I think this movie could have been a truly good film. Unfortunately, the mixture of this period film with rock and roll music and synthesizer music makes this almost unbearable. The acting is good and the scenery is well done. Costumes are perfect for the period. Christina Ricci plays the part well as she does with most of the roles she takes on. I also like Clea Duvall as Emma. She does a great job opposite Ricci. I only wish that Nick Gomez would have hired someone to do the music that would have put the scenes with music that fit the period. I think some piano, violin, and other strings would have been much more suitable to this film. Occasionally there is some nice creepy music over some scenes, but in the transitions between scenes we are forced to hear Sons Of Jezebel's song "Whoo Boy". It just doesn't fit. Overall this movie was a let down.
66 Reviews
Thin Lizzie
utgard1429 January 2014
Lifetime TV movie about the murder trial of Lizzie Borden. I think we're all pretty familiar with the case so I won't go over that part. Basically, Lifetime takes the Lizzie Borden story and adds sex appeal and rock music. It's pretty silly at times but entertaining enough. Christina Ricci's performance borders on campy which probably helps the movie more than harms it. Having seen and read quite a bit over the years about this case I know they played fast & loose with the facts, as just about any movie does with historical events. Although I could be wrong and Lizzie did, in fact, show off her cleavage and go to raves. Maybe historians just don't want us to know the ugly truth. If this were a theatrical release I would rate it lower. But since it's made for television, it's actually above par. If you can find it you should definitely check out the 1970s TV movie with Elizabeth Montgomery called The Legend of Lizzie Borden. It's much better and you can enjoy it on a serious level without the giggle factor this version produces.
Very good TV movie/mystery/crime drama, but with laughable soundtrack
thomasbarr26 January 2014
My wife and I both enjoyed this movie, and she had just recently read a book on the case. The story was well-told and left open for interpretation, for most of the movie, to whether she was guilty or not. The acting was excellent and the period costumes were as well. However, whoever allowed this soundtrack to be used tried their best to ruin the whole experience. I don't think a thriller/mystery set in 1892 should have 21st-century electric/amplified rock music inserted, especially in the first half of the movie. To have a scene or a transition of a movie set in the 1890's interrupted by an amplified guitar and keyboards with the nauseating "Oooooo, boy!" was not only ridiculous, after a while we started laughing and wondering when the next inappropriate music would come bursting in. Overall, however, it's a very good TV movie.
Bad music editing....better in 1975 with Montgomery
poetzmuse26 January 2014
Was looking forward to watching this but a let down. As the others reviewers added, music was awful. Should have been no music or period music. Blaring Sons of Anarchy-type songs did not fit in with an 1892 murder case! And was so poorly edited as to block out characters speaking...! Ricci performance was decent. Rest of movie a disappointment. Would have liked more development on Bridget the Irish maid and Emma. Possibly more angles from neighbors, town-folk. The movie to watch on the case was Legend of Lizzie Borden with Elizabeth Montgomery. What a surprise from her Bewitched days! Her portrayal was edgy and spot on.
Don't get the negativity. It was good.
hotsprings22 August 2014
I just finished watching this movie and i thought it was a really great production for lifetime TV movie. I actually think it could've been released in theatre's.
The acting was well done. This movie was also very good at maintaining suspense.
the only criticism was some of the music they chose which was not suited for the era this movie was set in.
I read some other posts on here that agree about the music but i don't think bad music should create so much negativity on what looked like a good production overall.
Having said that...the reasons why my views on this movie might be more positive than others is because
so if you are like me... and come into the movie without any idea about this case or the history of it. you might enjoy it.
The acting was well done. This movie was also very good at maintaining suspense.
the only criticism was some of the music they chose which was not suited for the era this movie was set in.
I read some other posts on here that agree about the music but i don't think bad music should create so much negativity on what looked like a good production overall.
Having said that...the reasons why my views on this movie might be more positive than others is because
- i watch a lot of lifetime movies and felt as though this film was much better than the typical lifetime TV movie.
- i never watched the original movie made in the 1975 with Elizabeth Montgomery
- i haven't followed the original case so i didn't have any ideas on what or how this movie should be like.
so if you are like me... and come into the movie without any idea about this case or the history of it. you might enjoy it.
By Lifetime Standards, Pretty Good
gavin694211 October 2017
The true story of Lizzie Borden (Christina Ricci), a young woman tried and acquitted in the 1892 murders of her father and stepmother.
