The Zodiac Killer

First saw this one in the 80s and recommended it to some of my friends. Everyone has enjoyed it so far. The casting, acting, dialogue and sets combine for many hilarious moments. I had to get my own copy of this one.

This low, low budget thriller attempts to seriously cast a light on the reality of serial killers in our society, purporting to be "based on the facts". It soon came in the wake of the real life Zodiac murders that plagued San Francisco in the late 1960s. While obviously it's not nearly as polished or as well known as "Dirty Harry", it is a genuinely interesting curio. This viewer actually thought that the acting wasn't that bad; in fact, it's better than one might ordinarily find in such B level fare.

At first, we follow the day to day activities of two guys: harried mailman Jerry (Hal Reed, "The Doberman Gang") and volatile truck driver Grover (Bob Jones). Jerry comes across as a nice enough, polite enough man to others, while Bob likes to impress women by creating a false identity of a successful businessman. While the characters are somewhat entertaining to watch, they're just not as intriguing as the murder spree that will soon begin in earnest. While the killer will be taunting the authorities and the media with calls and letters, two frustrated detectives, Sgt. Pittman (Ray Lynch) and Officer Heller (Tom Pittman) will try to work the case.

The raw, gritty approach is a plus, although "The Zodiac Killer" might not be trashy or exploitative enough for some viewer tastes. Location shooting is decent; there's sufficient violence and a little bit of gore. At times screenwriters Ray Cantrell and Manny Cardoza and director Tom Hanson create some humour with the material. We see our ego-driven, confident maniac (who's identified sooner in the movie than one might expect) actually kill one woman with her own trunk hood, and another with her own spare tire.

While there's nothing really special here, this makes for some mildly amusing entertainment for seekers of obscure curiosities.

Six out of 10.

This 1971 horror/crime film is really low-budget. The acting is bad and the direction is flat. It doesn't really shed any new insight into the Zodiac case. It basically is just 86 minutes of people getting shot, stabbed, sliced, beaten, and killed in a a variety of bloody ways. Pretty much all the names of the victims have been changed and we know who the killer is early on, and it basically just follows him as he claims his victims. It is pretty boring, has bad music, and lots of cheesy 70s fashions (I just love the part with that guy's wig at the beginning, haha!). The scene with the sunbathers getting stabbed to death in the woods is creepy and bloody, but everything else is laughable. "The Zodiak Killer" is a cheap, low-budget effort that some may like and others may despise.

The Zodiac Killer (1971)

** (out of 4)

San Francisco finds itself under attack due to a string of murders where people are shot for no apparent reason. The film introduces us to a "what if" scenario as we meet several people who may or may not be the serial killer.

It's important to remember that when THE ZODIAC KILLER was released, the city itself was still under terror from the real thing. Obviously this has exploitation written all over it but one might be shocked that director Tom Hanson doesn't go over-the-top with the sleaze and instead it tries to take a serious approach on the subject. On the whole this isn't the best movie ever made but it features enough to make it worth viewing for fans of the genre.

What I enjoy most about the film is that it perfectly captures the time that it is set. There have been a lot of movies that tackled the subject but this here is the only one that takes place where the crimes happened. There's a surreal nature to the film that works extremely well and I thought the atmosphere was quite good. You really do feel as if you're watching a documentary on the real Zodiac because of how good the setting is. The film also benefits from some memorable death scenes. None of them, with the exception of a knife attack, are all that graphic but at the same time they are memorable.

With that said, there are some major flaws throughout the picture. The biggest is the fact that the film really drags at 85-minutes. The pacing of the movie is quite poor and it just drags to the point where you'll be wanting to scream for them to speed things up. The performances are also rather poor to say the least and some of the dialogue is even worse. One could also argue that the film doesn't have the greatest of stories but at the same time you have to give them credit for making a film in hopes of catching a real killer!

Wow. This is a keeper. Loosely based on the Zodiac's reign of terror, this laugh-out-loud horror-thriller fully satisfies the right type of viewer. While the acting is the source for most of the hilarity, there are scenes that actually provide some surreal, creepy moments. That's sometimes hard for filmmakers on $1.05 budget. This holds up to repeated viewings and never fails to entertain. What we need is a new film about the Zodiac killings, probably some of the most interesting, yet sadly, unsolved crimes of the last century. This release from Academy is misspelled as THE ZODIAK KILLER, so take that in consideration when looking for around for it.