Customer Reviews

Ted Bundy

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

...well, you're still going to be waiting.

As in "The Deliberate Stranger," the details of Bundy's crimes and victims are shuffled around (although this movie is more true to life as far as plain facts go) and very few real names are used. For example, Bundy is seen kidnapping his last victim, "Suzanne," but then footage from the actual press conference after his execution is shown, and is it said he was executed for the murder of Kimberly Diane Leach (her real name). It can be confusing for a viewer familiar with the facts of the case; I spent chunks of time trying to keep straight in my head which character represented which victim.

There are other small film clips of the real Bundy, which really make you sit up and pay attention. I thought they were a good addition to the film; to me, it reminds viewers that this is not just a story, it actually happened.

Disappointingly, the movie puts much of its focus on Bundy's relationship with "Lee," the model for Elizabeth Kendall (who later wrote "The Phantom Prince"), and virtually ignores his friendship with true crime writer Ann Rule (who was writing stories about the missing girls during the time Ted was killing them) and marriage to Carole Ann Boone, who later gave birth to his daughter.

The movie seems to draw on Robert Keppel's "Riverman: Ted Bundy & I Hunt the Green River Killer," which included gory details of Bundy's last minute confessions to Keppel. Some details are recreated for the movie, with very disturbing images. Hopefully, that would be a sure-fire cure for the "over 200 women" who wrote Ted while he was on Death Row to tell him they loved him (a fact mentioned at the end of this movie).

Another reviewer mentioned that the execution scenes were a protest against the death penalty. I disagree; by the end of the movie, after watching Bundy commit henious crimes in full, Technicolor detail, you don't much care what happens to him, and if he suffered, it's only a fraction of what his many victims suffered.

I could have done without the collection of "I'm Ted Bundy!" children in the final scene. I get the point: even your average, clean-cut person, as Ted seemed to be, can be a monster. Bundy himself said serial killers are husbands, brothers, sons, etc. I just think there was another way that point could have been made, and I found the children distracting from the story as a whole. However, if the film makers went for shock value with that scene, they certainly succeeded.

All in all, the movie is worth a watch (if the disturbing images and graphic violence don't bother you) if you're interested in Bundy's story but already aware of the facts. For the casual viewer, or someone wanting to learn more about Bundy, not so much.

POSTSCRIPT: A few days after this review was posted, I received a long, rambling, rather disturbing email from someone claiming to be Matthew Bright, the director of this film. One can only hope it was an impostor, and that the real Matthew Bright has better things to do than email people who give negative reviews to his movie (and I am not by far the only one; check out Rottentomatoes.com for more).

Bright claimed that Carole Ann Boone was not worthy of inclusion in his movie (one of my criticisms) because "her relationship with Bundy was based on lies." I highly doubt that Bundy's relationship with Liz Kendall, explored at length in the movie, was based on total honesty. By Kendall's own admission in "The Phantom Prince: My Life With Ted Bundy," she was lied to from the very beginning. So that takes care of that argument.

Bright went on to say that Ann Rule was also not worthy of mention in his film because she was just an "ordinary person" who was fooled by Bundy. Well, that's the point; she was also an ordinary person who happened to be a close friend of Bundy's for many years, and corresponded with him while in prison. This argument negates his later claim that Bundy was not as normal as he seemed. Obviously not, but he did manage to fool a lot of people for a very long time, as documented in other sources, both print and other media (notably A&E's Biography of Bundy).

Personally, I don't care whether Bright likes or respects Boone and Rule or not. The fact remains, they were both major figures in Bundy's life, and as such must be included in any film hoping to tell Bundy's story in an accurate manner.

Which brings me back to my main gripe about the film in the first place: it's not accurate. Other than that, someone who actually reads my review closely will note that I found several things that impressed me about the film: news clips of the real Bundy, the mention of women who wrote to Bundy on Death Row, and the shock value of the scene with the children at the end.

The fact that the director (or someone claiming to be the director) got so very defensive about the film due to a review that isn't really all that negative, should tell you something right there.

There has been a recent wave of new exploitation films centralized on serial killers. This movie about Ted Bundy is bound to get a cult following. Only twenty minutes into the film and Ted has killed several women, masturbated in public, tortured his girlfriend and is playing with mummified corpses. If this is your sort of thing, then Ted Bundy will deliver on all counts.

This is a shocking film and the cruelty that Ted inflicts on his female victims defies belief. Ted Bundy is played exceptionally well by Michael Reilly Burke in a deadpan manipulative way when he is acting normal with his girlfriend and others, but when he is out killing (which comprises about 95% of this movie) his character opens up in leaps and bounds with lashing of black humor. Check out the scene where he tries to explain the "rape gear" during an interrogation with a detective or how he plays a cop to get a woman into his killing vehicle of choice (a bright yellow Volkswagen Beetle) at the shopping mall.

