interesting to watch a thriller set some time ago, before all the advanced technology that the police seem to have at their disposal these days in other films and television programs. The murders are all shown and quite saddening, as there is a brief moment of build up before the characters deaths, then the Zodiac Killer makes his presence known before killing them, so you get to experience their fear also, particularly the opening scene murder.

So while "The Zodiac" probably won't change your life, it is a very good thriller with a difference, a hot lead, and some tense moments, which are made even more chilling because the film is based on real events, and apparently, the Zodiac Killer is still out there. Scary huh?

The Zodiac is one of the many films made on the famous San Francisco serial killer of the same name. This film got completely overshadowed by the David Fincher movie which is vastly superior, but this isn't a bad film at all, more like just adequate. I remember seeing this and pondering why everyone- at least the critics- hated it. You can give this one a shot, it isn't as bad as the ratings imply.

I'll start by stating a few facts. I am not a thrill seeker. I am not a serial killer movie junkie. I didn't watch this movie expecting gore or disturbing images. In fact I was expecting nothing in particular and that's what I got. Nothing.

This movie is a big empty void of a plot certainly not helped by the bland direction hoping to surf on the serial killer curiosity. I have rarely seen a movie with less tension and less ambiance. Instead it comes as a dry recital of bare facts in chronological order. There is no insight, no psychology of the killer or the detectives who go from one crime scene to another. There is not even the slightest effort to understand or analyze the killings.

If you're interested in the real story, I recommend you read any Wiki or report on it you can find online and you can skip the movie altogether. If you're interested in a more in depth view of the crimes, you can probably find a book that'll give you more in 10 pages than this horrid empty flick does in 1 hour.