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!

The film was nothing short of fantastic. In reading several comments on this site, there was an overwhelming feeling of disappointment. The disappointment was not in reference to the film, but to those who so fool-heartedly badmouthed the film. I was not expecting that much from Zodiac for a couple of reasons. First, serial killer movies are almost always terrible. Second, movies that are supposedly based on actual events are almost always terrible. This film dodges both of these generalizations and is, in my opinion, possibly the best film of 2007. Not only is the direction and photography fantastic, the script is more concise than almost any I have come across. If you are interested in the Zodiac killer and wanted a film that would stick closely to the actual events of the case, then this film will not disappoint. It is extremely accurate and attentive to detail for a Hollywood film. All of the 'flaws' that were pointed out were almost laughably stupid. "It was too long." "The ending is bad." I actually read a comment that said that this film lacked emotion by the actors and should look to Brad Pitt as an example. Of course the film was long! It was an investigation that ruined lives for a decade! Of course there was no climactic ending! The case remains open. It is the subtle details that make the film special. The fact that you just sat through 160 minutes (wow. thats almost an eternity!) and did not get to find out who the killer was says something. If you are frustrated and annoyed, then the film just showed its strength. The frustration and obsession to get some closure parallels that of the story. Imagine Graysmith and Toschi; 30 years have gone by and they never got closure.

What kind of movie is this? A cheesy piece of crap that's what it is. The only good thing about it was Rex Linn's acting. Everything else is a waste of time and money.I'm surprised this even made it to the eyes of the public. Literally all you see throughout the whole movie is innocent young teenagers getting shot and killed. I know that that is what happened, but most movies based on true crime have other scenes in them that are irrelevant to the main point. This movie only had about two such scenes.If you don't mind wasting your time and money on movies like this then watch it. If not don't bother.

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