Bundy is one dominating and controlling character and the film does disturb and is extremely sexually graphic in nature. Instead of delving too much into Bundys background, the investigation or his psychology, the director goes for straight out exploitation. So how does it pan out? The truth is that this film does nothing to honor Bundys victims, treats women very badly (except for the twist ending) and IS exploitation through and through. It is often funny and hilarious in a black sort of way. Is it morally right? NO! Is it political correct? NO! Does this film have a message? NO!........... but it sure as a hell is a ton of fun in a "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" sort of way. In short the exploitation films of the 70s have just been given a revamp in this great low-budget murder-fest that never tries to be anything more than what it is - adult popcorn fodder, and for that it gets five stars.

Wow, this movie is awful!! The only reason I gave it one star is because it wouldn't let me give it no stars. ... Every woman in 'Ted Bundy' is made to be a complete idiot ... I know Ted Bundy was an infamous charmer, but it goes a bit over the top here. Flat out this movie glorifies what happened, and the man who committed these crimes. I know Ted Bundy did awful things, that doesn't mean I need to hear 'Ted' having his way with a [very young] school girl's corpse. Sometimes it's what we don't see that is the most creepy. The other fantastic part would be the sorority house scene with 2 'sisters' in their panties jumping up and down on their beds throwing pillows at each other....ok that was the most disturbing scene in the movie. ...

I actually sat through this garbage a second time with director commentary. I wanted to hear some kind of justification from the director of why it was made the way it was. I did not get any, just a guy a little too proud of his project. So now thats about 4 hours of my life I can never get back.

If you would like to see a very well done bio-pic of a serial killer, see David Jacobson's 'Dahmer', and if you want a bit more of the gore, you can always get John McNaughton's 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer'. Both are solid, well structured, well filmed, lower budget films.

As a female who grew up in the '70's, I found the movie "Ted Bundy" to be a fascinating account. At the age of thirteen (close to the age of his last victim), I had seen the newspaper photographs of the chameleon-like Bundy. I had heard the stories of this serial killer, who was always portrayed as a suave and brilliant charmer. He struck fear in my heart. He was a monster. My recent viewing of Matthew Bright's "Ted Bundy" has now forever erased that image of the serial killer. Instead, I have a more accurate picture of the pathetic, loser freak/geek that Bundy actually was.

Years before, I had seen the made-for-TV version of Bundy's story, played by the very good-looking Mark Harmon. Actor, Michael Reilly Burke, had more of the look of Ted Bundy; good-looking, yes, but not in Harmon's pretty-boy sort of way. Burke sometimes looked pale and waxy, with dark circles under his eyes, much like Bundy sometimes appeared in photographs and news clips. I thought Burke's portrayal was excellent.

The movie exclusively focuses the story from Bundy's perspective, giving it a unique feel. This isn't about the victims or the police investigation. This is about Bundy's bizarre and twisted world. Rather then a brilliant man gone terribly wrong, he is shown as a petty shoplifter; stealing money out of a woman's purse, stealing a potted plant from a nursery, etc. He is shown as a creepy necrophiliac, as he puts make-up on one of his victim's severed head and tells her that she's "so pretty", kissing her lips fondly.

Bundy's insecurities are in full display as he tells his girlfriend, in a sniveling, little-boy sort of way, that he just wants to be normal. In another scene, he viciously shouts at a victim that women like her don't like guys like him. (Not an exact quote.) By the end of the film I was thinking, "How did this nobody get to be so famous?" and cheered at Bundy's humiliation right before his execution.

I think this is a movie worth watching, especially for those of us who grew up under the shadow of this mad man. It is very gory and is done in horror movie fashion - definitely not for the squeamish. But Bright's portrayal of this sadistic pervert is unique and riveting.

Not insightful and not interesting this is more a grisly series of vignettes than a movie of depth or substance.

Rather than taking us into the mind of the killer as the box said it was just an opportunity to display Ted's insanity in a variety of different settings. Even the girls all blends together since there is no effort made by the filmmakers to give them any humanity.

In this case the TV movie was much better.

