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.
150 Reviews
A Menacing And Somewhat Surreal Bundy Film
TheAnimalMother4 July 2021
If you are really into serial killers, I strongly recommend this. In some ways it's quite unique, and the lead performance is very menacing. The film almost seems like a farce at times, but in a way that perhaps captures the surreal aspect of serial killing in a way rarely, if ever caught well on camera before(Although American Psycho touches this area as well.). It's far from a perfect film, but it is a worthy watch for many fans of the subject. While the tone of the film may offend some deeply, for others who can stomach the crudeness, they actually may find this film to be very funny at times. I know I did. Now don't get me wrong, the things Ted Bundy did are obviously not funny at all. Nonetheless this film takes a bit of a different look at things from the perspective of Bundy, and at times it can be quite entertaining here. In this way it ends up being a strange but somewhat thought provoking film. As I said, if you are interested in the genre, I strongly recommend taking a look at this film. It's not the best Bundy film, but it is well worth a watch for many. Some of the funniest moments in the film have to do more with Bundy's apparent kleptomaniac tendencies. Some could say that this film is fairly disrespectful to his victims and overall is in bad taste. I can understand this definitely. Though I felt the film sort of evens itself out in the end by showing what a coward Bundy really was. Nor did I feel that the film glorified Bundy in any way. What you see is a monster of a man for sure, which is what he was. A monster when in control, but more like a crybaby when he wasn't. As with all serial killer films, watch at your own risk. 7/10.
Unpleasantness all around
Coventry13 December 2023
"Ted Bundy" is definitely one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences I struggled myself through this year, but - then again - that is only logical since the actual Ted Bundy also was one of the most unpleasant persons to ever walk the planet's surface. And then still, I certainly don't have to complain about feeling unpleasant, because the (too) many people that crossed paths with Bundy, notably the victims and their families, truly must have gone through hell.
Between 2000 and 2009, there was a gigantic wave of true crime movies about US serial killers. Since horror cinema was going through a long non-fertile and uninspired period, this was a God's gift for many directors (*) because portraits of real serial killers don't much of a plot. All the notorious figures received one or even several biopics: Ed Gein, Aileen Wuornos, Zodiac Killer, John Wayne Gacy, BTK-killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, the Lonely Heart Killers. Ted Bundy could not be left out of this list, of course, but just as Bundy himself was an unusual killer who could not be classified within the known profiles, his biopic also can't be compared to all the routine and inferior films about other serial killers.
Why is "Ted Bundy" worth your time if you have the stomach for it? For starters because there was a multi-talented and promising (at the time, at least) director involved. Matthew Bright demonstrated, with the excellent "Freeway" and "Confessions of a Trick Baby", that he doesn't avoid sensitive taboo subjects like teen prostitution, drug addiction and child abuse. He was the ideal man to narrate the shocking but story of Bundy as raw, nihilistic, and disturbing as it really was.
Secondly, Matthew Bright was enormously "helped" by how absurd and unfathomable the facts in the case of Ted Bundy were. His story is one of those that simply must be factual because, if it had been written as fiction, people would claim it's totally implausible and unrealistic. How is it possible that Bundy made so many victims and remained under the radar for so long, even though his modus operandi and means of transportation were so conspicuous? How can a woman remain so loyal to a man who abuses and humiliates her, like Bundy did to Lee? How can it be that someone like Bundy escapes from jail twice or receives declarations of love from hundreds of women after his conviction? The explicit violence and cruelty in this film is often hard to look at, notably the scene in the cabin and the "submission fantasy", especially when realizing this freak and monster could do whatever he pleased for several years.
Between 2000 and 2009, there was a gigantic wave of true crime movies about US serial killers. Since horror cinema was going through a long non-fertile and uninspired period, this was a God's gift for many directors (*) because portraits of real serial killers don't much of a plot. All the notorious figures received one or even several biopics: Ed Gein, Aileen Wuornos, Zodiac Killer, John Wayne Gacy, BTK-killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, the Lonely Heart Killers. Ted Bundy could not be left out of this list, of course, but just as Bundy himself was an unusual killer who could not be classified within the known profiles, his biopic also can't be compared to all the routine and inferior films about other serial killers.
