Curse of the Zodiac (2007 Video) User Reviews

Horrible Straight-To-Video Piece Of Junk

[ccthemovieman-1 · 22 May 2007]

Well, I was warned by the saleslady at the video store that this movie was horrible, but I ignored her and rented it anyway. The Zodiak killer has always fascinated me, especially since the guy was never caught.

However, it only took 10 minutes for me to see what a piece of crap this movie is, just a low-budget, poorly-acted, ridiculously-profane and pretentious filmed. Half of the shots are sideways! I guess the filmmaker was trying to be inventive but you had to turn your head sideways to watch a good part of the film! How stupid is that?

There is nothing appealing about this, unless you like to hear the phrase "you fat f--k!" every other sentence. This is straight-to-video garbage, folks. The best thing about it is the cover of the DVD. No wonder there are no reviews in here concerning this film. They fact they couldn't find reviewers anywhere to put a testimony on the back of the DVD box should have warned me to stay away.

what a waste of my time and money

[mecrens · 26 May 2007]

This has to be the worst movie I've ever seen. The only reason to watch it to the end is to see if there is going to be a scene worth watching. The camera work is absolutely terrible. No acting. I have yet to see any entertainment value at all.

The only thing good about the movie is that its much shorter than most movies.

DO NOT CONFUSE THIS MOVIE WITH OTHER ZODIAC MOVIES you will waste your time and movie. If you get a copy as a free gift, find something useful for the disk, hang from the rear view mirror, use for fishing just don't watch it

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

[Captainbabba · 1/10 · 19 May 2007]

I have seen a lot of bad movies in my day but this has to be one of the worst. There was actually parts of the movie I was laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes. Which is okay except this movie was not meant to be a comedy. The acting is down right terrible, the lighting and camera work have the feel of a porn movie, and the movie tries to have a whole trippy feeling to it that just comes across annoying. The main plot behind this movie is a young women has nightmares(while awake) that sees the Zodiac killer in action. Thats pretty much it. The Zodiac killer may have been real but this movie is based on no actual facts. He seems like he likes to kill women who just broke up with their boyfriends. The Jake Gyllenhaal part from a much better Zodaic movie is played by a guy who looks like Newman from Seinfield only on coke. If you want a good laugh and your high you might enjoy this movie otherwise stay away.

wtf?!

[pgillespie · 1/10 · 15 March 2009]

This movie looks like it was shot by a bunch of film school students. I can say this because I was a film student and the crap I churned out looked very similar, though I would hope my stuff had a bit more entertainment value.

Turned it off after less than 10 minutes. Probably less than 5. Lucky for me, though, as I got this free from the library - I know there are many more people out there who weren't so fortunate.

If you've got a consumer video camera, which is what this movie looks like it was shot on, shoot a video of a dog taking a crap and then watch that; you'll be more entertained, and there will be much more creativity.

One sad, sad, excuse for a film.

[TheMightyBane · 1/10 · 17 October 2009]

Roughly one month ago today, I decided to watch a film by the name of "Curse of the Zodiac". Little did I know, I would be making the biggest mistake of my life...

The title of the "movie" pretty much sums everything up in itself. I felt cursed for every painstaking second I spent watching this disgraceful, feces encrusted, piece of trash. Words simply cannot explain how terrible this movie is. Let's put it this way; if "Curse of the Zodiac" were to be handed in as an elementary school drama assignment, it would get roughly 0%. I didn't understand a single thing that was going on, probably because most of the shots were upside down, sideways or blurred... Not to mention that I wanted to puke every time I heard "The Man With the Blurred Face" (or I presume, The Zodiac) say, "You fat f*ck". As I mentioned earlier, the director, if there even was one, failed miserably with his horrid use of sideways/upside down shots, and choice of scenery. At one point, you see a roughly 15 year old girl acting poorly, trying to talk to her (estimated) 30 year old husband about how his day went by candle light in the middle of the day (or I presume the middle of the day based on the fact THAT YOU CAN SEE LIGHT COMING FROM THEIR CLOSED BLINDS). The truly astounding part about this scene is the fact that you can see the girl reading her lines, which she placed on the table in front of her! This scene sets the tone of the film, and sets the bar very low for future kindergarten drop outs that aspire to become directors, and hobos with cameras. I only watched 10 minutes of this monstrosity, and I am still suffering deeply from the after effects of this failed, horror-porno.

