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!!
34 Reviews
Even worse than it looked
hadmatter18 July 2005
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.
Unbelievable garbage!
analog41118 September 2005
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst "film" I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.
Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.
Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.
Horoscope says you will tear your eyes out in pain
juliankennedy239 October 2006
Zodiac Killer. 1 out of 10. Worst acting ever. No really worst acting ever. David Hess (Last House on the Left
. No the one from the seventies
. Rent it it's really good) is the worst of the bunch (Pretty stiff competition but he is amazingly god-awful.) One would be hard pressed to find a home movie participant with such an awkward camera presence. The film actually screeches to a stunning painful halt when he is on the screen.
Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry . No the one from the seventies . Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up.
Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry . No the one from the seventies . Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up.
A 10 year old could have shot this in his back yard with a VHS camcorder (and it looks like they did)
guerillaentertainment20 December 2005
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.
worst movie i have ever seen!
actr20628 June 2007
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.
Criminal!
korlat21 November 2006
This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.
Worst Movie ever put to video
tapedit28 August 2005
I can't believe that this movie even made it to video, and that video rental stores are willing to put it on their shelves. I literary asked for a refund. Take away the fact that the movie has no historical truth it, and it is still the worse movie ever found in a video store. It is not even good enough to be called a B rated movie. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie. Just listing to the voice over and the horrible music made me sick. Anyone involved with this movie should be pulled from the union, gives the industry a black mark, but after watching most of this movie I really don't think anyone involved is a union member.
Garbage
fatbast-19 September 2005
Awful, awful, awful.
A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.
I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?
Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.
A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.
I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?
Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.
86 Minutes of Torture! (Spoiler)
mrdewoody17 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual "warning" on the film. When it started the following "warning" was displayed: "The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic." I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: "I'm at the glue factory." It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big "twist" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an "army of one" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at "Satanic Worship" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great "computer hacker" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.
So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!
So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!
Complete Junk Or Satirical Genius
Crap_Connoisseur5 June 2006
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.
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.
Hilarious
HedBanger48 June 2010
This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. If you are expecting a good horror movie then you will be seriously disappointed as this is probably the most poorly made "film" I have ever seen, but if you're looking for unintentional comedy, then you have the jackpot! My god, anyone who finds low budget flaws to be even remotely amusing will be rolling on the floor while watching this. Where do I even begin? The movie looks like a student film with a 10 dollar budget and the special effects are terrible. The screenplay is completely illogical. The main killer breaks into people's homes by literally walking through their open front door in the middle of the night and never gets any heat from the police. Then the film throws in some war and NAVY clips in an attempt to justify serial killing. Uh....what? But the worst is definitely the acting and the script. With such lines such as "I love old people" and "When i get sick I get horny" delivered by a guy with a terrible toupee who wears the same clothes every single day with a hysterical Russian (?) accent, you can see its impossible to take this thing seriously. So in short, get stoned or get in the mood to watch a truly terrible flick, then rent this little "gem".
Ulli Lommel's Zodiac Killer!!
Captain_Couth3 August 2005
Zodiac Killer (2005) was an interesting film from German born director Ulli Lommel. He directs, produced and co-stars in this latest production. Not only does he manage to make an interesting film on the cheap. But he reaches a new low when Herr Lommel works in footage from nearly his entire film catalog. I have seen film clips from Boogeyman I and II, War Birds, Tenderness of the Wolf, Brain Waves and Cocaine Cowboys (even Andy Warhol makes a cameo from beyond the grave courtesy of this film). Even though he uses plenty of old footage, he works them in well (and very creatively might I add).
The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.
This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why "wink" "wink".) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.
Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans.
The film follows a young man who copies the original Zodiac Killer. he also corresponds with a writer (Ulli Lommel) who originally wrote about the serial killer during the late sixties and early seventies. The writer's friend (David Hess) helps him to try and find this wannabe Zodiac. Can this killer be stopped? Will the writer put two and two together and reclaim some of his old glory? Is David Hess still the man? You'll have to find out for yourself and watch the Zodiac Killer.
