eadaoin7

I have to say that Luke Kirby certainly did his homework. I recognized the mannerisms and cadence in his voice from the televised interview Ted gave to the reverend Dobson the night before his execution (more on that later). But as the film progressed, he'd taken that and truly turned it into a very personal and quite stunning performance. His portrayal has to be the best-acted Bundy I've seen to this date, and I've seen just about every one of them. Bravo, Mr Kirby!

Equally impressive is Elijah Wood in his portrayal as the undupable Special Agent Hagemeier, a man of faith with a keen gut for criminality. He turns in a stern and touching performance.

As one reviewer said, the performances of these two are the best reason to watch this film. The second-best reason would be the exchange between these figures and how they tried to understand each other. Hagemeier's faith and position are two things that eluded Ted, in that he believed that he could have done the agent's job better than anyone - he envied Hagemeier, and lashed out at him periodically out of jealousy. His faith in God was another elusive thing about life that Ted just never got. Ultimately because, as a sociopath, he could never grasp the intangible in life. But he was aware of how some people used religion in order to justify their actions, and how those in the religious circles rallied around causes that threatened their own carefully constructed visage. (Again, more on that later.)

The director certainly knows how to get the best performances from her actors, as this was superbly performed by everyone. My only qualm was with most of the jump-cut transitions that denoted the passage of time and fancied internal images. They may be stylish, but they don't work here. They only distract from what we came here to see--the acting! That and the story are interesting enough. There was no need to resort to such visual trickery.

I also came aways from this film thinking that this would make a stellar stage play! I wonder if C Robert Cargill thought of this before altering the script into a screenplay...?

For those wishing to learn more about the Bundy case, this is not the film for you: the premise of this film is for those who have quite an extensive understanding of the case from start to finish, as there are no insights into specific cases or victims (if you know, you'll be relieved he's not on this earth anymore, and I say this as a staunch disbeliever in the death penalty). Rather, this is a tale of one investigator and arguably the most notorious serial killer in modern history, the one who continues to fascinate, and mislead, to this day.

Bundy played everyone. He prided himself on being able to read anyone who walked into his path - it was how he was so successful as a killer for so many years. He knew who would be appropriate victims, and whom he could snow in his other existence to vouch for his character. His rate of success was not 100%, obviously. But enough were taken in by him based on both his carefully crafted persona and the unwillingness of many to believe that he, or anyone, could be capable of the truly horrific things he did to girls.

This was how he fooled James Dobson. He didn't believe one word of his videotaped "repentance" naming pronography as the culprit for his deeds. But, in Ted's mind, he thought that he could corral the religious right into speaking to the governor about sparing his life. This, of course, came to nothing, but there are still some folks who believe that Ted was confessing and was speaking their language of righteousness.

Ted took total advantage of the most gullible people, and he continues to fool others even to this day. As much as he victimizes many, many people who are still tortured, both as the survivors of all of those poor women and as acquaintances and friends who still ask themselves how they didn't see, how they couldn't recognize. Nobody could. Not even Ted himself, no matter how hard he tried.

I believe there were two reasons Ted gave so many interviews to investigators and journalists: The first being so he could relive his vile 'legacy' over and over; and the second being that Ted was ultimately fascinated by, and entranced by..Ted. He understood his own constructed ego, but not why he had to do that when others didn't. He fumed that he wasn't as mentally advanced as others he tried to acquire into his life. He seethed that he was not rich or privileged, as he thought he deserved to be. He was offended that society wouldn't let him kill as he saw fit to. And, he was finally outraged that anyone would want to kill him when he was so 'charming', so 'fascinating', so 'intelligent', so 'knowledgeable'.

In the end, Ted charmed himself.

Too much time, too little everything else.

This is 'Wicker Man', down to the maypole. There is a small difference in that the main character is broken into 4 stereotypes, but beyond that it is a script already written, several times over.

I can see in several instances how this writer/director was trying for the horror genre, though, with three distinctive horror cliches. But, the fact that an audience can recognize these attempts says something in and of itself. Add to this, that each attempt made in this film failed.

Dig, if you will, mes amis:

First; the filmmakers gave us the aforementioned teen stereotypes that have become trope. However, the original concept behind having a group of characters in peril, that this horror trope has butchered for the last 40 years, is that one has to have LIKABLE characters. Whereas, too many modern horror films (this one included) are filled with people you're sick of after an hour and wish would either die or suffer. Sometimes, within the first 5 minutes, but I digress...