In conclusion, I have come to realize that watching this movie is like getting tarred and feathered: it's embarrassing, painful, and leaves permanent mental, and physical scars. I still have to attend "CotZ Anonymous" meetings to forget those dreadful 10 minutes, and would like to take this opportunity to warn ANYONE who ever even thinks about watching this film, not to do so. Please, I don't want anyone to end up in as much pain as I did.

Best of luck,

The Curse of the Zodiac Warner.

The Curse of the Zodiac

[eilene530 · 1/10 · 11 June 2007]

The Curse of the Zodiac-- Curse words are all he knows, the monologue surpasses the number of times the "F" word was used in Goodfella's in the first five minutes.

I thought this movie would be more interesting, I wish I would have read the reviews on this site before renting. I've seen some pretty bad movies but none worse than this one so far. I don't think it's ever going to end. You would think that the premonitions would come at least once before the murder not all of them during the murders. Drugs, prostitutes, and hippies and I still haven't heard one decent line of dialogue.

The film work reminds me of Blair Witch.

This is definitely one sad excuse for a film.

Horrible Movie

[courtney_autumn · 1/10 · 22 January 2008]

This is the worst movie I have ever seen. A complete waste of time and money.

When I rented this movie I was trying to rent Zodiac and ended up with this crap.

It looks like a bad Indie Film. The dialog is horrible and so is the camera work.

The movie is hard to tell it is about a true story. Its like someones bad dream after an acid trip. Very hard to watch. My husband and I turned off the movie after 30 min. Couldn't take another minute of it.

NEVER WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!

There Are No Facts Presented....

[cantrelayne · 1/10 · 22 June 2007]

This film has no factual basis whatsoever.

If you are intending to see this movie as an intro to what actually happened, forget it.

The film does not depict what actually happened. The actual victims and actual case is not even remotely depicted and the 'killer's' voice-over during the film has nothing to do with anything the actual killer said.

Apparently the people who made this film did not listen to the technical advisers they had access to.

The actual murderer used the term "fat as*es" in one letter one time.

The SFPD did NOT close the case as the movie 'stated' as fact in 2004, they have put it in an "inactive" status. It is not the same thing. That is just the beginning of the lies this film spews.

This movie is a waste of time, money, effort and film.

This movie sucked

[wayne_eames · 1/10 · 26 August 2007]

I had to give this movie a 1 because there were no options lower. This is the worst movie I've seen since Dr. T and the Women. The photography was terrible. The script sounded like it was written by a sex offender with tourette syndrome. I've seen porn with better plots, scripts and acting. I remember the hype over Zodiac (2005) and got confused when I saw this on the clearance bin. This is one of the 4 for $30 movies I got. You couldn't pay me to try to watch this movie again. I made it 15 minutes into this piece of crap. I think the people responsible for making this waste of film should be banned from Hollywood. I've seen one other Lions Gate movies and enjoyed them, but after seeing this I will be cautious from here on out when getting another one of their films.

Zodiac Kills Women in Bad Relationships and Audience's Faith in Movies

[sexytail · 1/10 · 10 January 2008]

With "Curse of the Zodiac" director Ulli Lommell rips off David Fincher's "Zodiac" a second time. Like Lommell's other recent horror efforts this is incompetently gory and exploitive. It has all his usual trademarks: shot on cheap video, highly repetitive, over-edited with tons of after-effects to cover up a budget of $0. The opening titles aren't bad though and in the previously stated categories it's not as bad as Lommell's "Black Dahlia", but that's like saying getting shot isn't as bad as burning to death.

This movie focuses on a girl who suffers from psychic episodes which show her the crimes of the Zodiac killer as they happen. Lommell's Zodiac killer is a bald white guy with tattoos on his neck, overdubbed with an annoying German voice. He taunts a writer over the phone who he only called "Fat F***" and mentally taunts the physic which he called "Pretty Girl". The soundtrack is flooded with Zodiac irritating voice, mocking the poorly defined "heroes" with what could be bad poetry.

The movie falls into a pattern of killings spaced by reactions to killings. The victims are almost exclusively women and they are always killed after having an argument with their man. It's as if this is a relationship movie edited together with a slasher movie. In the commentary Lommell claims this is meant to represent tension over women's liberation in the 70s. Until I heard this I didn't realize this was supposed to be set in the 70s, and assumed this was about the killer returning in present day or something equally stupid (Lommell's previous movie "Zodiac Killer" was about a present day copycat to the Zodiac).

