Ted Bundy

Be prepared to leave your lights on in order to sleep for at least three days after first viewing this morbidly fascinating account of mass-murdering, intelligent sociopath Ted Bundy and his descent into soul-less depravity. As a study in human nature gone wrong, this is a fascinating body of work. Particularly because this movie is, unfortunately, based on the facts, I am grateful that the viewer is not forced to witness Bundy's every demonic act, though little is actually left to mystery. Chilling, thought-provoking, disturbing, tragic, and well-made, this movie is an often shocking account of one cold-blooded monster's reign of terror.

The best part for this viewer is that the movie allows us to see Bundy sentenced to death.

A. Freimann

The story of Ted Bundy is a truly fascinating one. The movie "Ted Bundy" however, failed to portray many of the most interesting periods in his life. That, along with one glaring bit of unrealism and a complete lack of tastefulness kept me from enjoying this movie. Some fine acting performances make the film watchable, but only barely.

Ted Bundy had a troubling childhood where he discovered in his early teens that he was illegitimate and that the man who had acted his father was in fact not. This was a terrible shock to young Ted and he retreated into pulp fiction detective stories that were actually soft-core pornography. Between feeling he had been betrayed by his mother and the sexual arousal he got from these stories, his pathos began to form.

All the while, Ted Bundy got good grades and kept up appearances at school. He graduated high school and college without real difficulty. He became very politically active for the Republican party here in Seattle, and made some contacts that would later be horrified to learn to whom they had given allegiance, most notably a man named Ralph Munro who would become the Attorney General of the state of Washington.

It is at this point where the movie starts, and not with his political prowess, but rather with a relationship he had with a local woman. The film depicts him trying to have genuine human contact and showing real concern to this woman, two things of which this monster was completely incapable. It only briefly shows him in a social situation where he proves highly charismatic, and can get almost anyone to like him within a few moments, a trait necessary to his future endeavors.

These scenes in Seattle offer a technical quibble as they seem to have been shot in Pasadena or some other southern CA location. There are shots with the San Gabriel Mountains in the background and some dreadful scenes at a park where the background is very sparse. Here in Seattle, one would have to drive 100 miles or more to find a park with a hillside barren of trees in the background, but this does not discourage our film makers. The most aggravating part of this is the fact that there are many places in northern CA that could have been used for Seattle without running the cost up too much, but the producers of the film were evidently not concerned.

Most of the rest of the film is devoted to his killings, and even shows a couple with seemingly perverse pleasure. While they do show him as a monster, there is almost a sick humor to them that I found somewhat inappropriate. The film does well to show that one of his jail breaks was facilitated by his befriending a guard.

The film completely disregards one of the most fascinating periods of his life however; his trial. Ted Bundy proved to be a fairly adept attorney and was able to mount a creative defense and the judge even complimented him on his litigation skills when pronouncing the verdict. While in prison awaiting trial, Ted Bundy developed a romance and went so far as to call the woman as a witness in his trial, and make his wedding vows part of his murder trial. This is totally overlooked by the movie.

All in all, this movie seems to be an excuse to show a couple of rape-murders rather than a serious attempt to understand the mental mis-wiring of one of the sickest persons ever to walk the face of the earth.

I rented this because I expected it to be intense, having seen Matthew Bright's work in "Freeway". It's definitely that. It's hard not to compare it to "The Deliberate Stranger": each focuses on a different aspect of Bundy's story. "Stranger" focused more on the investigation and the actual facts, and Mark Harmon's performance captured the smoothness and charm which enabled Bundy to gain his victims' trust. This movie is all about the animal beneath. In reality, Bundy's ability to keep that beast hidden was part of what enabled him to carry on as long as he did. This film lays bare that monster, and shows it in all its ugliness. I'm seeing a lot of criticism of this movie for being good at what it set out to do: to make you share in the revulsion of what Ted Bundy was. Complaining that it's in bad taste? What does 'taste' have to do with a sadistic animal who snuffed out dozens of young womens' lives, just to fulfill his need to feel powerful? In this respect, this movie is superior to "Stranger": that one is much too tame and sanitized. What kind of hypocrite watches a movie about a serial killer, and complains that it's too lurid? While "Stranger" is more successful as a factual and interesting telling of Bundy's story, this is a much more impactful movie that makes you feel as though you're actually in the room with that demon. Only 15 minutes into the movie, I felt filthy just from watching his odious behavior. Bright's purpose here was not so much to make a biography as it was to use Bundy's story to point out something fundamental about human nature: the desire for control, and how it drives us to harm each other. While not as good as Bright's earlier "Freeway", it's still a good, disturbing movie, much in the brutal vein of "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer". It's actually much more violent - especially sexually - than the latter, though not as gruesome.

