User Reviews (140)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • If you watch this movie and don't know anything about the real Ted Bundy, you may not be disappointed. However, if you have read material on him such as the Ann Rule novel "The Stranger Beside Me" (an excellent read, by the way), you are going to hate this movie. "Ted Bundy" (I put the name of the movie in quotes to differentiate the film from the actual person) is an ambitious movie indeed, but unfortunately the makers of this film are more concerned with making a horror movie than an accurate portrayal of a complex and ruthless serial killer.

    There is a lot wrong with "Ted Bundy". For one, this movie ends with a relatively haunting epilogue in subtitles, stating that in the months leading to Ted Bundy's execution, he received more than 200 letters a day from women who claim to have loved him. This fact may not be exaggerated, but the film leaves viewers wondering why any woman would love the guy they see in this film.

    Michael Reilly Burke (who, if you were wondering, is no relation to this critic) may not be a bad actor, but there is one major flaw in his portrayal of Ted Bundy. Specifically, Ted Bundy, in real life, was a good looking guy, whereas Burke is not good looking in the slightest. Bundy's good looks were part of the reason he got away with so many grizzly murders. The scariest thing about Ted Bundy was that (most of) the women whom he killed would regard Ted Bundy as the last person who would brutally kill them. One look at Burke, on the other hand, would probably want to make anyone, let alone women, want to run fast.

    It would be cruel to say that Burke is ugly. The truth is, though, that there is nothing appealing at all about the way Burke looks or acts. Case in point: the first scene involves Burke looking into a mirror and, while repeating, "Hi, I'm Ted Bundy. Nice to meet you," makes creepy sucking noises and strange faces. He looks more like an antisocial geek doing a lame imitation of Hannibal Lector.

    That's not so much Burke's fault as it is the fault of whomever filmed this movie. The director really takes a disturbing true story and exploits it as a campy horror film. In portraying Bundy as a faceless, one-dimensional killer, the director really missed the point of what truly made Bundy scary.

    The best movie about Ted Bundy remains "The Deliberate Stranger", the 1986 TV movie starring Mark Harmon. That movie, although it did not have the R-rated freedom this one does, portrayed Ted Bundy as an outgoing, handsome young man who no one believed at first would be so ruthless against women. The film focused more on Ted Bundy himself, and the police's confusion as to how this supposedly normal guy could commit such heinous murders. "The Deliberate Stranger", although it didn't show much in the way of blood and guts, was chilling because it mainly stuck straight to the facts.

    The people who made "Ted Bundy" appear to know the basic, encyclopedic facts about the sociopathic killer, but seem to have made up their own facts as they went along. For instance, the scene where Burke follows a woman home, then looks into her bedroom and begins to masturbate, seemed highly unlikely. A neighbor sees him (apparently not for the first time) and throws water at him. Ann Rule described no such occurrence in "The Stranger Beside Me", which offered a very detailed account of Bundy's crimes. All the ways in which Bundy was apprehended in this film are also exaggerated, at least according to what I've read.

    Another inconsistent subplot, probably made more confusing by hearsay, was Bundy's steady girlfriend, played by Boti Bliss. Her character, Lee, is based on the real woman (who went, for a while, by the alias Elizabeth Kendall) that would go on to write "The Phantom Prince" about her life with Bundy. Here, she is portrayed as way too oblivious to the obvious. The biggest dead ringer for her should have been the lewd sexual acts Bundy does to her, such as tying her to the bed and having her pretend she's dead. I don't know if Bundy really subjected his girlfriend to such an act, but there's no doubt this women wouldn't wonder, "Gee, I never knew Ted was a serial killer. I lived with him for years. Who is he?" I felt like saying, "C'mon, lady, the pretending you're dead didn't reveal anything obvious to you?"

