Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Lechuguilla 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.

buiger This movie is based on a very interesting premise which promises a great deal. A true story about a serial killer who appears to have murdered over 20 people and has never been caught is a gold mine... Unfortunately the filmmakers deliver very little. At first glance, it seems as if the motion picture has ambitions, but then very soon we see that the acting is below average, the production is shabby, and most subplots are started but then simply forgotten along the way. And then the final let down, the ending. As far as the ending is concerned, I have only one question... Where is the ending anyway?Skip this one, it's a waste of time.

Coventry With already a handful of films on the topic since the year 2000, including a big blockbuster production directed by David Fincher and starring Jake Gyllenhaal, the Zodiac killer suddenly and undeservedly grew out to become one of the most popular real-life serial killers to revolve horror/thriller movies on. I say undeservedly, because the actual facts in the case really weren't that fascinating or world shocking. Okay, obviously, every serial killer case is serious and disturbing but throughout history there honestly were serial killer cases that form much more compelling movie material. The Zodiac Killer story is mainly legendary because the crimes were never solved and because the whole thing escalated into a giant media circus, but strictly speaking the killer didn't make that many victims and his modus operandi wasn't that unusual. Just because the killer was never apprehended and the authorities never fully discovered the whole truth behind his personality and motivations, Hollywood scriptwriters have fewer sources to base their movies on. So in addition to all the letters that were sent to newspaper offices and the forensic reports of the confirmed victims, the films inevitable contain a lot of assumptions and fictional sub plots. In "The Zodiac", for example, there's a sequence in which the killer (filmed from over his shoulder) observes a waitress in a coffee bar and slowly follows the teenage son of the police detective in charge of the investigation down a street in his car. These are sequences that undeniably increase the suspense, but clearly they can never lead anywhere otherwise the portrayal of the facts aren't completely accurate anymore. Even more than in other 'based on true story' movies, you know exactly how each and every single movie about the Zodiac Killer will end: with a written epilogue message stating that the killer is still at large or, in the meantime, died a free man. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that "The Zodiac", in spite of its unsurpassable restrictions and tendency towards boredom, is a bad or even passable film. Quite the contrary, I was pleasantly surprised about how stylish and anti-sensational this movie is. Director Alexander Bulkley remains focused on the "good" characters and how the vile acts of the serial killer slowly drifts them apart and drives them crazy. The story closely follows the obsessive investigation of the ambitious young inspector Matt Parish and how the lack of progress negatively affects his relationship with his wife and teenage son. Whilst Parish desperately examines dead leads, the Zodiac killer cheerfully sends long letters to the San Francisco Chronicles to reveal details and clues about the murders that only he could know. It's all very interesting and adequately made, but in the end, you watched and listened to 90 minutes of content that informed you about nothing at all… And you already knew that beforehand, too!

disdressed12 this little movie was released in 2005,and it is actually pretty good.there are some tense and chilling moments and some decent acting on the whole.i really like Robin Tunney as an actress .i think she is very talented,but she seemed a bit too weepy for my taste,in this movie.the movie is based on the the Zodiac murders of the late 60's.i'm sure the filmmakers took a bit of dramatic license for effect,but from what iv'e read of the case,i think most of the relevant info remained intact.the movie is very dramatic at times,although not boring.in fact,in my opinion,the movie is much more story and character driven than many similar movie in thew genre.we get some insight into a few of the characters,though not a lot.nevertheless,the movie is very engaging and compelling.to me,the most disturbing moments are hearing the Zodiac as he taunts the police.these scenes really sent shivers down my spine..all in all,this movie is quite good.i haven't seen the newest version directed by David Fincher,so i can't compare the two.for me the 2005 release of "The Zodiac" is a strong 8/10