Badmovies.org Forum

Excellent movie about the investigation of the Zodiac killer. Don't expect a typical serial killer movie though, this more of a "procedural movie" about the investigators. Some of the killings are shown, but these are mostly toward the beginning of the film.  The film really follows the peoples lives that get entangled in trying to find out who the Zodiac is (something that was never completely solved).

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith, author of the book the film is based on, who ends up losing his family due to his obsession with identifying the Zodiac. There are also excellent performances by Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo.


This movie was surprisingly directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7ven, and Alien3).

It's worth the watch, but be warned it comes in at 2hrs and 39 minutes running time. It's time well spent if you like a mystery.

Can't wait for the special edition director's cut DVD in January 2008!

 I don't know if youv'e read Mr.Graysmith's book-but if you have, I would also recommmend his  follow- up, written after major Zodiac suspect Arthur Leigh Allen died. It's called ZODIAC UNMASKED. Allen was just about to be indited for the killings when he keeled over...an apparent natureal death. Fascinating reading!!!

  On a different note...in 1970, an expliotation film was made at the height of the killings...called the ZODIAC KILLER. Very low budget-and in no way close to the facts. The police used it to try and trap the real Zodiac...hoping  he would want to see the movie himself.
                   the first  ZODIAC KILLER movie...
  [youtube=425,350] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOOM-wA2rOY

  I remember seeing this on a uhf channel in the late 70's. A bizzare movie!
 Loved the new one! I too was amazed to how close to the facts it stayed. For once, a docudrama that did'nt play  with the facts.

Andrew Robinson's character in Dirty Harry was loosely based on the Zodiac. In fact in the movie they show a meeting between Graysmith and the detective in charge of the case in a theater watching Dirty Harry.

I was all prepared to like this movie, so I was very hurt when I didn't.  I found it boring and dull and it was just too long.  I'm sure they could have gotten to the point a little faster.

Maybe the hairstyles and fashions turned me off.  And I was astounded they didn't use all the CSI type tricks, even though I know it was in the 70s and most of them hadn't been discovered/invented yet.

Makes me wonder how any crime got solved in those days. :question:

I really liked the movie, and one of the things I think the filmmakers did well was recreate the fashions of the day(mid 60's through early 90's)...I find it very annoying when a movie set in a certain time period has current hair styles and obvious goofs like automobiles made after the movie takes place populating the scenes.
And if Zodiac had used any CSI type tricks, it would have been ridiculous

They did do a good job with the period stuff. I thought it funny that having a fax machine was such big deal, if the police didn't have one someone had to drive where ever to pick up the records they needed to see.

I watch the old show The Streets of San Francisco and it's startling how many times they could've caught the bad guy quicker if they didn't have to look for a pay phone.

People who didn't grow up during this period (I was a teenager to in my mid twenties during the Zodiac period) don't realize how good they have it now with cell phones and other technologies.   

The advent of cell phones makes it harder to isolate people in movies nowadays, which I'm sure makes it hard on screenwriters.