    Bundy was indeed a monster in real life. He wouldn't have murdered over 30 women in his lifetime if he wasn't. However, the scenes where he rapes and murders women, although they are gruesome, really miss what made Bundy so scary. He was a handsome, well-educated man who could have done a lot of good with his life, but instead chose to harm innocent victims. You'd know that fact from watching "The Deliberate Stranger", where the murders happen mostly off screen. In this movie, the murders happen right before your eyes, but the things that made the real Ted Bundy scary are completely lost here. This may as well be a horror flick from the makers of "Euro Trip". The filmmakers just missed the point of Ted Bundy. Period.

    Perhaps the most upsetting is an otherwise good execution scene, combining real footage of people holding signs up in favor of Bundy's death, ruined by an ambiguous montage of kids saying "I am Ted Bundy". What was the point of that end footage? Not only should Spike Lee sue these filmmakers for pointlessly ripping off "Malcolm X", but why would these kids even know who Ted Bundy is? Of course, exploitation defies reason. Just ask whoever made this film.
  • 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
  • porcupinedivine8 December 2019
    This movie might be okay if you don't know any details about Ted Bundy but if you do more than likely you will think it sucks.
  • 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.
  • Matthew Bright's "Ted Bundy" gives us what might contain the best portrayal of a modern serial murderer on film. In the title role, Michael Burke is so revolting and psychopathic, he shows us what the slain and surviving women who met up with Bundy must have seen. His nonstop criminal was a compulsive thief and peeping tom before attempting to take a life for the first time. Ted follows a college gal home from a discotheque and, after he spies on her and masturbates in public while doing so, eventually in a subsequent scene, he steps up to the next level and beats a woman near death (that poor lady apparently survived her ordeal).

    Once he has crossed that line, all hell breaks loose and any female who comes into his gaze could be a potential crime statistic. His relationship with Boti Bliss is a sick imitation of a loving man who positions himself in society as an upstanding figure and actually is a lethal destruction machine capable of taking lives until stopped by police or a bullet. Or both.

    Ted later takes his homicidal self on the road and terrorizes several states in the Northwestern US (contrary to the urban legend concerning Debbie Harry, there's no evidence Ted ever went to New York). He manages to con person after person and the crime he eventually was sentenced to die for in Florida shouldn't have been logistically possible. He is the ultimate opportunist and his ability to resume his violence in the last third of the film when that should have been the end of his freedom will disgust any viewer in their right mind.

