2 years after watching Ulli Lommel's would-be adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Tomb," I started to watch this on Fearnet a few weeks ago just to see how much worse he could be at directing. I couldn't survive even 10 minutes of it, it was so bad. Let's get to my reasons:
1. The Zodiac's low vocabulary. He kept calling some guy through one of his letters, "fat f**k." Talk about originality. Then there's when he calls the prostitute a bundle of female slurs (I don't remember them all) put into one big word.
2. The Zodiac's voice. In most Zodiac-killer based movies, there's something ominous about his voice. And yet, this guy's voice is so calm.
3. The opening title card and credits. Lommel CLEARLY has no knowledge on his favorite serial killer. ZK killed 5 people, not 12. And the opening credits with a bunch of photos of corpses were flashing across the screen. I think I was gonna have a seizure.
4. His appearance. This movie's supposed to take place in 2004, right? Three decades and five years after the Zodiac's last victim. And apparently, he's a bald man in his 20's or 30's. Although his face was blurred like it was COPS or something (why not use the hood instead?), I could see that he was clearly too young to be the San Francisco Zodiac Killer. Then again, I didn't see the whole thing, so I could be wrong.
5. As with The Tomb, the terrible lighting.
I regret EVER finding out about Ulli and his terrible movies. Apparently, he found god or something, so I can only hope we won't ever be seeing his horror "movies" ever again.
Oh, and like someone below said, anyone who rates this over a one is nuts.
Score: -10/10 (I'd rate it that if it were possible)
1. The Zodiac's low vocabulary. He kept calling some guy through one of his letters, "fat f**k." Talk about originality. Then there's when he calls the prostitute a bundle of female slurs (I don't remember them all) put into one big word.
2. The Zodiac's voice. In most Zodiac-killer based movies, there's something ominous about his voice. And yet, this guy's voice is so calm.
3. The opening title card and credits. Lommel CLEARLY has no knowledge on his favorite serial killer. ZK killed 5 people, not 12. And the opening credits with a bunch of photos of corpses were flashing across the screen. I think I was gonna have a seizure.
4. His appearance. This movie's supposed to take place in 2004, right? Three decades and five years after the Zodiac's last victim. And apparently, he's a bald man in his 20's or 30's. Although his face was blurred like it was COPS or something (why not use the hood instead?), I could see that he was clearly too young to be the San Francisco Zodiac Killer. Then again, I didn't see the whole thing, so I could be wrong.
5. As with The Tomb, the terrible lighting.
I regret EVER finding out about Ulli and his terrible movies. Apparently, he found god or something, so I can only hope we won't ever be seeing his horror "movies" ever again.
Oh, and like someone below said, anyone who rates this over a one is nuts.
Score: -10/10 (I'd rate it that if it were possible)