My rating on this film is a bit lower than it possibly should be. Honestly, the only reason it is not better than it is stems from the limitations of being a made-for-TV movie. The budget is limited and other matters may be truncated or simplified. But you have to give them credit, because despite the limits everyone gave 100% and we even get decent gore.
Most interesting, at least to me, is how the writer tried to stick to the historical record. Maybe not perfect (what is?), but where the film could have been sensational, it instead follows the more or less true story of the murders and trial. The "whacks" are not 40, and even the death locations match the known photographs.
My rating on this film is a bit lower than it possibly should be. Honestly, the only reason it is not better than it is stems from the limitations of being a made-for-TV movie. The budget is limited and other matters may be truncated or simplified. But you have to give them credit, because despite the limits everyone gave 100% and we even get decent gore.
Most interesting, at least to me, is how the writer tried to stick to the historical record. Maybe not perfect (what is?), but where the film could have been sensational, it instead follows the more or less true story of the murders and trial. The "whacks" are not 40, and even the death locations match the known photographs.
It was good until I heard the horrendous soundtrack
SunStar5628 January 2014
I'm just going to get this off my chest right away.
What was with that abhorrent soundtrack? This would've been a much better movie if it weren't for that awful music. Seriously. Rock & Roll? Stuff that sounds like grunge metal? In a movie that's set in the late 1800s? That makes *awesome* sense! Not.
If you can get past the soundtrack and give it a chance, it's a decent movie. I didn't really care for Christina Ricci, she just didn't seem that believable to me, but Billy Campbell was pretty good; though I've seen him in better things.
I just can't get over that soundtrack though. Yuck. It made an OK movie nearly unwatchable. My advice: Don't waste your time on this one.
What was with that abhorrent soundtrack? This would've been a much better movie if it weren't for that awful music. Seriously. Rock & Roll? Stuff that sounds like grunge metal? In a movie that's set in the late 1800s? That makes *awesome* sense! Not.
If you can get past the soundtrack and give it a chance, it's a decent movie. I didn't really care for Christina Ricci, she just didn't seem that believable to me, but Billy Campbell was pretty good; though I've seen him in better things.
I just can't get over that soundtrack though. Yuck. It made an OK movie nearly unwatchable. My advice: Don't waste your time on this one.
A contemporary and oddly entertaining take on the controversial case
makleen25 October 2017
Christina Ricci stars in this made-for-TV dramatization of the 1893 trial of Lizzie Andrew Borden for the murder of her father and step-mother in Fall River, Massachusetts. The highly-stylized production recounts events immediately surrounding the murders and subsequent trial. Lizzie Borden Took an Ax (2014) was later developed into a TV Mini-Series The Lizzie Borden Chronicles (2015). It blends a modern soundtrack with historic events to create an oddly entertaining take on the controversial case.
At 11:10 a.m. on August 4, 1892, Lizzy Borden (Christina Ricci), 32, yelled for the family maid, Bridget Sullivan (Hannah Anderson), to quickly come downstairs. She discovered her father, Andrew (Stephen McHattie), slumped over the sofa. His head had been bashed in. Abby (Sara Botsford), Lizzy's stepmother, was found on the floor of an upstairs bedroom, her head and face smashed. Lizzy gave police strange and often conflicting information, and she quickly became the chief suspect.
Her New Bedford trial, beginning in June 1893, was a national sensation, widely reported in the newspapers. It took the jury 90 minutes to acquit her, and with her inheritance, she purchased a new home and lived there with her sister Emma (Clea DuVall). Despite efforts to start a new life, Lizzy Borden was ostracized from Fall River society, since many people believed she was the murderer.
There are several alternative theories about "who done it," but Lizzie Borden Took an Ax doesn't entertain any of them. It openly implies Lizzie was the murderer, even going so far as to imagine Lizzie confessing the crime to her sister, causing her to flee their home in disgust. In fact, the two sisters split in an argument over a party in 1905, 12 years after the trial. We'll never know what the sisters said to each other in private conversation, so this is creative license at work.