Second; to the filmmakers' credit, they didn't pile on the jump-scares but opted for the long, drawn out scenes leading to something "horrible". This is refreshing. In theory. However, for these long scenes to be suspenseful, you have to not be able to tell what's coming. Such as in "The Exorcist" - what was going to be behind Regan's door after that long dolly down the hallway? In this film, we knew what was going to happen EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. So, the drawing out of such scenes bordered on either excruciation, nappy time, or a chance to show off your riffing skills, depending on your nature. Without spoiling anything, one famous scene prompted my audience to begin a chant of "Go 'SPLAT'!!"

(OK, I hear some people saying, 'Oh yea? Well, there were long pans in 'Halloween', but we knew there'd be a killing. So there!' True. But, did you know when? Or how? Or who would be first, or next? Not the first time you saw it, and this proves the point. Suspense needs mystery. And again, in this film, there was 0% mystery to anything that occurred. Just loooooooooooooong build-ups to the predictable.)

And third; the damned last-minute-twist moment. Which is by now so old hat that we've almost stopped noticing. It's just accepted. There was absolutely no reason for it, nothing to hint at this, nor was it in the character's nature whatsoever - the opposite would have been true to her character. As it was in the film, it was just a desperate tack-on.

(OK, I hear you again - yes, the unexpected can be jarring and effective. But, only if you can believe it. With this last shot, I didn't buy it one bit. She had been acting the polar opposite for almost 3 hours, up to 2 minutes prior to the last shot. What happened in those two minutes - did the elderberries & oat straw finally kick in or something??)

The Directors Cut of this film is three hours.

The theatrical cut is 2 1/2 hours.

The original content is 35 seconds.

See the original 'Wicker Man' instead.

That pretty well sums up my overall impression of this film, that I admittedly had high curiosity and hopes for.

This is a film, like Pi, filled with many non-absorbent instances and images that culminates into nothing but stagnation, ultimately.

Now, granted, one man's pretension is another man's secret identity. And I get what they were going for: They were hoping to make a dark comedy about the societal pressure to be mated, and the scarlet letter on anyone's back who is alone. That's clear in the first several short scenes. So, the film accomplished its goal before the 10 minute mark. From there, it limps to a black screen - no ending, no resolution, or even a hint at continuation. Just a feeling that they ran out of either film or ideas.

This is a 'piece' about a man who checks into a resort for people who have come to their last hopes of finding a person to live their existences with. Sort of Howard's End-cum-Hotel California, in that no one can leave, and everyone only speaks once an hour in a monotone. The gist is that if they don't find a mate, they turn into a member of the animal kingdom. 'OK, not a bad idea, they could go somewhere with this...' I so naively think to myself after the first 4 minutes. And from there, we have the parade of statues: Characters introduced as fellow residents and meant to bring some humanity in the form of interaction. They forgot, however, to give them any substance. A nosebleed isn't a 'quirk', I'm sorry. If the actors had been directed to speak in more than one timbre, and had been written dialogue that didn't amount to a "minutes of the meeting" memo, then maybe they could have had something.

So, after some milling, the main 'character' tried to cuckold another 'character' and fails. So he leaves and finds himself embraced by another group with a separate set of standards and clothing that the group he just fled. And that about all as far as differences. The group has the same hollow, banal intonations as the people we were just tired of. And the same prattle happens all over again.

This has the label of Dark Comedy. But, 'dark' does not mean colorless; and, sudden gasps at horrific snap-cut deaths & mutilations do not constitute laughter, which one expects from a comedy.

As I said in the title, snobs will flock to this film because it gives them a perfect chance to say their favorite line: "Well, you just didn't get it." I just love hearing people say this. Why? Because it is usually said right after someone asks for their overall impression or opinion or reflections of what they just saw. I will never forget the time I saw a movie with some friend of a friend that was ... I think it might have been 'Pi'. I asked what he thought of that ending. He literally snapped his jaw up in the air and said, "Well, if you didn't get it, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you." I looked at him & said, "You don't get it either, do you?" He laughed, but he didn't deny what I said. 'The Lobster' is going to be THAT kind of film, you just watch. So many people have already said the 7-paragraph equivalent of 'You just didn't get it' already on here. I may get some in reply.

Well, you know what, my gentle 'parvenu-bies'? I got it. Everyone got it, and people who see it after this will get it.

Art means something different to everyone who views it; that's why film is art. And I will not dismiss this as art simply because I'm of the opinion that 'The Lobster' is the cinematic equivalent of waiting for the nurse to guide you back into the waiting room after a routine checkup.

Personally, if I wanted to watch an hour and a half of culminated silence peppered with 10 minutes of flaccid dialogue, I certainly wouldn't pay for that - I'd go to an empty theater before a movie starts. It would have been a more meaningful experience.