Who payed the critics

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Am I Missing Something?

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This film takes an interesting approach to the story of one of the most sensational serial killers in American history, but it proves that interesting is not necessarily the same thing as entertaining.The Zodiac was a multiple murderer in California who, between 1968 and 1970, shot two young couples in their cars late at night, stabbed another couple repeatedly during the day while wearing a costume, shot a cabbie and sent several disturbing letters to the newspapers. The Zodiac was never caught and by most accounts, the cops never even got close. This retelling of the tale focuses on Inspector Matt Parrish (Justin Chambers), the handsome and smart cop who gets handed the case after the first couple is slain. But while some detective work goes on, that's not at all what this movie is about. Instead it dwells on Matt, his wife Laura (Robin Tunney), their son Johnny (Rory Culkin) and how they are affected by the Zodiac killings and the frenzy that grows up around it. The movie also disconnects the murders from the broader social and political tenor of late 60s California and concentrates on the town of Vallejo, where most of the known Zodiac killings occurred. The filmmakers cast Vallejo as an all-American small town where folks don't lock their doors and all gather in the park to watch fireworks on the 4th of July. Rather than try and understand the Zodiac as a part of his chaotic era, this story considers him only as a malevolent force threatening and poisoning the decent lives of good people.Treating the Zodiac as a singular evil and showing his effect on one family isn't a bad approach to this well known story, but it proves to be a better idea on paper than in practice.Firstly, if you're not going to cast the Zodiac as an aspect of 60s social anarchy or moral degeneration or pick another cliché, you've still got to do something with the character. He needs some form, some depth, some dimension to him. But these filmmakers choose to say nothing about this killer that isn't established fact, and since so little is actually known about him, this story gives us very little. He's a generic monster, something that is emphasized by the hackneyed way the movie shows him on screen. It's the whole thing where you only see the mysterious killer's feet or his hand or the back of his head. We never see the Zodiac's face. We never hear his voice as anything but a dull monotone. I'm sure it's meant to be creepy and unnerving, but it's just boring.The scenes with the Parrish family aren't much better. You can tell the point is that the demands of the case are keeping Matt separated from his wife and son and that separation combined with the looming fear generated by the Zodiac is breaking the family apart, but we never get to see any of that happen. When the first killings occur, everything seems okay with the family. Then we cut to the next killings several months later and things are bad. Then months after that are the next killings and things with the Parrish family are even worse. But we never actually see what makes things bad and makes them worse. The characters get angrier with and more distant from each other, but those changes are not connected to or flow from anything we see in the movie. It's like the audience is just supposed to imagine in our heads all the stuff that must have happened off camera to this family to tear them apart . I don't know about you, but I don't watch a movie so I can tell myself a story.The Zodiac is one of those films you can't really give a "thumbs up", but you can't really give it a "thumbs down" either. There's nothing precisely terrible about it, but the movie just doesn't work. I think I'd have to give it a "meh". If you're intrigued by the real story, want to watch a movie that won't splash a bunch of ridiculous nonsense all over that real story, and you can't watch the much better film version of this story (2007's Zodiac by David Fincher)…you could give give this one a try.

At the end of the movie, the killer was wondering who would play him in a movie. I think he is still waiting as this was probably the most boring show I have ever seen about a serial killer.When the script is already written for you, you would think you have time to focus on some other parts of the movie to make it interesting. Not here folks. There was nothing interesting about this movie. I thought there was one part where it was going to get interesting, but I was mistaken.I don't watch "Grey's Anatomy," so I have no idea who Justin Chambers is, but he showed me nothing here. He spent the entire time drinking and yelling. I don't watch "Prison Break," so I know know Robin Tunney either. She spent all her time at the kitchen table whining.There is no one else here that I recognized either. I don't know why I watched this, but I recommend you let me suffer for you and avoid it at all costs.

It's hard to make a movie about a real event. Everyone knows the outcome. In this case, we all know that the Zodiac was never caught, so all we have to look for is the interaction between players and the general feeling of the movie.But here the movie fails. The lead (Karev from Grey's Anatomy) is playing well, but doesn't really have much role to play. Just a work alcoholic cop trying to catch a guy that leaves no useful evidence. His wife, predictably, doesn't like being left on second place and tries to leave him. His work suffers. The cop's kid shows promise as he is both curious and intelligent. Alas, his mother discovers this and with a terrible "Oh my god" ends this plot line.All in all, a rather accurate yet boring description of the insides of a police case from the point of view of the cop. And no, you don't get to see the Zodiac :-P

While ZODIAC is in the theaters and people want a sneak preview of what to expect from that film with Jake Gyllenhaal, this little version called THE ZODIAC is available and has some merit. The search for the still unknown serial killer of the late 1960s in the bay area is a creepy enough story that it is difficult to imagine a telling of it would not make us shiver. This film directed by Alexander Bulkley and written with the director's brother Kelley Bulkeley (sic) keeps a fairly low key and while it does manage to depict some of the slayings, much of this version on the Zodiac killer is focused on the personalities of those desperately seeking the perpetrator.Justin Chambers portrays Inspector Matt Parish who becomes obsessed with the search to the point of excessive drinking and neglecting his family; the manner in which Bulkley depicts him seems more focused on Parish's chain smoking than anything else, an example of using the cigarette as a constant prop when there is no apparent reason for pushing the habit into the public's eye. Parish's frightened wife is ably portrayed by Robin Tunney, and his son who is obsessed with the multiple fascinating aspects of the Zodiac mentality is well handled by Rory Culkin. Some fine actors flesh out the cast - William Mapother, Philip Baker Hall - but they are given little material to use.The production values (night atmosphere especially) are strong for an Indie and the film does convey a creepiness that lingers. If only the writers would have shared some insights into the characters on screen the film would have been far stronger. But for another look at Zodiac, until the real one comes out on DVD, this little film is a good teaser. Grady Harp