    Too many filmmakers try to explain the motives for their subjects' acts. Bright and Burke simply present Ted as he was, a disturbed little boy who never "grew up", but enlarged into an adult offender with twisted fantasies of torture, rape and necrophilia that he brought into a world not ready to deal with these pathologies. He blamed the alcohol and pornography he consumed for his acts, of course, because the extreme audacity any felon like this would need to live with their lack of a conscience never admits that they are at fault.
  • The memories of Ted Bundy's murders still haunt my city. Every single person old enough to read in the 70's was (and some to a degree still are) terrified of this mysterious stranger who would abduct and ultimately murder these beautiful young women. That said - this is a really good film on all levels. Acting, writing, direction are all top notch. The opening scene of "Hi, I'm Ted. Pleased to meet you" is particularly disturbing. This man was by all appearances a handsome young law student considering a political career when really he was a slobbering ogre. If you felt the TV movie with Mark Harmon was lacking that certain something, watch this. It is by no means sympathetic to that creature. In fact, it reveals a manipulative and pathetic crybaby loser. While there is definitely sadistic murderous behavior depicted, it never reaches a level inappropriate for the tale.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    (Contains small SPOILERS).Firstly, I think that a minority of folks who've reviewed this movie for IMDB should be damn ashamed of themselves & the guy who describes himself as "a huge fan of Ted Bundy" ought to have the FBI knocking on his door. Disgraceful. I hope that all those who seem to be apologists for Bundy will reflect carefully on what they've said. Bundy WAS a "dork" and a "wanker" and a "weakling"; that's why he preyed on women having first knocked them unconscious. Carol Da Ronch is the only known victim who fought back, and look what happened. Despite being badly beaten, handcuffed and held at gunpoint she overpowered the bastard and got away. I have read "The Stranger beside me" and I feel this film is just as worthy, even though it tells the story in such a different way. Michael Reilley Burke did a splendid job in playing such a loathsome man, and I wish him future success. it must've been difficult. There were several points in the film where I had to turn away and I disagree with a previous reviewer who thought Bundy's victims were presented as idiots who more or less "asked for it". That's the way things were back then, for God's sake. The world was totally unprepared for a killer like Bundy. He was (very) good looking, charming, intelligent, polite and apparently quite shy. Why wouldn't girls trust him? Even if you detest this movie at least it's a stark reminder that not all murderers look like Richard Ramirez! Mr Burke's performance really impressed me. He perfectly captured the savage-yet-cowardly predator, hiding behind a thin veneer. Just watch his eyes in the several scenes where he feels 'rejected' by a woman. Also note the scenes where Bundy makes a mess of social interactions. That's it. He wasn't one of 'us' and really did expect the whole world to adjust to him. I liked the novel direction; particularly the "speeded up" scenes. They didn't trivialise the story at all. They showed us a Bundy's-eye view of what was going on. He would casually perform acts that normal folks like me can hardly bare to watch even when we know it's just professional actors working on a movie. By the way, one thing the film didn't show is that when Bundy finally moved out of the last room he rented he painstakingly cleaned it to remove fingerprints and other evidence.He also habitually used stolen licence plates on the vehicles he drove. Hardly a man who didn't know right from wrong. I enjoy jogging and playing the piano. Ted Bundy enjoyed destroying human lives. It's as simple as that. One final point. Like most 'brits' I find american flag-waving patriotism intensely irritating, but I've got to say God Bless America for having the guts to fry serial killers like "Ted". Right on! If Bundy had been British he'd now be in one of our 'club med' jails and he WOULD one day be released. I can't say you'll enjoy this movie as it's simply too distressing, but it's exceptionally well made & well-acted by Michael Burke, and it's a story that deserves to be told. My thoughts remain with the relatives of all those poor girls who fell victim to this evil monster, Ted Bundy.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was very inaccurate, horribly made, and just plain bad. All of the details about Bundy were inaccurate and his state of mind was not portrayed correctly. Bundy did kill dozens of women in real life ( he confessed to about 30), but the movie's claims of hundreds is completely unfounded. The acting was also pathetic and the low budget was obvious. The part at the end where children say that they are ted bundy was unnecessary, sick, and highly disturbing. Just prior to the depiction of his execution it seemed like the makers were trying to show sympathy for a man as evil as Bundy. Overall this was a terrible movie. I am angry that I will never get my hour and a half of time back.
  • I have seen almost every serial killer movie ever made. I, also work in the mental health field. Combining this information, I still cannot completely believe what I just watched. Someone in the production was privied to actual mental health knowledge, because this presentation was very realistic. The TV movie dealt with the obsession, but not with the actual disease. This version dealt with the progression of violence and the increasing brazeness of the psychotic mind. Sometimes, it is hard to watch realistic violence, and separate it from every day violence. The director nailed the unstable personality traits to a tee. Ted Bundy was an animal and a human being, waiting for his true love. There never was one and he paid the ultimate price. If, only Clozaril had been available then.

    Alan Sheldon
  • 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.
  • This movie is not for the faint-of-heart; it's a story about a vicious serial killer, and does not pretty up the subject matter. Thus there are numerous scenes of bloody and perverse sex, dead bodies galore, lots of profanity, and an overall atmosphere of sickness. None of this is pleasant to watch, but is entirely appropriate for the subject matter.

    The script stays close to fact, although it leaves out some important information; neglecting, for example, to mention that one woman Bundy approached at Lake Sammamish refused to follow him into the parking lot. Her evidence provided a description and a name to a previously faceless monster, the first real lead the police had in the case. The movie also fails to give any real sense of the era in which Bundy flourished. In the swinging seventies, it was not so uncommon for women to get into cars or otherwise accept approaches from total strangers -- one reason for Bundy's success.

