The Zodiac

There's nothing new or original, but it's a watchable film. You keep thinking they're going to reveal something big, or do something exciting - but they don't. It's not boring or annoying, it just isn't particularly entertaining.

Mainly it's a look at the Zodiac killer's doings and how they might have affected the detectives and their families who investigated the crimes. Serious, thoughtful, not exciting - there simply wasn't enough information to work with. No big clues about the Zodiac's identity, no major show of new evidence, zip, zilch, nada.

They could have at least livened it up with some sex scenes or grisly aspects of the murders (why else are we watching this stuff?) but that didn't happen. No half-naked bimbos running around screaming, no bloody special effects. The lead detective seemed somewhat frustrated by the lack of evidence, I was hoping for a good S&M sex scene between him and his wife, but no luck there.

Looks like the Zodiac got away again - this time from the director.

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.

"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?

Although David Finchers look at the infamous Zodiac Killer is due in a few months, Alexander Buckleys version need not be ashamed of comparison. That's what can be predicted in advance, since Buckleys film looks at the Zodiac killings from the perspective of one involved policeman's family; Fincher is hardly to repeat that. Buckleys approach, at first, is very realistic - not surprising, since the incidents he portrays are historic facts. Later on, he fuses facts and fictions, which weakens the picture a bit. But in general, he sticks to the facts and manages to fit them into interesting 92 minutes. No gore here, only a few harsh visuals, but still disturbing. In total, it succeeds in creating a sense for the madness and absurdness behind the killings. Recommended for those looking for a thrill of quality.

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.