Apart from the more puzzling aspects it is never less than obvious that is this is a cheapie. The sound even messes up a couple times during one of the killer's monologues. Many of these are peppered with what feels like hundreds of cuts back to the same couple of shots of the Golden Gate bridge. While it is impressive that they actually shot on location for this piece of crap, the poor use of the locations doesn't help. The acting sucks, of course, and the facts of the case are clumsily passed over in favor of endless boring murders. It feels like this script never had more than one draft.

In the end all I really have to say is Ulli Lommell. This idiot directs crap and only crap. He made "Zombie Nation". He makes fellow countryman Uwe Boll look good! His movies, like this one, were all made to confuse unobservant people in video stores to rent them thinking they're something else. But, honestly, if you're really dumb enough to rent this thinking it's a movie as good as the David Fincher "Zodiac" then you deserve to watch a movie as bad as Ulli Lommell's "Curse of the Zodiac".

Awful

[Michael_Elliott · 27 February 2008]

Curse of the Zodiac (2007)

BOMB (out of 4)

Ulli Lommel once again visits the notorious Zodiac Killer but I'm really not sure if this film is suppose to show the actual story or something connected to today's times. The film tells some story of a stripper who has dreams, which eventually happen to be the murders of the Zodiac. It seems Lommel is always trying to top himself by making worse and worse movies and this one here is among one of the worst I've seen from him. The majority of the movie has the stripper talking to her pimp about her dreams, which grows tiresome by the ten minute mark. The Zodiac also narrates the story and this leads to some of the worst dialogue I've heard in my life. Apparently the Zodiac likes to call people "fat fu*ks" as that term is used at least fifty times throughout the film.

The Films of Ulli Lommel (The D.T.V. Series)

[Captain_Couth · 7/10 · 14 July 2007]

Curse of the Zodiac (2007) is an updated/re-imagined version of the Zodiac murders that plagued the San Francisco Bay Area during the late 60's and mid 70's. While not as good as his other real horror genre, the movie is entertaining none the less. A mysterious psycho is taunting a useless detective whilst a poor lady relives the brutal and sadistic killings of a madman calling himself "The Zodiac". Can these two work together to stop this killer or will they wind up feeling his unrelenting fury?

Why do people hate on Ulli Lommel? They talk about his bad directing skills (which is not true) and his films have horrific and ghastly murders. Well, murder is horrible and disgusting. That's the whole point of it. Herr Lommel loathes Hollywood's sanitized and glamorized views of murder on screen. They should be disgusting and stomach churning. No, you can not go out and have a few beers with your friends and make a movie with a $200 Camcorder and make a better film. It takes a lot of skill and talent (which he has) to make a decent movie. This is not the "worse movie ever made" either. I would rather watch some DTV film than some lame and overblown $150 million dollar one any day.

Cheers,

Possibly the Worst Film Ever Made

[gavin6942 · 1/10 · 21 September 2014]

"Genre guru" Ulli Lommel directs this horror film about the infamous Zodiac killer. Though decades have passed since the multiple murderer held the state of California hostage with fear, the mystery of his identity has never been solved.

Typically the number 3566 does not signify any special landmark. However, as this is the 3,566th review I have written, it is an honor (albeit a dubious one) that I can finally designate a film the worst film ever made. Without hyperbole or exaggeration, this is truly the worst film ever constructed. No surprise it comes from Ulli Lommel (who wrote, directed, produced, scored and shot it). His catalog of films is pretty terrible, top to bottom.

The film is so bad I hardly feel the need to justify my saying it is bad. The acting? Meh. The camera work? Dizzying and atrocious. Five minutes into this and ritual seppuku seemed like a good idea. The previous contender for worst film ever, "Hell's Threshold", now seems rather tame and fun.

If there is anything nice to say, it seems that Lommel made a solid effort in trying to make the film look like it was shot in San Francisco. I mean, you know, throw in a gratuitous stock image of the Golden Gate Bridge every few minutes and where else could you be?

Pathetic movie!!

[ccotter444 · 1/10 · 8 June 2007]

I totally agree! This movie was garbage! One horrible detail is the fact that a lot of the scenes are shown at a 90 degree angle. The ground or floor is over on the right side of the screen. It is like a stupid camera man turned the camcorder to a verticle angle while recording, then when they were editing the film and saw that the image was on it's side, they just said "So what? It will be fine that way." It definitely does look like some 9th graders made it for a high school project - and did a horrible job. The acting is so fake and stupid. The plot is also very very very boring. This is seriously the worst movie I have ever seen! They also say the F word a lot more than any other movie. The killer says "...you fat F***" or similar things hundreds of times. One last point, the gore... when the Zodiac kills a person, they always show a disgusting view of the dead body with a lot of blood. They show things like the person's brains blown out onto the pavement next to her head or the killer sticks his fingers in the bullet holes in the persons head and plays with it! Gross!