Why is "Ted Bundy" worth your time if you have the stomach for it? For starters because there was a multi-talented and promising (at the time, at least) director involved. Matthew Bright demonstrated, with the excellent "Freeway" and "Confessions of a Trick Baby", that he doesn't avoid sensitive taboo subjects like teen prostitution, drug addiction and child abuse. He was the ideal man to narrate the shocking but story of Bundy as raw, nihilistic, and disturbing as it really was.
Secondly, Matthew Bright was enormously "helped" by how absurd and unfathomable the facts in the case of Ted Bundy were. His story is one of those that simply must be factual because, if it had been written as fiction, people would claim it's totally implausible and unrealistic. How is it possible that Bundy made so many victims and remained under the radar for so long, even though his modus operandi and means of transportation were so conspicuous? How can a woman remain so loyal to a man who abuses and humiliates her, like Bundy did to Lee? How can it be that someone like Bundy escapes from jail twice or receives declarations of love from hundreds of women after his conviction? The explicit violence and cruelty in this film is often hard to look at, notably the scene in the cabin and the "submission fantasy", especially when realizing this freak and monster could do whatever he pleased for several years.
An excellent film, but VERY disturbing.
RussianPantyHog19 February 2004
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.
Fascinating biopic of the notorious serial killer.
poolandrews11 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Ted Bundy starts in Seattle 1974 where failed law school student Ted Bundy (Michael Reilly Burke) is studying psychology, at first glance he seems a nice enough guy who has a girlfriend Lee (Boti Bliss) who loves him. However in reality he is a deviant sexual predator who quickly graduates from masturbating outside girls bedrooms to breaking into homes, beating, raping & murdering young women. Eventually Bundy decides to pack up & move on to Salt Lake City in 1975 & he continues his killing spree on the way. After a failed attempt to kidnap a young girl Bundy is caught & tired for his crimes where while in prison he studies law in order to defend himself...
This English American co-production was co-written & directed by Matthew Bright & by all accounts is an extremely faithful dramatisation of the life & times of notorious real life American serial killer Ted Bundy, or at least as faithful as it could be considering Bundy is now dead & ultimately he was the only person who really knew for sure. The script by Bright & Stephen Johnston starts at the (generally accepted) beginning of Bundy's killing spree during 1974 & tells the story of Ted Bundy right up until he was executed by electric chair in 1989 although there are obviously large gaps here as the film tends to focus on major events. Told almost exclusively from the point of view of Bundy himself I think the female character who says that the 'motivation & psychology behind a murderer is fascinating' is absolutely right because it is, there's just something very compelling watching Ted Bundy knowing that the central character was a real guy, the crimes depicted in Ted Bundy actually happened & to most of us we are intrigued as to what would make someone commit such heinous crimes. The film is apparently very accurate to the events which happened, from his early days as a petty thief to tricking girls with a fake cast on his arm to his escape from jail & his eventual execution. I think the only major change is that all of the victims names have been changed, presumably as a mark of respect for the family & friends. One of the frightening things about Ted Bundy is that he actually comes across as quite a charismatic & likable guy especially at the start of the film which again in reality people say he was.
According to the end credits the term 'serial killer' was actually coined to describe Bundy. No-one knows exactly how many people Bundy killed, he confessed to killing thirty people but some say the total may be higher although he was only convicted of murdering four before his execution. The film starts out like a black comedy with Bundy stealing a huge pot plant & stuffing it in his car before driving away with it sticking out of his passenger window but things soon turn a lot grimmer. While not the most graphic of films it can be fairly disturbing at times, the scene when he stabs a woman, rapes her & when she comes round he knocks her out so he can finish raping her before beating her to death with a brick all while another female victim looks on tied up. The film follows Bundy around & every so often he rapes & kills someone, there's no real build up to these scenes as one might see in a teen slasher & the film is played very straight in a very matter of fact sort of way.
With a supposed budget of about $1,200,000 Ted Bundy is well made, the 70's period production values are good & the film looks nice enough although not overly flashy. Real newsreel footage was used during several points, during a montage of his crime spree & how it was reported, courtroom footage of the judge sentencing Bundy to death & footage of people waiting outside the Florida prison for his execution complete with pro execution banners. Although set in Seattle, Utah, Salt Lake City, Colorado & Florida the film was shot in & around Los Angeles in California. The acting is good with a fine performance from Burke as Bundy while genre actress Tiffany Shepis actually tries to act for once & special make-up effects man Tom Savini has a small cameo as a cop.
