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.

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.

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.

Calling himself as "The Zodiac", this mysterious San Francisco serial killer confounded investigators for over 30 years with weird threatening letters and random killings in the outskirts of Vallejo, Lake Berryessa, Riverside and probably in Gaviota (Santa Barbara County).

One of his most famous quotation was: "I am waiting for a good movie about me". He can repeat it again, because this film will frown in every person who sees it.

If you know about the regretful work about this unsolved case you should know that this would provide sufficient material for a tauting and suspenseful thriller but... that was plain wrong after seeing this.

The movie explores the seemingly random shootings and stabbings of the killings and it began well with a well-shot scene of the 1st murder but then, it goes all down the toilet. The action is guided to focus on the lead investigator on the case and his annoying son. The movie then runs between the detective, his son, his wife, a reporter and the killer. It's a mixture of police business, killings and monotonous domestic drama making the characters seem dull, gloomy and depressing. Unfortunately for the Zodiac fans this shows an extremely inert directing and apathetic editing and the ending just slams into nothing... so you'd better wait for the, most probably, upcoming excellent and thrilling movie that'll be directed by David Fincher next months called Zodiac(2006).

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.