    This film suffers from a lack of focus and purpose. It does give a good sense of the progression of Bundy's hideous career: the burglarizing, purse-snatching, shoplifting peeping tom gradually deteriorates into the brutal, raping, murdering serial killer. We see his alcoholism, his ability to be totally charming when necessary, and his knack for attracting "enabling" girlfriends into his life. What we don't see is anything of the inner Bundy. Granted, any depiction of the "inner Bundy" would be pure speculation, but a good movie would at least make an attempt to give some motive for Bundy's violent compulsions. All this movie does is make some vague references to his illegitimacy.

    I need to also mention the incredibly poor taste in background music. In some sequences, light-hearted music is playing while Bundy is committing heinous acts of violence. (Christmas music in one case!) Perhaps the director meant to indicate that all this horror was just plain fun to Bundy; but the effect is to cheapen the scenes and even make them comic.

    The verdict: Iffy. Lacks depth, and occasionly shows poor taste. Leaves out important information. On the plus side, it is well-acted, and does not attempt to sugar coat the ugly facts of violence. If you want a thoughtful examination of Bundy's character and the era in which he lived, this is not the right movie.
  • The man can turn s**t into gold if asked to. Freeway being one of my favorite movies, I expected a lot of him in Ted Bundy, and he fulfilled every expectation, and then some. His style hasn't changed, still has that creepy Movie of the Week feel to it, with R-rated gore and violence, a very unsettling juxtaposition. This movie, like Freeway, is not for the easy vomitters. Or the sensitive. I had to sleep with my window closed and one eye open last night.
  • FilmFatale21 January 2007
    Perhaps the most offensive movie I have ever seen. The first 80% shows our wacky hero Ted doing what he does best - stealing to an inappropriate techno beat (it was 1974!) & stalking honeys. Don't miss the wacky necrophilia montage! And the Colorado lodge murder is set to a synth version of Jingle Bells. That Ted was such a kick! One bright spot in the movie is Tom Savini's performance as a cop who cracks Ted's facade in naming all the victims. It's a good scene and belongs in a much better movie. But at last we get back to fun Ted heading to Florida for more good times.

    Then the movie completely changes tone to an anti-capital punishment thesis. The bad ol' state wants to kill our guy! Funny Ted is sad. Poor Ted just a wacky clown brought down by the man. C'mon. If you're anti-death penalty, isn't there a better poster boy than TED BUNDY?? Movie offers no insight into Ted's motives or how he was able to fool so many for so long. And that ending with the kids? Good lord. Just an awful movie.
  • As 9 out of 10 of you know, Ted Bundy was America's most notorious mass murderer. A highly unusual sexual criminal who no one really knew and - according to this - someone that didn't even know himself properly.

    Seemingly a charming college educated man from a middle class home who could have been a lawyer in another life - he even defended himself in court - but all too clearly also a world-class psychotic.

    ("A man who defends himself has a fool for a client.")

    More bizarre still he seemed to have some limited control over his demons - certainly enough to fool the world that he had no serious dark side. Although one g/f saw strange things in him and knew the he was an immoral thief. Did anyone else notice anything strange? This movie says "no" and isn't even really looking anyway.

    (At the risk of being too harsh, taking gift or favour from a known habitual thief makes you one yourself. His unmarried mother g/f was no fool.)

    Strangely, having taken on a subject like Ted Bundy, director Matthew Bright instantly loses his nerve. The horror of the crimes might be hard on the stomach, but having decided to view a mock-up we need to have it more direct and in-our-face. This movie gives us an easy time of brutal murder (having seen the more direct Friday the Thirteenth or any other slasher movie) and that isn't on.

    Too often we stand to far back to get a colder view of the horror and at least one of the crimes (involving a cheerleader) is unexplained. The fictional verbal foreplay ("you turn me on... but I am too old for you") indicates that this was - in the mind of the author - a case of rape and murder. If not in any particular order.