Matthew Bright is best known for directing 'Freeway' and 'Freeway 2', two of the oddest movies ever to end up on the shelf at Blockbuster et al. Bright also wrote the absolutely bizarre cult classic 'Forbidden Zone', and even a telemovie about the awful 80s sit-com 'Diff'rent Strokes', so when I heard he had made this bio concerning one of the most infamous serial killers in modern history, I literally didn't know WHAT to expect. The opening sequences of 'Ted Bundy' with the unknown (to me) Bundy lookalike Michael Reilly Burke acting like a doofus in a bow tie had me wondering for a moment if Bright was going to play it strictly for laughs, but things quickly get darker and more serious. Bright adds very little of his usual black humour and flamboyant touches and the movie is all the more effective for it. The film doesn't attempt to explain why Bundy did what he did, there is no mention of his childhood or pop psychology, and I for one welcomed that. Burke increasingly became more convincing as Bundy, and the many murders were brutal and quite shocking. The long, drawn out execution at the climax was disturbing and highly effecting, and will be difficult for most viewers to forget. The strong supporting cast in the movie are largely unknowns, but keep an eye out for horror legend Tom Savini (who also did the special effects) and 'Repo Man's Tracey Walter in small but memorable roles. 'Ted Bundy' is in many ways a change in pace for Matthew Bright, but shows that there is a lot more to him than you might think. I was impressed by this movie, one of the best true life serial killer bios I have seen, and one which raises many more questions than it answers. I recommend it to anyone who is fascinated by the darker side of human nature, and puzzled by aberrant behaviour.

What is the point of making this movie? Next to this, the TV series, "The Deliberate Stranger," is a masterpiece of information and good taste. I suppose it was inevitable that sooner or later it would occur to someone that there was a nickel or two left in the story of Ted Bundy, who slaughtered and raped all those young women and was put to death for it.

But how to improve on the TV series? Simple, you throw out almost all of the background involving family and police and leave in the murders, only this time, this being a feature film, you can show the slaughters and the rapes in all their gory detail.

Mission accomplished. It's a disgusting and exploitative movie. We don't get to know any of the victims of course. They're as faceless as the guys that Dirty Harry shoots during a holdup. Nothing about their families of course. Nothing about Ted Bundy either, for that matter -- not that there's very much to know about a major anti-social personality who invents himself as he goes along. Why does he kill? He has a little speech he makes to his girl friend about finding out that he was illegitimate, but so what? Who knows? Who cares? We don't know how the police manage to catch him twice. All of that sort of thing would detract from the time devoted to the murders. If we learned anything more about the police or about Ted, we'd be able to see fewer bloody naked female bodies being slung about. Only the juicy parts of the story are left in, with just enough non-juicy stuff for the film makers to deny that only the juicy parts of the story are left in.

The last murder we see is that of Ted Bundy himself. He's electrocuted in Florida. Does the director skip any details of this final death? Are you kidding? We get to learn so much about how electrocutions are carried out that we could probably follow the procedure as well as the professionals. I'll bet you didn't know that before the victim becomes part of a serial circuit with the chair he has cotton forced into his rectum and made to wear Depends. The ghouls must be jumping in their seat with excitement. More time is spent on the electrocution (almost 10 minutes) than on any of the other deaths in the movie. If this isn't "pandering" then the word has no referent at all.

The acting is passable. The direction, aside from the content of the movie, isn't objectionable. It's not very good either. Okay -- example. Bundy escapes from prison. The whole country is searching for him. Cut to his former girl friend sleeping alone in her bed. The door to her room slowly opens and Bundy enters without a shirt but holding a machete. He tiptoes to the bed, raises the knife above his head, and -- WHACK. But what do you know, folks. It's a nightmare. We know it's a nightmare because the girl wakes up screaming and shoves her face into the camera lens. I don't know how far back in cinematic history this hoary device goes, the wakee sitting up and screaming into the lens. The first time I remember seeing something like it was, I think, in "Carrie," about a quarter of a century ago. It was an effective shocker -- once. Now it's almost obligatory. Instead of wincing, you yawn. (I also think a moratorium should be placed on scenes in which a patient is being wheeled hurriedly on a gurney down a hospital corridor and the camera takes the patient's point of view, so we see all these worried faces staring down into the lens and snapping medical-type orders at one another. While we're at it, let's have a moratorium on any further commercial use of Beethoven's ninth symphony. Let's throw in Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks," too.)

There is an especially nauseating scene of Bundy chasing a girl through the woods. He's just kidnapped her from the beach, so she's wearing only a skimpy bikini. She's running, howling, falling down, getting up, running again with the camera a few feet behind her at every step, every fall, so that the viewer gets a good sexy view of her wobbling buttocks before Bundy catches her and bashes her brains out. The shot may have been plagiarized from "I Spit on Your Grave," which see.

I'm happy that censorship is relaxed enough to allow gore on screen but this film provides an exercise in the use of moral restraint. Just exactly who are we supposed to identify with while the camera follows the terrified victim through the woods? What pleasure is to be derived from simply looking at the butchery of strangers? What comes next? Should we skip ALL of the background details, drop any concern with insight or ethics, and just have one and a half hour's worth of some nameless monster chopping up nameless bodies and splattering everything with blood and intestines? If that's not the direction in which a film like this points, then what IS the reason it was made in the first place?