Ted Bundy is a strangely compelling & often fascinating real life biopic of Ted Bundy & his crimes, I am not sure whether you should be entertained by it or whether the likes of Bundy should have films made about them but I did like it & thought it was well put together.
This English American co-production was co-written & directed by Matthew Bright & by all accounts is an extremely faithful dramatisation of the life & times of notorious real life American serial killer Ted Bundy, or at least as faithful as it could be considering Bundy is now dead & ultimately he was the only person who really knew for sure. The script by Bright & Stephen Johnston starts at the (generally accepted) beginning of Bundy's killing spree during 1974 & tells the story of Ted Bundy right up until he was executed by electric chair in 1989 although there are obviously large gaps here as the film tends to focus on major events. Told almost exclusively from the point of view of Bundy himself I think the female character who says that the 'motivation & psychology behind a murderer is fascinating' is absolutely right because it is, there's just something very compelling watching Ted Bundy knowing that the central character was a real guy, the crimes depicted in Ted Bundy actually happened & to most of us we are intrigued as to what would make someone commit such heinous crimes. The film is apparently very accurate to the events which happened, from his early days as a petty thief to tricking girls with a fake cast on his arm to his escape from jail & his eventual execution. I think the only major change is that all of the victims names have been changed, presumably as a mark of respect for the family & friends. One of the frightening things about Ted Bundy is that he actually comes across as quite a charismatic & likable guy especially at the start of the film which again in reality people say he was.
According to the end credits the term 'serial killer' was actually coined to describe Bundy. No-one knows exactly how many people Bundy killed, he confessed to killing thirty people but some say the total may be higher although he was only convicted of murdering four before his execution. The film starts out like a black comedy with Bundy stealing a huge pot plant & stuffing it in his car before driving away with it sticking out of his passenger window but things soon turn a lot grimmer. While not the most graphic of films it can be fairly disturbing at times, the scene when he stabs a woman, rapes her & when she comes round he knocks her out so he can finish raping her before beating her to death with a brick all while another female victim looks on tied up. The film follows Bundy around & every so often he rapes & kills someone, there's no real build up to these scenes as one might see in a teen slasher & the film is played very straight in a very matter of fact sort of way.
With a supposed budget of about $1,200,000 Ted Bundy is well made, the 70's period production values are good & the film looks nice enough although not overly flashy. Real newsreel footage was used during several points, during a montage of his crime spree & how it was reported, courtroom footage of the judge sentencing Bundy to death & footage of people waiting outside the Florida prison for his execution complete with pro execution banners. Although set in Seattle, Utah, Salt Lake City, Colorado & Florida the film was shot in & around Los Angeles in California. The acting is good with a fine performance from Burke as Bundy while genre actress Tiffany Shepis actually tries to act for once & special make-up effects man Tom Savini has a small cameo as a cop.
Ted Bundy is a strangely compelling & often fascinating real life biopic of Ted Bundy & his crimes, I am not sure whether you should be entertained by it or whether the likes of Bundy should have films made about them but I did like it & thought it was well put together.
Plodding - but watchable - portrait of America's most notorious serial killer.
Pedro_H4 August 2005
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...
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...
A Gripping True Story Ruined By Exploitation and Hearsay
D_Burke22 August 2009
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.
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.
Horrible movie
davenyland27 May 2006
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.