    In the weird world mind of the sex killer - maybe he killed/disabled her first in order for her to be spared the ordeal of rape? There are so many debates going on here. Debates without a full stop.

    The problem with stealing sex and power from a human being is that it is messy. Killing can be only part of the cleaning up process or a device to extend the pleasure. Obviously you are going to be caught (or at least risk it) if you don't do this. Bundy was mad - but clearly no fool. He took risks, but not getting caught never left the forefront of his mind.

    The main strength of this movie is it indicates how easy it is to take someone. The blow on the back of the head with a heavy object can disable in a second. Most of these crimes took place in public streets and not always in dark conditions. Sudden violence without warning. Some never even saw Bundy.

    This movie says he took women to kill and sometimes he took to rape and kill. A view I would share - but it is only an educated guess based on the trial evidence. The woman that fought back and survived was surely taken for sex or maybe he got sloppy?

    (Even rapists and killers can have "off days.")

    I have a real problem with the structure of the script. Despite having such obvious drama as murder, sex (consenting and non), morals and even jailbreak it never gets out of second gear. The director limits himself to a few "false" shocks and grainy art cam, but otherwise plods forward.

    The force of law and order are put to one side - in the manner of many modern films. They appear when they are needed.

    Lead Michael Reilley Burke is quite good, although Bundy has only two main states: Madman and normal guy. He had a slick tongue and many warmed to him, but there was always a bit of crazy around the eyes. You can always see it in photographs. Maybe it was something that attracted women - and continued to attract deluded women long after he was exposed.

    This is a rare film that I give an extra star to for topic. It might change someone's behaviour or make people think twice about how they live. You are never safe only safer. We need to be told that there are people on this earth (nearly always heterosexual men) who think nothing of your life or your dignity and would take it in a second.

    Ted Bundy still walks the streets of America - the only thing that has changed is his name...
  • Firstly I'd like to say, that I think I may have read something somewhere that this film was supposed to be loosely based on "THE" Ted Bundy. Which is why Bundy was "Bundy" on the title. But for the soul purpose of trying to be historically correct. You don't name a film after more or less one of the biggest serial killers in history then make it a ROUGH DRAFT, or loosley based lol with a lot of very false information and pure speculation on 90 percent of events. But still follow his timeline. Literally most of this movie is fiction. Made up of what people thought Bundy was like. Or may have acted in secret. Which is literally not described in the movie as a psychopath would act. The movie more so portrays Bundy as insane in his spare time 😂. When Bundy was a calm cool collective person, which a psychopath, a real psychopath is not what many believe it to be. Rather insane. The real Bundy probably would have been quiet. Maybe a very crazy look in his eye with a little change in demeanor showing his true colors. But the screaming and acting like an idiot. Lol I think the people who made this movie are insane. They hit nut job from asylum on the head. Michael Burke don't look, sound, act nothing like Ted in the movie. And again. Most stuff is fictitious. Truthfully. This was just a poor representation all around.
  • The film take a voyeuristic slant on the material, with lots of lingering shots on the victims bodies.

    Perhaps this was the goal of the director, but it blends elements of soft-core porn with the murder scenes. Almost a grindhouse horror movie. But since it's based on real murders, there's no camp factor, and is just bad taste.

    For narrative purposes, it focuses on Ted rather than others around his killing sprees, but superficially. It doesn't try get under the hood and becomes repetitive.

    It also makes him appear as if he's just a robot doing the killings, one right after the other. But I've seen interviews of him where there's a lot of internal conflict, self-serving fear, narcissism etc.