Serial killers and their actions and motivations can be incredibly intriguing and boggle the mind. I have always been interested in what goes on in these people's heads and what brings them to the point of killing people. One of the worst, if not probably the worst, mass serial killer of all time in America's history, is Ted Bundy. Just the name alone can send chills and bring up horrible stories from years past. For those who aren't in the know or have simply lost some knowledge of him over the years, Ted Bundy murdered at least 28 women, although some say there could very well be more, between 1974 and 1978. Most of his crimes were commited in the areas of Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Florida, and here in Washington. One girl's grave from around here I just found the other day. The movie also shows and deals with Ted's escape from prison and his soon to be recapture. He is portrayed here by Michael Reilly Burke. There is no other Ted Bundy than Mark Harmon(from 1986's "The Deliberate Stranger"), but Burke becomes the character and for the hour and a half that you are watching him, I found myself to believe that he is this guy and that he is able to do the things that he does in the film. The best and most interesting part of this film belongs to Burke. His opening scene in the mirror was downright creepy and his subsequent "episodes" are blood chilling and sick. Burke has the right handsome looks and sweet charm to him that made Bundy able to pick up the women he did. But those ah schucks looks and cool presence swiftly turn deadly and sadistic and Burke really comes across as the guy you wouldn't expect to turn into a raging loony. But the problem with this film is how it seems to be more of an Afterschool Special version on the Bundy legacy than a real docu type film that digs up all the dirt and lets everyone in on this guy's psyche. Not that it is easily watchable, because there are hardcore moments here that don't shy away from the brutalness, but I meant that it seems to opnly scratch the surface of the man instead of going in deeper into who he was and where he came from. The mentioning of his mixed up family upbringing was something to of fully explore, but the movie never goes there. It jumps from one gruesome scene to the next, and even though it is realistically shot and Burke pulls it off, the whole project and story comes off as feeling a bit hollow and empty. It felt to me like a cliff's notes version of the real story. "The Deliberate Stranger" was 4 hours, and this one clicks in at around 90 minutes when the credits start to roll. There isn't much of a cast except Botti Ann Bliss as his girlfriend. She looks like she's from the '70's and is pleasant to look at, but many of her scenes feature how lacking she is in the acting department. Some of the most interesting moments of the film are when real pictures or real film from the news about Ted and his eventual execution in 1989 are shown. That was a fantastic touch to put in the film. And the moments leading to Ted's ultimate death by electric chair are shown and given the audience a first time look at what goes on beforehand. It was a first. These moments with the swelling of music in the background and Ted breaking down make it seem like he was a wronged man and we should feel sorry for him. Obviously, we don't, but that's just the way it felt when the scene was playing. The movie wasn't all bad at all, but it could of been so much more. It's not a film with a subject matter to be viewed as an evening's entertainment, but as a film showing how horrible a person was without the meat.

I specificially signed onto amazon to leave a review of this film. I'm surprised in the extreme as to what other reviewers had to say. I thought the real horror and violence of Bundy's crimes were perfectly captured- far from being titillating, it made me want to vomit. The sheer brutality of it, the casual way he dumped bodies as if bags of trash, I'm at a loss to see how anyone could describe it as "exploitation." The man was beguiling, intelligent, charming, and a monster. The version with Mark Harmon, though absorbing, didn't begin to capture the "reality", the HORROR of Bundy's crimes. He may have killed over 100 women. What would you have instead, an intellectual treatise on serial killing? I thought the director's intent was to depict the brutality in a NON-gratuitous fashion, and I think he (or she) succeeded admirably. Women were not depicted as sex objects in this film- there were no shots of sexy cleavage or lovely long lashes; women were depicted as human beings who were unlucky enough to encounter Ted Bundy. The film did a stellar job of showing that the perversion, the view of women being mere faceless objects was in TED. It was fascinating, compelling from beginning to end. To my mind, this film almost ranks up there with A Clockwork Orange or Midnight Cowboy in its realistic depiction of violence. I always think of exploitative, gratuitious violence as violence that is arousing, exciting, and I found it to be the antithesis of this. I thought it was honest, gut-wrenching, horrifying, and very thought-provoking. We don't understand what drives people like Ted Bundy, so there IS no examining what makes people like him tick, the best we can do is look at the pattern of their behavior as this film does. For those of you who have seen the Mark Harmon version and not this one I won't give the details away, but the first film tried to paint him as a paradox, a decent person in other aspects of his life and that simply wasn't true. This film sticks to the facts. Highly recommended.

This DVD was a load of [stuff].

This movie skims over some facts and events and totally ignores others. It tells very little of how Bundy manipulated victims. It ignores how much support he had from friends and work collegues when first caught and how they faught for his release. It ignores Bundy's arrogance with the police. It actually portrays Bundy as having no confidence in his crimes and when being interviewed by the police. Other than one line it ignores the fact that he represented himself in court. Skims over his two escapes from prison.

If you want to see a factual movie on Bundy watch the Deliberate Stranger on Video.

This movie was really great. Most of the death/abduction scenes were, in fact, accurate (as far as how they happened, but I think the names were changed of the victims, and rightfully so) Some of the other reviewers seem to be misinformed about Bundy's childhood and the enjoyment he got out of killing. He lived in a fantasy world which eventually took over his reality. The movie perhaps didn't make that quite so clear. Bundy just didn't have much of a conscience about it. The execution scene is pretty graphic, but it was not "funny". It was a reality, as it is for all of those on Death Row. I do wish they would have put some of the court trial scenes in the movie. If you are interested in the story of Ted Bundy, I highly recommend reading Ann Rule's "Stranger Beside Me". It is probably the most accurate and honest account of the serial killer I have read.

Told from the point of view of Ted Bundy, this film is no holds barred, it provides some quite sickening details of the killer's actions with no explanation of what drove the man. I do wonder about the families of the victims. The victims were portrayed as one-dimensional walk-on parts. I know this is how Bundy would have seen them, as meat and nothing more, but I found it disrespectful to those who died and who were left to grieve. It is clear that the director has no idea of the enormity of these crimes and the affect on the victums' families, if he did he might have thought twice. I suppose he felt the execution scene would create a balance, but it doesn't. These were real people, not inventions, by showing us this the film would have been that much more powerful and convincing.