Ted Bundy
Scarecrow-8812 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It'd be interesting to watch Matthew Bright's Ted Bundy along with "The Deliberate Stranger" starring Mark Harmon. Bright's film, of course, explores the dark, ugly side that TDS just couldn't because of national television. That means, more often than not, we see Ted Bundy in Bright's film almost always creepy and psychopathic. I think that's where Harmon scored and Michael Reilly Burke couldn't..we see Bundy in ways many others did, while Burke's Ted is always stalking and destroying. It's not exactly a pleasant film, by any imagination, but neither was Bundy's "extra curricular activities." We see the psycho-sexual stuff, his "pick-up" methods, and how he bludgeoned girls up side the noggins. Bright, maybe to the dismay of those who crave such explicit stuff, sometimes pulls back, not really elaborating in detail all of Bundy's sick, warped treatment of those he raped and murdered..I actually prefer this, because we're dealing with a real-life murderer, not an altogether fictitious one. It's hard to watch such a film as this as something entertaining, or to enjoy..it's a way for Bright to explore the darker side of man, using a subject we are familiar with. Burke is quite impressive in his scenes when he portrays Ted as a cold-blooded, and fiendish, maniac, who gets visceral thrills sexually molesting dead women, or assaulting future victims. Sometimes, Bright employs the "less is more" approach, subtly implying what is transpiring(..such as the awful, awful attack on a girl, using little more than scattered clothes in a pasture leading to an abandoned shack in the middle of nowhere). It's inevitable that you'll have your anal retentive "historians" trying to detect flaws in the time line, little anachronisms that may not coincide with the period for which Bundy's exploits occurred. I was more interested in how Bright and Burke would portray the man, how far they'd be willing to go. I think they cover enough ground, and we see him in action. I love the scene, though, where Tiffany Shepis, as a potential victim, finds her way free from Bundy, quite a resilient young woman who wasn't about to be taken prisoner without a fight. Tom Savini has a cameo as a detective questioning Bundy. Lee(Boti Bliss), Bundy's frequent lover and possible future wife, and her unusual relationship with Ted is dealt on in depth;this is where we see Bundy slowly morphing sexually into the perverse beast he'd soon become. I think Bright was wise to shoot a lot of the movie when Bundy is on the road or around places where you can not easily detect errors in the period covered. Probably the hardest moments to watch are when he bashes girls over the head(..although, Bright often only shows Bundy swinging hard upon the victims who are off screen, which perhaps is also a more effective method instead of gratuitously exploiting the damage in detail).
Oh, That Wacky Ted!
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.
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.
Horror in the true sense
nixskits25 November 2009
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.
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.
Why is Bundy killing everybody?
jerekra29 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Ted Bundy is a film about the famous serial killer Ted Bundy.
The film does not center around his whole life. It starts off when he is in law school and goes from there showing how he lives a double life. At times he hangs out with his girlfriend Lee and her daughter. Then he kills girls brutally and has sex with their dead bodies at times.
One problem I had with this film is that they never really explain the motives that Bundy had for killing women. I know that his mother was really his grandmother and his sister was his real mother but they barely mention this. A flashback to his childhood and being scarred by women in his life would have been good in this film but they don't do it. SO for the most part Bundy just goes around killing people in this film and if you do not know about him you would have no idea why, you would just think he is a killer.
I thought that the guy who portrayed Bundy did a good job, not great but good. At times he seemed a little lame when he was trying to pick up women in the film. There are a few weird scenes in this film as well. One particular scene when he had to lie to a girl about being a police officer to get her to go with him in his car was really weird.
But there are some great scenes showing how Bundy was relentless in killing. Also it is interesting to see how he acts normal in public and then goes after girls to kill.
This is not a movie for young kids. There is nudity, lots of violence, and bad language. Also they show a lot of dead and decomposing bodies and a scene where Bundy puts make up on a severed head. Even older people may get disturbed at scenes.
I thought the movie was above average, lots better than the Jeffrey Dahmer film, and could have been better. But there are a lot of good scenes and it does do a good job of portraying what type of person Bundy was. Still I thought they should have explained his motives more and at times you have to wonder why is killing everybody. He was not just a killer without reasons. It was his hatred towards women that made him do this.
A good film, worth watching but be warned. This film is not a family film.
The film does not center around his whole life. It starts off when he is in law school and goes from there showing how he lives a double life. At times he hangs out with his girlfriend Lee and her daughter. Then he kills girls brutally and has sex with their dead bodies at times.
One problem I had with this film is that they never really explain the motives that Bundy had for killing women. I know that his mother was really his grandmother and his sister was his real mother but they barely mention this. A flashback to his childhood and being scarred by women in his life would have been good in this film but they don't do it. SO for the most part Bundy just goes around killing people in this film and if you do not know about him you would have no idea why, you would just think he is a killer.
I thought that the guy who portrayed Bundy did a good job, not great but good. At times he seemed a little lame when he was trying to pick up women in the film. There are a few weird scenes in this film as well. One particular scene when he had to lie to a girl about being a police officer to get her to go with him in his car was really weird.
But there are some great scenes showing how Bundy was relentless in killing. Also it is interesting to see how he acts normal in public and then goes after girls to kill.
This is not a movie for young kids. There is nudity, lots of violence, and bad language. Also they show a lot of dead and decomposing bodies and a scene where Bundy puts make up on a severed head. Even older people may get disturbed at scenes.
