The Zodiac

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")

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.

Anyone who has spent any time at all studying the Zodiac murders will find this movie to be dull and pointless. They "hollywood-ize" the premise of the movie, while in the mean time, they cut out all the twists that make this story so intriguing. -They made no mention of Robert Graysmith (a very integral part to the investigation) -They didn't even attempt to give any history on the victims (especially that of Darlene Ferrin- that is of utmost importance) Overall, I feel that the movie can only be enjoyed by those who don't know better. It is on the other hand unfortunate, that the majority of people who watched this movie do not know better and believe that what was shown is the truth. I am looking forward to the 2007 "Zodiac" coming out. Hopefully they will get a few more things right.

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 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.