henrydeluca 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..

artrambler-ru_96 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.

charlytully 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!

Chris Cotter 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!