MovieChat Forums > Ulli Lommel's Zodiac Killer (2007) Discussion > Don't see this movie!

Don't see this movie!

posted 19 years ago by sfilojon
25 replies | jump to latest

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. I felt like I was getting dumber watching it. 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 original Zodiac and take place years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did (they talk about him killing people in '74, '75, etc...the actual Zodiac killed in 68,69, and 70). 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...

[–] osiris3657 19 years ago

thanks for the warning, because i also saw the movie on the shelf and wanted to rent it, but decided not to after this review

[–] laurenagreer 19 years ago

I also noticed the DSM-IV reference. In fact... I got so engrossed by how horrible this movie is that I made a whole list of things I hate.

1) The Zodiac killer didn't always use a gun. He liked knives too
2) They said Michael shot someone execution style... when he shot them in the stomach. Execution style is in the back of the head.
3) The DSM-IV mention.
4) He killed ONE person and they already came up with thinking they had a new serial killer, and who was copying a specific person? After one kill... I don't think so.
5) Michael had all these reasons for who he killed... the Zodiac didn't kill for a reason.
6) Okay... the whole secret Zodiac society? What the fletch? And why "From Capricorn to Sagittarius"? If he was going for alphabetical order, shouldn't Cancer come before that? Aries would be first though. And the common order of the Zodiac is Aries to Pisces.
7) The whole satellite tracking through the cell phone was ridiculous. I won't even go into how you actually track cell phones through triangulation when they make calls...
8) The police said Michael's handwriting matched the Zodiac but obviously they weren't the same. They just never cleared that up later.
9) That nerve gas was absolutely ridiculous. It worked way too fast in such a big space and then it just knocked them out? And he still shot them? Pointless.
10) The news anchor. Okay, this one is kind of petty but I've never seen a news anchor like good ol fat Candy Kraus on national television.
11) The whole scene with the pizza girl. First, the outfit. Then, her coming in... and that whol dream thing? Did he kill her? Let her go? What the hell happened with her?
12) Okay... why did every person bleed from the mouth? Plus, when he shot Fisk from such close range there should have been blood spatter all over Michael's face and the bullet probably should have come out the front of Fisk's head. The blood patterns were off on every victim and you don't instantaneously bleed from the mouth, especially when you get shot in the stomach.
13) This is also pettey, but book sales down after 9/11? New one on me.
14) What was with all the "army of one" and army footage? I saw at the end where he had something about if he got turned down for the Marines... I really doubt he'd pass the mental screening. Good thing he had a backup plan.
15) The dialogue... oh, God... the dialogue.
16) Detective Rochelle... First of all, I never saw a detective with diamond earrings and gold chains. And when they went to Michael's house, in broad daylight, with his lights on... what was the point of the flashlight?

Normally I wouldn't go to so much trouble. I just really thought this movie had the chance to be pretty decent because serial killers are generally interesting. However... please save your money. Do NOT watch this.

[–] laurenagreer 19 years ago

My God, I just looked at the voting breakdown and I can't believe anyone went over five... not the mention the few who gave it an 8 or above!

[–] KirbyCycle 18 years ago

definitely. as soon as i heard the DSM-IV reference i was like, ummm what?
anyway, terrible film. this film is also just loaded with inaccuracies about the killer and his victims as well. I think at one point they said he killed someone in 1962 when in reality Zodiac's first victim was in 1966.
just overall a poor film and their star actor was TERRIBLE, he did a god job portraying someone with some kind of disorder but i don't think it was intentional.
and what was up with that fantasy sequence of him in bed with the pizza girl?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kiyle 17 years ago

I think when they mentioned in the movie that the Zodiacs first victim was in 1962 he got his facts confussed. There's speculation that the Zodiac may have killed a couple named Robert Domingos and Linda Edwards in 1963 because the way they were killed matched the Zodiacs signature almost to a T. However he never took credit for either of these murders. Also it's been speculated that the 1966 muder of Cheri Jo Bates was not actually commited by the Zodiac killer as he did not take credit for it until after the media accused him of said crime. The only similarities that connected the Zodiac killer to Cheri Jo Bates murder was the letters her killer sent to the media/police as well as a morbid poem carved into a desk in the library where she was last seen alive. It was speculated that these were the works of the Zodiac.