    The script and the director takes chances, but don't deliver. The actors I think did their best, but overall it's a big missed opportunity to make this more than a rated R version of a Hallmark movie of the week.
  • For those of you not familiar with Ted Bundy and his crimes (if that's possible), this is the one to watch. But be prepared, you will have to have the stomach for it, because it is downright, shocking, disturbing, and sick, and it will stay in your mind long after the film is over. A few things i found disappointing about the movie though, were, in parts, the acting left a lot to be desired, the humour was a little over the top (and not really necessary under the circumstances), and there were a few inconsistency's in the story. But for the most part, this was probably the most accurate when it comes down to just how truly depraved his acts were. Nonetheless, as disturbing as it was, it was thoroughly engrossing from start to finish. I highly recommend it.
  • For me True Crime Movies are always unsettling because you know the actual facts are true. It´s not some sort of Horror-Entertainment but the visual depiction of true life atrocity, which adds some sort of authentification fictional Films always struggle for. In this case one hell of cynical campy director walks on the edge of sensationalism, serial killer fandom, critics of death-penalty and honest depiction of a truly evil and disturbed person. Ted Bundy is the trustworthy, educated, well dressed guy who gets quiet a lot of girls, delves into sadism and necrophilia and raises hell for so many female victims. For friends of torture and sadism the film doesn´t deliver too much except one scene I won´t spoil. But try this: Identify with the female victim that is awfully abused and destroyed by this talky misanthrope mother****er while another victim has to watch in handcuffs. This is one scene where the director gets serious and doesn´t turn the act into farce. It would be hard to stand to go more into details in depicting the cruelties, so the director lays more focus to show the killer´s deformed personality in more close-to-life scenes. Decide for yourself if you would have had the balls to just film the killing of one victim after another for shock value while knowing maybe relatives of the victims will watch your movie. The film centers most of the time on the killers perspective or stays very close to him, whereas the female victims are portrait ranging from naive and unsuspicious to pretty tough (Carol DaRonch). We don´t get much of an idea why Ted turned into this acts except one unsatisfying self-explaining attempt to his girlfriend. The film has production-weeknesses that could be intended, I don´t know how many times we saw the boom-mic. At first you think it´s a mistake, then you think it´s high-camp and later it adds some unintended trash-factor, as well as the relaxing soundtrack during the end-credits. The Film is probably more interesting if you know the facts already and you can identify what´s going on. As final result the movie gives Ted credit in how demented and tough in killing he was but a weakling in facing the consequences of his unhuman deeds. A truly despicable person with insight what hell is really like.
  • What we have here is Michael Reilly Burke (in his lone starring role of his career), in a not so convincing portrayal of Bundy. Bundy in real life was a role player n a genuine necrophiliac, a sadistic killer, handsome and charismatic, well versed with law n psychology n always with his turtleneck tshirts but Burke's portrayal reduced him into a comedic character. The masturbation scene n the facial expressions during the sexual acts were comedic. He didn't look like a student at all. In fact Zac Efron gave a good performance in Extremely......

    The film lacked tension n suspense although it has violence, especially the repeated scenes of Bundy bludgeoning his victims n the aftermath necrophiliac acts.

    The only 3 scenes I enjoyed are: when his girlfriend asks him whether he is enjoying the sexual act which she is painfully going thru. The scene where the officer beats Bundy with a baton. I wanted more repeated bashing of Bundy. And the best is the cotton ball n diaper scene.

    We have Tiffany Shepis n Tom Savini in minor roles. Tom Savini shud hav been given the role of the cop who inserts cotton ball..... He wud hav done a better act with his grin on his face while inserting the cotton ball. First saw this in 2002 on a dvd. Revisited it recently.
  • Caught this over the weekend, and I have to say that it lived up to my expectations. Some great performances, esp. Michael Reilly Burke as Bundy. Strong direction by Matthew Bright, that grabs the attention from the start, and sucks you into Bundy's spiraling descent into madness. If you liked Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, this is for you, if not, stay clear, not for the weak hearted.
  • Ted Bundy (Michael Reilly Burke) is a handsome, charismatic man. Who has great hopes to be a politician. But Ted isn't a ordinary man at all, he is actually a murderer and rapist of woman. He been murdering woman in parts of the United States. His crimes are infamous, notorious and unforgettable. Ted Bundy become the first murderer for the term "Serial Killer" to be used for the public.