The film weirdly sexualizes Lizzie Borden, and for that, Christina Ricci was perfect for the role, but Ricci looks nothing like a proper, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant spinster. The real Lizzie Borden was a member of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which advocated abstinence from alcohol. Rumors about Lizzie's sexuality revolved around an alleged relationship with the actress Nance O'Neil, but this gossip was probably of the kind leveled at any unmarried, middle-aged person at the time. Lizzie is portrayed as attempting to seduce everyone who gets in her way, even her own father, and is shown committing the murders in the nude.
Lizzie Borden Took an Ax is well-paced. This 87-minute movie doesn't waste time dwelling on irrelevant information or side stories. It effectively shows the tension in the Borden household prior to the murders and moves on. The audience doesn't need to see flashbacks of Lizzie's childhood, labored exposition, or other staples of historic biopics. The filmmakers establish their backgrounds with a few lines and a few short scenes.
Veteran character actor Gregg Henry was given the unenviable role of playing prosecutor Hosea Knowlton, who is portrayed in this film as the antagonist. Lizzie Borden gives him every reason to suspect she's the killer, yet Knowlton's insistence on prosecuting her comes off as a witch-hunt, as few believe her capable of a brutal double murder. He is a forceful presence on screen, but his edge is dulled by the knowledge he'll ultimately lose the case. Filmmakers tried to cast the verdict as a surprise, but it's hard to do that when your source material is a real trial.
There are many ways to make a compelling film about the Borden murders–the drama practically writes itself. Lizzie Borden Took an Ax chose not to focus on alternative theories, public interest in the case (it was the first trial followed nationally in the American press), or social issues, but to glamorize Lizzie herself. Christina Ricci fans love this movie, and it's a capable and entertaining introduction to the case, just don't reference it in a history paper.
At 11:10 a.m. on August 4, 1892, Lizzy Borden (Christina Ricci), 32, yelled for the family maid, Bridget Sullivan (Hannah Anderson), to quickly come downstairs. She discovered her father, Andrew (Stephen McHattie), slumped over the sofa. His head had been bashed in. Abby (Sara Botsford), Lizzy's stepmother, was found on the floor of an upstairs bedroom, her head and face smashed. Lizzy gave police strange and often conflicting information, and she quickly became the chief suspect.
Her New Bedford trial, beginning in June 1893, was a national sensation, widely reported in the newspapers. It took the jury 90 minutes to acquit her, and with her inheritance, she purchased a new home and lived there with her sister Emma (Clea DuVall). Despite efforts to start a new life, Lizzy Borden was ostracized from Fall River society, since many people believed she was the murderer.
There are several alternative theories about "who done it," but Lizzie Borden Took an Ax doesn't entertain any of them. It openly implies Lizzie was the murderer, even going so far as to imagine Lizzie confessing the crime to her sister, causing her to flee their home in disgust. In fact, the two sisters split in an argument over a party in 1905, 12 years after the trial. We'll never know what the sisters said to each other in private conversation, so this is creative license at work.
The film weirdly sexualizes Lizzie Borden, and for that, Christina Ricci was perfect for the role, but Ricci looks nothing like a proper, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant spinster. The real Lizzie Borden was a member of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which advocated abstinence from alcohol. Rumors about Lizzie's sexuality revolved around an alleged relationship with the actress Nance O'Neil, but this gossip was probably of the kind leveled at any unmarried, middle-aged person at the time. Lizzie is portrayed as attempting to seduce everyone who gets in her way, even her own father, and is shown committing the murders in the nude.
Lizzie Borden Took an Ax is well-paced. This 87-minute movie doesn't waste time dwelling on irrelevant information or side stories. It effectively shows the tension in the Borden household prior to the murders and moves on. The audience doesn't need to see flashbacks of Lizzie's childhood, labored exposition, or other staples of historic biopics. The filmmakers establish their backgrounds with a few lines and a few short scenes.
Veteran character actor Gregg Henry was given the unenviable role of playing prosecutor Hosea Knowlton, who is portrayed in this film as the antagonist. Lizzie Borden gives him every reason to suspect she's the killer, yet Knowlton's insistence on prosecuting her comes off as a witch-hunt, as few believe her capable of a brutal double murder. He is a forceful presence on screen, but his edge is dulled by the knowledge he'll ultimately lose the case. Filmmakers tried to cast the verdict as a surprise, but it's hard to do that when your source material is a real trial.
There are many ways to make a compelling film about the Borden murders–the drama practically writes itself. Lizzie Borden Took an Ax chose not to focus on alternative theories, public interest in the case (it was the first trial followed nationally in the American press), or social issues, but to glamorize Lizzie herself. Christina Ricci fans love this movie, and it's a capable and entertaining introduction to the case, just don't reference it in a history paper.