Where can you join the Curse of the Zodiac support group?

[charlytully · 1/10 · 30 January 2009]

I had a root canal (four-root molar) the morning I rented this movie. Feeling totally awful, and acting under the theory that if you get stung by a wasp when you're up on the roof shingling you can reduce the sting's pain by hammering your thumb, I checked out this flick that evening. Its 1.2 of 10 IMDb rating is the lowest I have ever run across (apparently a film needs more than 500 "votes" in order to make this site's rankings of "worst movies of all-time"). Guess what? I actually was distracted from my dental anguish a smidgin (though the Screen Actors Guild will need to conduct a double blind study to scientifically verify whether "Ullicillan" will work for the general public). Unfortunately, my wife envied the lady commenting here who joined her husband in ejecting COZ after 30 minutes. I really pity the bloke who paid $7.50 to buy this on DVD and then quit watching after a quarter hour, and wonder if the glutton for punishment who EVEN LISTENED TO THE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTARY had to be distracted from worse pain than mine (hopefully "sexytail from Washington" hadn't been stung by 10 wasps, as were the nuns in Ken Russell's 1971 masterpiece THE DEVILS!). For what it's worth, I'll correct a few misconceptions included in the other comments.

That "annoying German voice" (to use sexytail's description) who talks like a "a sex offender with Tourette's Syndrome" (to paraphrase Wayne Eames) and "overdubs" COZ actually is a drunken director Ulli Lommel (Rick van Cleef is the lame pseudonym he slapped on the credits as the "Voice of the Zodiac") muttering to himself in the editing room about how little usable footage he obtained for his $2 million (!) budget. In other words, he beats us to it when he keeps calling HIMSELF a "fat f**k" as this garbage unspools. Though Ulli gives himself a writing credit, it's also obvious nearly every scene is poorly improvised by people who would have been better off in acting class than in front of Lommel's camera. (If you need further proof, just check out the second of two scenes in the five minutes of so-called "bonus footage," where the pimp in the cat-in-the-hat head gear yanks out his cell phone to wrap up his improvisation, and you can hear "fat f**k" Ulli's voice in the background moaning "they didn't have cell phones in the 1970's.")

P.S.--And to Sir Joseph (the only one of the 13 previous commenters here who scored COZ higher than a "1"; Joe gave this mess a "7," leading one to wonder if any of the previous movies he's seen are even legal in the United States), send me that "$200 camcorder" and my circle will make something a thousand time more interesting than COZ!

One of the crappiest movie I have seen!

[gautham-pallapa · 1/10 · 24 June 2007]

Horrible. It starts off with some juvenile incantations of swear words... thats right .... the voice of the Zodiac thinks that it is very perverse to use schoolboy swears without any meaning! There is no acting seen here, the cinematography ( if you can really call it that!) is almost like a camcorder attached to a rabid dog! Utter waste of time. The zodiac is almost made a farce in this movie by calling some weird person (supposed journalist) who is interrogating the murders. The zodiac keeps calling him up and taunting him with bland swears (fatf***) after every murder. that swear word is used almost as a period at the end of every statement. The journalist is supposed to be a chain smoker and makes a horrible breathing sound at the intake of every drag on his cigarette. In one scene, the zodiac calls from an old dial based phone booth in San Fransisco. I never knew that they existed still. And the final character is some weird looking female who can picture the murders before they actually occur and she tries to tie up with the journalist to catch the Zodiac ... By this time, I almost died of boredom and quit watching the movie. If anyone has the patience to watch this movie, please tell me what happens after the first half hour.

Curse = Wasted

[TheSilentBlur · 1/10 · 3 July 2012]

Watched this online and couldn't stand its weird camera angels, editing, and its repetitive montages that add nothing to the plot. The way the final film is put together just makes the viewer feel nauseated- at least for me. The film is supposed to take place in the 1970s but with its low budget, it might be easy to forget we're in the present day since you can clearly see modern day cars. I seen student films that are better than this!