I thought the movie was above average, lots better than the Jeffrey Dahmer film, and could have been better. But there are a lot of good scenes and it does do a good job of portraying what type of person Bundy was. Still I thought they should have explained his motives more and at times you have to wonder why is killing everybody. He was not just a killer without reasons. It was his hatred towards women that made him do this.
A good film, worth watching but be warned. This film is not a family film.
Too much focus on the killings
mattnadler25 October 2017
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.
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.
Not what it could have been
JackLint6 October 2002
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.
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.
Very Accurate Depiction of Bundy's crimes
jamesl99 February 2020
The most accurate Bundy film every made. Reading the other reviews, some mock scenes like him with corpses, for instance, like the scenes were invented by filmakers but they really happened. It wasn't some shock scene the film makers came up with, it's what Bundy actually did. He'd go back to his dump sites for weeks after killing his victims where he'd apply makeup on them. He was a necrophiliac. He was also a notorious thief. Those scenes have been described as campy but, again, they actually happened. As for the film, it's a well made film, very disturbing and terrifying at times.
More positive than negative
bdonnlis27 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This was a pretty good movie could have been better if it was a little more accurate. I understand changing the victims names up considering there are still living families of the victims and that certainly would anger them, not that the film itself already does so. But, I wish they would have included Stephanie in the film which is one of the women psychologists believe threw him off the deep end. I don't like how they portrayed Ted majoring in law before psychology because I'm pretty sure he did well majoring in psychology but then changed it to pre law and flunked, probably due to his increased consumption with murder. I felt the film over exaggerated the way Ted acted and portrayed him as more of a whiney wuss. Ted was flawed psychologically but he didn't reveal it as obviously as the film showed. He was much more smooth. Other than those errors, I think the film did an excellent job telling the story and getting the point across. You won't regret watching. Me and my girlfriend enjoyed it although she couldn't watch certain scenes because of the graphic murders. It's a good movie to watch if you're interested in Ted Bundy.
Tragedy of a film, and falsely covered and represented
krisnace19 May 2019
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.
Fast & Loose with the Facts
evolutionbrandon197815 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film contains several factual errors relating to the history and the events and how they played out.
1: The scene where he tells his girlfriend he fluked law school and is now flunking psychology. WRONG. He graduated with a degree in Psychology in 1972, University of Washington. While he took night classes at the University of Puget Sound law school, he ended up quitting over his perception that the schooling was not adequate; hence going to law school at the University of Utah 2: The scene in the high school parking lot. This is supposed to refer to Debby Kent, who did vanish in November 1975 from a high school parking lot. However, she was not a cheerleader and she was not murdered in the lot; she was abducted and a handcuff key was found in the lot but her body was never found.
3: The Utah arrest. In the film, it is shown as 1976. His arrest was dated August 16, 1975 and the initial charge was suspicion of burglary. His trial was February 1976 and he was convicted in a bench trial on March 1, 1976 for the attempted kidnapping of Carol DaRonch.
4: The sex scene by the jail water cooler. The woman in question is supposed to be Carole Boone. He did not marry her until February 9, 1980 and their child was born 2 years later 5: The Florida arrest. In the film, he is arrested in daylight while in a stolen van. In reality, he was arrested at night in Pensacola when Officer David Lee spotted a red VW bug driving suspiciously and observed the vehicle was stolen I think the movie did get it right in terms of his propensity for petty thievery.
However, the above miscues as well as showing him wearing a bow tie in his daily routine was just too egregious. The only known time he wore a bow tie was during the 1976 Utah trial.
Also (THE DELIBERATE STRANGER made this mistake as well), his appearance alterations were not shown much here. In Washington, he had average to moderately long hair; in Utah following his arrest, he had short hair. In Colorado during his incarceration there, he had a heavy beard and in Florida when he was arrested, he had a mustache. The only time we see his beard is when he first arrives in Florida.
1: The scene where he tells his girlfriend he fluked law school and is now flunking psychology. WRONG. He graduated with a degree in Psychology in 1972, University of Washington. While he took night classes at the University of Puget Sound law school, he ended up quitting over his perception that the schooling was not adequate; hence going to law school at the University of Utah 2: The scene in the high school parking lot. This is supposed to refer to Debby Kent, who did vanish in November 1975 from a high school parking lot. However, she was not a cheerleader and she was not murdered in the lot; she was abducted and a handcuff key was found in the lot but her body was never found.