This film is NOT about the original Zodiac killer. I have also heard people whine about this film being shot on video. So what. The director's old school artistic style outshines the fact that it's shot on video. My only complaint was the over use of stock footage from Herr Lommel's earlier films (but I understand why "wink" "wink".) Don't believe the hype. This is a gritty and street level horror film. Like the disclaimer in the beginning states, this film does nor glorify murder. You got to like that statement.
Highly recommend for Ulli Lommel fans.
Very good for an amateur...sadly, the film makers were NOT amateurs
planktonrules26 February 2010
Why would anyone want to see this?! If this was a film posted on YouTube by a teenager, I might have applauded the teen in doing so much with his mommy's video camera. I might have also congratulated his family and friends for doing a good job acting. Sadly, it was made by a very experienced film maker and these were, apparently, professional actors--making this a very, very sad film. Sad...and very pathetic, actually. As I said, it has a definite made directly to video look about it. It also has narration and acting that just scream "unprofessionals"--how could this be?! The film is filled with lots of corpses and blood. Normally this would turn me off completely, as I hate ultra-violent films and don't like seeing all that gore. However, given that none of it is that realistic, it's bearable. However, I should warn you that there are a few scenes that are still pretty disturbing. For example, the scene with the kid throwing a radio into a lady's tub and watching her naked and frying is pretty bad. There are also scenes where you can hear the thought of psychos as they fantasize about killing women. With a level of misogyny that is pretty awful. the people who wrote this are pretty sick--like killing women is meant to be for our entertainment.
After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.
Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.
By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.
After a bunch of senseless murders, the film goes to a dining room table--around which are a bunch of goof-balls wearing black hoods WITHOUT eye holes! They are talking, with pride, about all the murders they have committed and chant. It's all very funny, though I am not sure that was the scene's purpose.
Then, the film talks about various sex crimes and killings and even vampirism and cannibalism. Why, I don't know--perhaps because they people made this got off on this sort of crap. And, once again, you see and hear the thoughts and actions of a creepy German-looking man as he tracks down people and kills them.
By the way, considering the film used what I must assume are professional actors, I wondered why so many people were chosen who were clearly Germans. While they tried to act like Americans and the film was supposed to be in California, the accents are STRONG. Perhaps German audiences watched this and marveled at how "realistic" the acting was, but to any American it's obvious these folks ain't their fellow Americans! Considering that there really WAS a zodiac killer (who was never captured), I do wonder why anyone would want to make a "fan film" of sorts for the sick menace?! I mean...was this film meant as a snuff film for pervs? I just can't see anyone else wanting to see this or enjoying it. In fact, I wonder what would motivate anyone to make such a stupid AND offensive film?! Worthless and deserving to be in IMDb's Bottom 100 list.
Unrealistic
phillylilmermaid25 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was almost intolerable to sit through. I can get beyond the fact that it looks like it was shot with a home video camera and that this movie is supposed to span over weeks in time yet the characters do not once change outfits, but the acting broke the 4th wall to pieces for me. I've seen better acting in a 4th grade play. Aside from that the plot is unrealistic. If the man suspected the guy he would have turned him in. I was also heavily disappointed that all the killings were done with a gun what kind of gore is that. That is not a copycat the Zodiac did not kill using just a gun the authorities would have known it wasn't him. Another thing that really bothered me was that they called Disassociative Identity Disorder DSM 4 when that is the name of the book used to diagnose people with mental disorders not the name of the disorder. Overall I think this movie is not the kind of movie that could be done with a low budget at least not as low as they had or they could have made sure they had better actors or more gore. Plenty of people have went the low budget route with out having to use horrible actors look at Easy Rider that had Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson and a low budget.
Literally the worst I've seen
sfilojon25 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says "from the director of the boogeyman" so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what "boogeyman" they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.
ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"
Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.
Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.
...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...
ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"
Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.
Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.
...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch...