[–] gkallen7 18 years ago

This list does so much to explain why this film has a low rating, but I think I can explain one point of puzzlement.

"6) Okay... the whole secret Zodiac society? What the fletch? And why "From Capricorn to Sagittarius"? If he was going for alphabetical order, shouldn't Cancer come before that? Aries would be first though. And the common order of the Zodiac is Aries to Pisces."

Although Capricorn is the tenth house of the Zodiac, it is the first to occur in the calendar year, while Sagittarius is the last.

And in point 14, Michael referred to being rejected by the Navy, which adds to the absurdity, as the Navy would be the last choice of a youth looking for military-related opportunities to kill people, far behind the Marines or the Army.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] plentyofkb 18 years ago

Damn it! I didn't read this discussion before watching the movie. I think it is the first film during which I fell asleep. I like the signature though...the Z-man :D...Anyway avoid this movie! I have seen bad Soviet movies, bad Eastern European ones, but this one beats them all.

[–] esselle_ 18 years ago

Okay, I bought this out of the 'Buy 2, Get 2 Free' bin at the local video store, but hadn't had time to check it out. The poor reviews plus the comments pertaining to the DSM IV have me hooked and I, now, have to watch it just to see what the heck the deal is. Sounds like fodder for an MST3K.

[–] jonhybravo2 18 years ago

Totally, absolutly agree!!!
This movie is the 5t escence of crap!!!
I lost... how much?... 80 min of mi life seeing this... "movie"... my god...

[–] jrod51587 18 years ago

80 minutes of complete joyness. I watched it with 4 friends and it was a jolly old time. WE laughed at every scene, we were in Blockbuster searching for THE WORST MOVIE WE COULD FIND AND OMG DID WE FIND IT, LOL. Awesome story but the characters sucked, and the plot could be refined.

I'm going to give it a 3, because 1 just isnt cool.

[–] wyzardtales 18 years ago

AGREED ON ALL COUNTS ABOVE!

I have never in my life used the stupid, overused term, "Worst movie I've ever seen" line in my life but this film tempts me to say it. I know there are worse but none come to mind immediately. It definitely will be in my top ten.

I gave it a chance since years ago I was kinda creeped out by Lommel's 80's classic, The Boogeyman. Because of this piece of sh**, I will not be renting his Green River Killer or any other film he directs in his lifetime. My God, how can anyone have a career after something like this?

[–] tom-pagano 18 years ago

Sir,

Your review is hilarious and on the mark.I'm a cardiologist but still

know that a DSM-4 is the psch manual.

Dr.Tom

[–] OptimumTaurus 18 years ago

This is the ONLY movie I can think of that I've ever begun watching, and didn't force myself to finish watching.

That includes a whole ****load of terrible movies. After watching just about 20 minutes of this, I'm desensitized to terrible filmmaking. At least stuff like Manos and Gigli is mock-worthy.

Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment. -Michael Corleone

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Endre2000 18 years ago

I saw this movie at the Fearless Tales film festival in San Francisco in March 2005 with a number of friends. While I liked the premise, there were plotholes one could drive a truck through, the dialogue was trite, the history of the Zodiac Killer was almost totally fictitious, some of the scenes made no sense at all (like the Zodiac having a meeting with other hooded men in what appeared to be a church), the idea that the Zodiac became good after seeing the effect his murders had on his victims' families was totally absurd and insulting (what, he didn't think twice about butchering his many victims, but seeing the reaction of a family member suddenly gave him a change of heart?), and the gratuitous gay sex scenes were way too much. Not only that, it looked like it was taped on Ulli's hand held camcorder. The only good thing about seeing the movie was the Chinese food we all went out for afterwards.

[–] doctor13 18 years ago

The comparison of the Zodiac to the Vampire of Dusseldorf was so the director could pad the movie with scenes from his film THE TENDERNESS OF WOLVES. The cover said "From the director of THE BOOGEYMAN"? It should have said "With scenes from THE BOOGEYMAN", as several chunks of that film was also stuck in this one.

This is nothing new for Mr. Lommel, who made BOOGEYMAN II about 45 minutes long and padded it with the killings from the first Boogeyman film to get it to feature-length.

And the Warning at the beginning of the film saying that killings should not be romanticized, etc.? Someone should ask Mr. Lommel why it's okay to use them for exploitation purposes.

Gar-bage.