3: The Utah arrest. In the film, it is shown as 1976. His arrest was dated August 16, 1975 and the initial charge was suspicion of burglary. His trial was February 1976 and he was convicted in a bench trial on March 1, 1976 for the attempted kidnapping of Carol DaRonch.
4: The sex scene by the jail water cooler. The woman in question is supposed to be Carole Boone. He did not marry her until February 9, 1980 and their child was born 2 years later 5: The Florida arrest. In the film, he is arrested in daylight while in a stolen van. In reality, he was arrested at night in Pensacola when Officer David Lee spotted a red VW bug driving suspiciously and observed the vehicle was stolen I think the movie did get it right in terms of his propensity for petty thievery.
However, the above miscues as well as showing him wearing a bow tie in his daily routine was just too egregious. The only known time he wore a bow tie was during the 1976 Utah trial.
Also (THE DELIBERATE STRANGER made this mistake as well), his appearance alterations were not shown much here. In Washington, he had average to moderately long hair; in Utah following his arrest, he had short hair. In Colorado during his incarceration there, he had a heavy beard and in Florida when he was arrested, he had a mustache. The only time we see his beard is when he first arrives in Florida.
I wish the same cotton ball act was done on Hitler n Joseph Mengele, of course with the Carolina Reaper.
Fella_shibby22 May 2019
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.
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.
And then I cut her head off with a hack saw and I took it home with me.
lastliberal16 October 2009
This is a very disturbing film. The rage that was in Ted Bundy (Michael Reilly Burke) was not easy to watch. I don't think they could have found anyone better than Burke to do the character. Smooth and easy to the ladies until he got them where he wanted and then he was maniacal in his treatment.
He had a fetish for necrophilia, as he wanted his women almost dead as he raped them.
His smooth manner even enabled him to keep the guards off guard after he was arrested facilitating an escape. He managed to escape twice before he had his date with Old Sparky. Even a plea to help solve all the murders he committed, would not save him.
He was probably the worst serial killer in history. He was certainly a disgusting man.
He had a fetish for necrophilia, as he wanted his women almost dead as he raped them.
His smooth manner even enabled him to keep the guards off guard after he was arrested facilitating an escape. He managed to escape twice before he had his date with Old Sparky. Even a plea to help solve all the murders he committed, would not save him.
He was probably the worst serial killer in history. He was certainly a disgusting man.
Fail
porcupinedivine8 December 2019
Morbidly Fascinating/ Disturbing
afreimann11 August 2004
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 best part for this viewer is that the movie allows us to see Bundy sentenced to death.
A. Freimann
Flawed, but still good
jluis198424 March 2006
Director Matthew Bright surprised the world in 1996 with his outstanding debut "Freeway", a powerful and well-constructed film that also sent Reese Whiterspoon's career to new levels as a young actress. Unlike the star of his film, Bright kept a low profile; and now, six years after that successful debut, and after directing an inferior sequel to "Freeway", he returns with another challenging movie in the biopic of the most notorious serial killer in modern history: Ted Bundy.
Ted Bundy was a man who between 1974 and 1978 committed a high amount of murders across the United States. Focused on young women, Ted Bundy was the first criminal to be labeled as a serial killer due to his sociopath behavior and disturbed psychological status. His crimes shocked the nation and changed the image of serial killers for ever.
Bright's movie focuses on the killing rampage that Bundy started in 1974 until his capture and eventual execution. The movie depicts his methods and disturbed behavior, and follows closely what is known of the case. We get a glimpse of Bundy's life as a law student and his attempts of having a normal life. However, his obsession with power and his sociopath mind eventually destroy the lives of many people to satisfy his sadistic urges.
Sadly, the movie never dives fully in the complex character that Bundy is. While this is understandable due to the lack of information about Bundy's real persona, it is obvious that Bright decided to keep the movie only as a retelling of events without getting too much into deep analysis of Bundy.
However, this ends up as a double edge razor; Bright manages to tell the story without taking sides, showing Bundy as a human being, but without forcing the audience to empathize with him; on the other hand, this approach looks shallow, and doesn't offer anything new to people familiar with the case. Something that comes up as a disappointment, as this particular story has enough room for deep analysis.
Michael Reilly Burke is awesome as Bundy, in the sense that he captures the essence of what is known about him. He manages to portray the facade of the charming young man that hides a terrible monster with powerful presence. His performance as the serial killer is very good, specially if we consider the fact that the script (as the real life), doesn't explain why is this apparently normal man acts in such bizarre ways.