Also, the memorable (in a very bad way) part of this film is the portrayal of the Zodiac killer. Sure, the killer was actually around back then in real life. But in this film, all he keeps saying to his victims are "fat f*ck" literally every few seconds whenever he talks!!!!!!! It's like the filmmaker allowed improvisation, and it wasn't done right. Also, the Zodiac killer wears clothing that makes him look like mercenary guy who stands out in the open. They could've made the character blend in more!!

The events in this film have nothing to do with the real life events; it is all fiction. The acting is terrible and the plot is ridiculous.

Wrapping this up, DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!! Especially if you have some sort of motion sickness when it comes to tilted camera shots and speed up images..

Flashiness

[artrambler-ru_96 · 1/10 · 15 June 2011]

As I said earlier, I've always been interesting biography of American serial killers, especially I was interested in the Zodiac. He was mysterious, brutal and brilliant. It was never caught (probably). We have before us an example of how not to make movies about serial killers. It's just disgusting film, I absolutely did not like it. After viewing, I had a desire to give head to anyone who took it. Plot: Is he here? From an interesting and mysterious stories Ulli Lommel made some vague blur. Who knows, I remind, Ulli Lommel directed this under-painting. This man just turned on the theme of serial killers, especially, he loves every heresy to do with biographies. For example, the movie "В.Т.К.killer »(not with Kane Hodder), such a stupid and dull movie I have seen. The plot in this movie develops slowly, 82 minutes well, very boring. Yes there are murder, but they do not save, they look so primitive. You would have heard the voice of the zodiac in this movie, it's just awful. As if pensioner aged 167 years begins to read the book. By a single vote Zodiac is no longer wish to watch. There is nothing to not like it. Where all the actors were chosen? At the studio where they filmed porn movies? Well, looks like it. The most charismatic character here is ... a spectator who tries to watch this nonsense entirely. The viewer has to show all his willpower to overpower and as soon forget this nonsense. The voice of the Zodiac, I have already complained. But that's not all. There are many disadvantages. Other features: I think I misspoke. Well, features, and drawbacks. The film was shot in 2.000.000 dollars. But for that kind of money you can withdraw a masterpiece. In my if I give the old video camera and actors from the studio Asylum, I removed the better. Of boredom, I said about boring dialogs and disgusting characters already mentioned. About lousy voice Zodiac I said. For example, a detective film base quite lame, I can not. Here, everything is bad.

It was after this movie I hated and Ulli Lommel. He's just lack of talent, why he takes? To annoy the audience? Probably. Let removes trash, but do not be touching biographies of American serial killers.

It's stupid, ridiculous, boring, ugly and depressing. That impression will leave behind this film. Do not waste your time on this movie. It is better to look at the Zodiac in 2005, well, or a version of Fincher. That's really good films.

Couldn't watch it all.

[NightlySun · 1/10 · 10 July 2011]

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)

Curse This Horrid Abomination

[saint_brett · 1/10 · 10 January 2019]

Anyone unfortunate enough to bare witness to this monstrosity, and endure its torment, deserves accreditation & accolades for doing so. (You're brave.) It's 2019 - the future - and this "movie" hasn't generated too many positive reviews. Someone gave this abortion 7/10 on IMDb. I'm guessing that person was involved with the production of this annihilation? I can't add too much that hasn't already been stated prior to this review but I watched this last Saturday and not only did I watch it but I watched it in fast forward. Besides - the disc was damaged and you had to keep pressing play for every new chapter. (As if this movie wasn't painful enough.) This movie is the equivalent of a P.O.W. being tortured with Chinese Water Torture or that other Thousand Paper Cuts method and then being dipped into salt & vinegar, or worse. In all seriousness it's times like this I wish the human brain had its own Royal Doulton flush system to erase bile from one's memory. (Remember those etch-a-sketch drawing pads you had as a kid where you just went across & back and it was all clear again?) I don't think lobotomies are preformed anymore this day & age but if you're subjected to garbage like this then it's mandatory that a brain cleanse is required like a body detox. (How - I don't know?) If you dare watch Curse of the Zodiac then be prepared to be scarred for life. It's not one of those "it's so bad it's good" movies like Troll 2 it's just plain bad in the worst way imaginable. (Who's laughing?) What a waste of electricity. What a waste of time. Believe what everyone else has said elsewhere. I've seen some diabolical movies in my time and my top 5 are as follows - Warlords; Things (1989,) Night of the Dribbler, Dumpster Baby & Redeemer: Son of Satan. Where does Curse of the Zodiac fit in? It's up there with Dark Harvest 2: The Maize The Movie; Skullduggery, The Demon Lover, Graveyard Disturbance and Santa Claus V.S. The Zombies. The director of this, Ulli Lommel, should be made to apologize. You've been warned.