Bad
Michael_Elliott27 February 2008
Zodiac Killer (2005)
* (out of 4)
Ulli Lommel strikes back with another "based on true events" film but this one has very little to do with the real case. In this version, Lommel works on the notion that the killer was never captured and he sets the action around a loner who hates to see old people treated bad. With this in mind, the killer starts shooting those who abuse old people via Zodiac style. Once again we've got a fairly interesting idea but the director doesn't do anything with it. Instead of giving us any type of story Lommel just throws out violent scenes and stupid dialogue that doesn't ever say anything. Last House on the Left star David Hess plays a small role and Lommel actually has the biggest part in the film. The rest of the cast members are very poor but that goes well with the poor look, poor style and every other poor thing this film offers. Lommel also crosses the good taste line when he shows countless real crime photos of all sorts of people murdered, ripped in two and even one who who was thrown through his car window.
* (out of 4)
Ulli Lommel strikes back with another "based on true events" film but this one has very little to do with the real case. In this version, Lommel works on the notion that the killer was never captured and he sets the action around a loner who hates to see old people treated bad. With this in mind, the killer starts shooting those who abuse old people via Zodiac style. Once again we've got a fairly interesting idea but the director doesn't do anything with it. Instead of giving us any type of story Lommel just throws out violent scenes and stupid dialogue that doesn't ever say anything. Last House on the Left star David Hess plays a small role and Lommel actually has the biggest part in the film. The rest of the cast members are very poor but that goes well with the poor look, poor style and every other poor thing this film offers. Lommel also crosses the good taste line when he shows countless real crime photos of all sorts of people murdered, ripped in two and even one who who was thrown through his car window.
low budget, but not bad
Darth_Zombie18 July 2005
My wife runs a video store so we try to watch at least part of most every new release to get a feel for it. So The Zodiac Killer arrived at the store and we gave it a shot. We could tell immediately from the look of it that it was a low budget affair and expected the worst. We've turned off so many of these horror cheapies after only a few minutes. However, we were pleasantly surprised. I won't say that it was a work of genius, but the story was very interesting and kept us both intrigued. It had a bit of a low budget cheesiness, and some questionable acting here and there, but personally I would rather see a low budget flick like this that has some originality than a big budget movie that looks great but doesn't deliver anything you haven't seen a hundred times.
The DVD case says it's from the director of The Boogeyman, and it is...just don't confuse the 1980 film "The Boogeyman" with the 2005 film "Boogeyman." A shrewd piece of marketing to be sure. The director of The Zodiac Killer, Ulli Lommel, also stars in it.
I would warn viewers who are of the faint of heart to steer clear of this movie, however. It contains lots of crime scene photos that are very disturbing, and that I have to assume are real. It's got some pretty gruesome stuff in it, even for gore fans.
Overall, I would say this movie is average, but the idea is entertaining and unique. A little more money and better actors would help it out, but as far as low budget horror/thrillers go, it's not bad. It's definitely a cut above most in its class. As I stated earlier, I was pleasantly surprised. Even though it doesn't succeed on every level, it's still more enjoyable than a lot of movies that cost 50 times or more what this one probably cost to produce, and I can appreciate and respect that.
The DVD case says it's from the director of The Boogeyman, and it is...just don't confuse the 1980 film "The Boogeyman" with the 2005 film "Boogeyman." A shrewd piece of marketing to be sure. The director of The Zodiac Killer, Ulli Lommel, also stars in it.
I would warn viewers who are of the faint of heart to steer clear of this movie, however. It contains lots of crime scene photos that are very disturbing, and that I have to assume are real. It's got some pretty gruesome stuff in it, even for gore fans.
Overall, I would say this movie is average, but the idea is entertaining and unique. A little more money and better actors would help it out, but as far as low budget horror/thrillers go, it's not bad. It's definitely a cut above most in its class. As I stated earlier, I was pleasantly surprised. Even though it doesn't succeed on every level, it's still more enjoyable than a lot of movies that cost 50 times or more what this one probably cost to produce, and I can appreciate and respect that.
Crap! Don't waste your time!
sumana-m2121 March 2009
If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!!