Boti Bliss also makes a good job as Bundy's girlfriend, and has excellent scenes in the film; however, the film really belongs to Reilly Burke who, particularly at the end of Bundy's life, shows the great actor he can be. Something worth notice, is that the special effects are done by the now legendary Tom Savini, and while not in great amounts, the gore depicted is truly frightening and a throw back to Savini's earlier and more realistic gore.
"Ted Bundy" is definitely a movie that could had been more; nevertheless, it still is a very good movie and a portrayal of a dark side of North America that should never be forgotten. While not on the same league as the powerful "Freeway", this movie shows that Bright still has a lot to offer and personally I hope that he can return with a masterpiece next time. 6/10
Ted Bundy was a man who between 1974 and 1978 committed a high amount of murders across the United States. Focused on young women, Ted Bundy was the first criminal to be labeled as a serial killer due to his sociopath behavior and disturbed psychological status. His crimes shocked the nation and changed the image of serial killers for ever.
Bright's movie focuses on the killing rampage that Bundy started in 1974 until his capture and eventual execution. The movie depicts his methods and disturbed behavior, and follows closely what is known of the case. We get a glimpse of Bundy's life as a law student and his attempts of having a normal life. However, his obsession with power and his sociopath mind eventually destroy the lives of many people to satisfy his sadistic urges.
Sadly, the movie never dives fully in the complex character that Bundy is. While this is understandable due to the lack of information about Bundy's real persona, it is obvious that Bright decided to keep the movie only as a retelling of events without getting too much into deep analysis of Bundy.
However, this ends up as a double edge razor; Bright manages to tell the story without taking sides, showing Bundy as a human being, but without forcing the audience to empathize with him; on the other hand, this approach looks shallow, and doesn't offer anything new to people familiar with the case. Something that comes up as a disappointment, as this particular story has enough room for deep analysis.
Michael Reilly Burke is awesome as Bundy, in the sense that he captures the essence of what is known about him. He manages to portray the facade of the charming young man that hides a terrible monster with powerful presence. His performance as the serial killer is very good, specially if we consider the fact that the script (as the real life), doesn't explain why is this apparently normal man acts in such bizarre ways.
Boti Bliss also makes a good job as Bundy's girlfriend, and has excellent scenes in the film; however, the film really belongs to Reilly Burke who, particularly at the end of Bundy's life, shows the great actor he can be. Something worth notice, is that the special effects are done by the now legendary Tom Savini, and while not in great amounts, the gore depicted is truly frightening and a throw back to Savini's earlier and more realistic gore.
"Ted Bundy" is definitely a movie that could had been more; nevertheless, it still is a very good movie and a portrayal of a dark side of North America that should never be forgotten. While not on the same league as the powerful "Freeway", this movie shows that Bright still has a lot to offer and personally I hope that he can return with a masterpiece next time. 6/10
Bloody awful, absolute trash
alkmenesankles20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film is among the most pointless on which I have ever had the misfortune of wasting my time. It is a gruesome and gratuitous catalogue of Bundy's rapes and killings with little or no attempt at providing background, psychological insight or theory.
As the end approached I drew a sigh of relief, only to be confronted with the worst scrap of acting in history (Boti Bliss musing, "Who is Ted Bundy?") followed one-by-one by no fewer than four children unidentified children, one of them gleefully holding up a dead cat, all of whom say, "I'm Ted Bundy." Even if Spike Lee hadn't done it first, using the "I'm Malcolm X" shots to such brilliant effect, this would be beyond corny. As pastiche (homage?), it's unforgivable.
Spare yourself the torture. Rent Silence of the Lambs again instead.
As the end approached I drew a sigh of relief, only to be confronted with the worst scrap of acting in history (Boti Bliss musing, "Who is Ted Bundy?") followed one-by-one by no fewer than four children unidentified children, one of them gleefully holding up a dead cat, all of whom say, "I'm Ted Bundy." Even if Spike Lee hadn't done it first, using the "I'm Malcolm X" shots to such brilliant effect, this would be beyond corny. As pastiche (homage?), it's unforgivable.
Spare yourself the torture. Rent Silence of the Lambs again instead.
Brutal movie about a brutal man
veemoffa5 January 2003
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 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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