Very Disappointing!

[Sylviastel · 2/10 · 14 March 2012]

I didn't like this film from the first few minutes. The Zodiac killer's voice just repeats vulgarity throughout the film. The story about Zodiac style killings in San Francisco haunting a young woman in the city. She has dreams about his killings on the night it happens. The director must be out of film film school because this film looks amateurish from the start. The fast flashes of the city, bloody scenes, don't really have an impact on me. The cast is barely recognizable and unfamiliar. I don't blame the cast but the poor writing and vision into making this film worth watching in the first place. The victims aren't sympathetic to begin with. The psychic dreamer and the San Francisco writer team up but to no avail to solve the identity of Zodiac. If this was supposed to help those of us interested in the Zodiac killer, this film is quite a disappointment. There is nothing to really salvage the film at all. The main characters are the killer and the dreamer who we don't know their names. The final scenes where we read about Natasha Baynes and the Zodiac killer is useful but too late. They would have been more useful in the beginning. I would have revised the script and casted more experienced actors and actresses or direct them better.

Beware of lame piece of tripe.

[michaelRokeefe · 26 May 2007]

Ulli Lommel's reputation as a writer/directer definitely isn't enhanced with this waste of time. A Zodiac ripoff; cheaply made with horrid acting and sloppy nerve wrecking cinematography. Supposedly based on the serial killer that terrorized northern California during the sixties and seventies. The use of cryptic symbols held the police and media at bay bringing much attention to the Zodiac killer, especially since his identity is still unknown. There is obvious proof of no honest research and it doesn't take too long into the movie before you realize it is obnoxious, profane and disrespectful of the viewer's intelligence. Like toilet tissue...disposable. Then there is the nauseating voice of the Zodiac, Rick Van Cleef. Brave souls claiming to act: Cassandra Church, Jack Quinn, Victoria Ullman, Colette Claire and Lee Mercer.

please stop

[burton611 · 1/10 · 11 December 2013]

Whose idea was it to let Ulli Lommel make serial killer movies? His movies offer little information about the events that happened, lack character, character development, and are generally tasteless. His portrayal of killers are very one dimensional with over-usage of swear words. He also offers little insight to what people and cities were going through. And while we never really found out who the real Zodiac was, he was not bald with decodable symbol tattoos on his neck. Another criticism, the setting is too modern. In general, his movies do a bad job of bringing you back in time, which is somewhat insulting to his own age and experience. I don't feel like putting as much effort in this review as Ulli puts into his movies (not much), but he really should just stop.

Fictional, Ludicrous, Idea of Zodiac's Mindset

[indigo-silhouette · 1/10 · 19 January 2014]

Let's be frank: the Zodiac was crazy alright, but crazy like a fox. He hunted people, and did so effectively, eluding law enforcement to this day. A lot of people have their theories regarding who he was and why he may have committed these homicides, but to date not a one has been able to get a real handle on exactly WHO he was and WHY he did what he did and, most importantly, why he stopped killing (if indeed he had). He is Sixties' Jack the Ripper.

This film puts words in his mouth that are totally out of context for how he may have been. According to all accounts, the man was precise, and very cryptic in his messages. He wore dark clothing, fully covered from head to toe; Zodiac was a killer elite...psychotic, most likely. The period dress is all wrong...the acting bites. The only part worth watching: the opening shots..the latticework, if you will. That part was genius.

Awful

[noahmilomatt · 1/10 · 27 August 2014]

OK guys this is where I draw the line at absolute crap movies. This movie doesn't even deserve a rating of 1. I like almost every horror movie too but this I can't even give the storyline because I don't even think there is one. The lighting the screenplay and everything else about this movie just stinks. I can't believe someone would actually release this garbage in stores like seriously. I'm not even picky about horror movies at all and usually the cheesier the better but this is just downright awful garbage poop. Don't even waste your time renting it because you'll regret even outing this movie in the DVD player. This was only 2 bucks and I'm not getting rid of it because I'm a collector but if you're not and you see this in the store. Take a poop on it and flush it down the stinking toilet because that's where it belongs. I'll be writing other reviews so piece out for now!