    Directed by Matthew Bright (Freeway) made an watchable, harsh, horror film with odd moments of black comedy that is based on a true story. Reilly Burke does a good job with his performance. Since this is a independent film, sometimes it makes you wonder if the adult subject matter could have been better handle with a stronger filmmaker like Jonathan Demme or David Fincher. There is probably a stronger truer version out thee, if they decided to do "Ted Bundy" right. Since Bright makes intriguing if bizarre, oddball movies with the darkest sense of humour.

    The DVD has a decent Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an good Dolby Stereo 2.0 Surround Sound. The DVD's special features are the theatrical trailer and a tongue in cheek commentary by the director, he keeps his commentary very light-hearted! "Ted Bundy" is a bizarre movie to be sure, i would expect one filmmaker out-there to truly make a disturbing true story of a psychopath. The movie comes alive during these real-life stock footage of news comments. Tom Savini appears in a cameo, it was his last job as a make-up effects artist. Tracey Walter also appears in a bit-part. Worth a look for the lead's strong presence only. (*** 1/2 out of *****).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Why? Simply because the Deliverate Stranger was made in 86, and while it has all the investigation, police insight, background and stuf, it shows the MEDIA version of Bundy: Prince Charming with an evil streak.

    It was until 89 that Bundy confessed to his crimes and also to his method of getting girls into his car: beat them in the back of the head with an iron.

    So much for prince Charming...

    Also, Ted was much more normal BEFORE he started killing, that's when he got the prissy girlfriend, got into politics, and all that. This film is right when he starts killing, and at that point he was already showing weirdness all over. Just read The Stranger Beside Me. And even Ann Rule was astonished when Ted confessed to necrophilia, and keeping heads in his apartment, and so on.

    The film shows precisely that, all that was finally discovered about him just before he was put to death, and contrasts a lot with his previous fame given by the media.

    Like the lake, he was thought to be unbelievably charming to have convinced TWO girls the same day to go with him. It was later revealed he approached DOZENS of girls with the same line, and most turned him down because he had a crazed gaze in his eyes.

    And why the upbeat music and casualness to the killings? The film is made from HIS point of view. No background, no police investigation, just him. The Deliverate Stranger already showed that, why repeat? For him, it WAS upbeat and funny and casual, that's why it's shown that way. And why his execution is so somber and horrible, it was for him.

    Practically EVERYTHING is accurate, minus the victim's names (obvious reasons), the way he's recaptured (to accentuate how powerless he is with LIVE women), and name of his girlfriend. That's it, everything else is Accurate (well, he was missing a baseball cap he wore when exiting the Chi Omega house). Or like Ted's shoplifting antics, he DID that all the time indeed.

    And the director is the one from Freeway, so don't be surprised it's loaded with sick humor. Takes one to know one...
  • 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?
  • Overall I liked this flick. I had seen it prior to reading any reviews anywhere (in print or the net, etc etc) about it. While I found it disturbing, I think it did justice to showing us, as outsiders, a glimpse of the chaos that goes on in the mind of a serial killer. There were several scenes that could be labeled "stupid" or "pointless." There are scenes that leave you scratching your head and going, "Now just why in the he** did he do that?!" There are scenes that made me recoil. I was repulsed, but I think it's what made the flick so good. Yes, you do see lots of blood here and there, but it's more of what the director "doesn't" show you that gets your imagination going. And to know that this was all basically true... that all these things that happened in this movie were based on the actions of a real man... it just makes it that much more fascinating. I rented this flick from the video store and brought it home to watch it. I sat glued to my television, and it must have taken me a good 10-15 minutes after the movie was over to shake off the "dark cloud" kind of feeling that it left me with. Maybe it's because I can remember growing up during the time that all this went on in real life, but one thing is for sure... this is a good movie! I think the guy that played Ted Bundy did a great job, too.
An error has occured. Please try again.