pgillespie
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.
Joseph P. Ulibas
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,
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!
Michael O'Keefe
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.
AD