Standard B-Movie
slew-212 October 2005
The film is about a young man, Michael, who cares for the elderly. One day he decides to kill some of the relatives of his clients. Around the same time he decides to model his killing after the Zodiac Killer of the 60's. He gets in touch with the author of a book about the Zodiac Killer and they form a friendship. Michael has a gun (aparently the only gun, as it seems to be in the hands of some of the other actors, only not portrayed as the same gun.) and he goes out a-killin'. Original.
This is a great film if you like B movies. I thought the idea of the movie was good, but the editing and the acting really drowned the plot. I thought the 'blood' was just too fake, the lighting was horrible in some places, and the dialog was just too standard. The movie was shot on video, which is okay, but the editing of the film just made for some weird 'Plan 9' scenes. Not a bad movie for fans of the B-movie genre, but if you want something with a bit more polish, move on to something else.
This is a great film if you like B movies. I thought the idea of the movie was good, but the editing and the acting really drowned the plot. I thought the 'blood' was just too fake, the lighting was horrible in some places, and the dialog was just too standard. The movie was shot on video, which is okay, but the editing of the film just made for some weird 'Plan 9' scenes. Not a bad movie for fans of the B-movie genre, but if you want something with a bit more polish, move on to something else.
Hang It Up, Uli
jeffronthi19 December 2007
I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.
This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.
Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.
Thank you.
This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.
Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.
Thank you.
How bad could it be?
glc264 July 2007
Really, really bad. How does a film this bad get made? I kept waiting for some redeeming plot point, interesting camera work, or at least some gratuitous nudity but I got nothing. I had just watched Cabin Fever and I thought it was an train wreck (except for the nudity and Pancakes) but it looks like genius compared to this dreck. The best script doctor in the world couldn't have saved this putrid pile of of stinking poo.
The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.
I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.
The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.
I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.
Ulli Lommel makes a new horror movie
wakingupuk26 January 2007
In the 1980s Ulli Lommel was a real great horror director making the classic Boogeyman and Brainwaves and the less known Olivia which is a good and sexy Jerry Gross production. I have not seen any of Ulli's movies since Boogeyman 2 so I was interested in seeing this and Zombie Nation and I thought that this was the better of the two, although Zombie Nation was quite funny. I have to point out that this is much lower budget than the films I have seen of Ulli back in the eighties but do not let that put you off. Of course some might not like the digital quality but there is still some grisly violence in this movie and a good look at a brutal killer. For a low budget horror film the acting is decent and there was enough gore to keep me pleased.
Awful, bad, stupid, and inane. And those are the good parts.
jscanlan2220 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.
This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.
I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.
This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.
I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.
This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.
I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.
This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.
I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.
A film that aims high, but falls flat, becoming oh so dull
a-twetman25 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
If I didn't know better, i would think that this was made by a bunch of friends using a cheap video camera they borrowed from someone (maybe the directors uncle). Several scenes are shot in what appears to be the directors house or in a public place, any passers by unintentionally becoming extras. I'm not against budget film making per se, in fact, some very good movies are made on next to no budget. However, you need to be talented as a director, and know how to stick to your limits to be able to pull it off. Ulli Lommel doesn't manage to fulfill any of these criteria.
The film is slow paced, which would be OK if it had some interesting characters, had some meaningful message or was in any way suspenseful. All it has is a slew of characters we never get to know much about, nor have any reason to care about; a lot of voice over probably intended to to convey some profound message and make the film poetic, but fails at both; a complete lack of suspense, as the film makers show us too much of the killer; and lastly, a lot of very awkward acting.
Had Mr. Lommel pulled it off, it could have been a psychological thriller, conveying some deep existentialist ideas in the voice over and character development, but it all falls flat and just becomes confusing, and very dull.
The film is slow paced, which would be OK if it had some interesting characters, had some meaningful message or was in any way suspenseful. All it has is a slew of characters we never get to know much about, nor have any reason to care about; a lot of voice over probably intended to to convey some profound message and make the film poetic, but fails at both; a complete lack of suspense, as the film makers show us too much of the killer; and lastly, a lot of very awkward acting.
Had Mr. Lommel pulled it off, it could have been a psychological thriller, conveying some deep existentialist ideas in the voice over and character development, but it all falls flat and just becomes confusing, and very dull.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