Complete Miss
kimberlyanngerber26 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I was anxiously awaiting for this movie to come out. I've been interested in this case for many years and have done extensive research on the murders. This movie was completely inaccurate and disappointing. The soundtrack was inappropriate for this movie. The murders took place in a small town during the Victorian era. The movie should have been accompanied by anything other than the annoying rock music played. The portrayal of Lizzie Borden was off, the house and setting was off. The time line, people involved, statements, trial and inquest were all off. For instance, her uncle arrived at their home the day before and spent the night. He was present the morning of the murders and returned later that day. Lizzie didn't burn her dress outdoors at night in a fire pit. She burned the dress during the day in the kitchen's stove with her friend, Alice Russell present. The comments concerning the murders that were overheard was not by the maid but during her stay in prison by a female prison guard. Lizzie was never noted to dress provocatively nor noted for going to late drinking parties. Those were just a few of the numerous inaccuracies throughout the movie. Although I like Christina Ricci, they could have chosen an actress more fit to portray Lizzie. Christina is more of a frail and petite woman which didn't hit the mark of Lizzie, who was more robust in stature. Her acting as well as some other actors in the movie was mediocre at best. For those fascinated by this case should watch Elizabeth Montgomery's portrayal in the 1975 The Legend of Lizzie Borden which is more accurate.
"I didn't want to look like a killer."
classicsoncall7 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Probably like most first time viewers, I had no real knowledge of the legend of Lizzie Borden other than her relationship with an ax and two dead parents. I never even considered that she might have been found innocent of murder following a jury trial; funny how hearsay clouds one's judgment until exposed to the real story. As Lizzie Borden, Christina Ricci does turn in an ambiguous portrayal that leads one to suspect that she had it in her to dispose of her father and stepmother. In one scene in which she bids good night to sister Emma (Clea DuVall), she has a real creepy look, and you get the idea that she was fully capable. The real Lizzie Borden was acquitted of the murder charge in 1893 in a highly publicized trial, though the story here intimates that Lizzie made a confession to Emma that she really did it. Modern day theorists have come up with all kinds of speculation.
Given the grim manner of the deaths of Andrew (Stephen McHattie) and Abby (Sara Botsford) Borden, and the sensationalistic DVD cover that comes with the movie, one would think the representation of the murders would be a gore fest of extreme proportion. But the film takes a much more even handed approach to the crime, even if there are a handful of flashback visions consisting of bloody violence. The oddest thing about the movie, given it's historical placement in the late 1890's, is the anachronistic rock soundtrack that has no real connection to the events on screen, other than to attract a youthful modern day audience. At least that's the way I saw it, if you ax me.
Given the grim manner of the deaths of Andrew (Stephen McHattie) and Abby (Sara Botsford) Borden, and the sensationalistic DVD cover that comes with the movie, one would think the representation of the murders would be a gore fest of extreme proportion. But the film takes a much more even handed approach to the crime, even if there are a handful of flashback visions consisting of bloody violence. The oddest thing about the movie, given it's historical placement in the late 1890's, is the anachronistic rock soundtrack that has no real connection to the events on screen, other than to attract a youthful modern day audience. At least that's the way I saw it, if you ax me.
Never achieves the tense feeling it was going for. Very flat and emotionless, even for a made-for-TV movie.
cosmo_tiger5 February 2014
"I told you what happened. Do you think I'm hiding something from you?" During the summer of 1892 in the town of Fall River, Massachusetts a young woman named Lizzie Borden (Ricci)returns to her house and finds her father and step-mother brutally murdered. When the police begin to investigate all the evidence points to Lizzie. Her lawyer comes up with the only defense available. How could a woman kill anyone in that fashion? First of all this is a Lifetime movie so those of you looking for gore and horror can look elsewhere. The movie isn't bad but is glaringly obvious that this is a low budget made for TV movie. The story of this murder is very intriguing and is a good idea for a movie, but the fact that Lifetime did it really tones down what could be a great movie. Christina Ricci is the perfect choice for this role and she is really the only thing that saves the movie. Most of the movie is a courtroom drama which I usually love and the defense that a petite woman couldn't do this is very interesting and shows what the country used to be like. The biggest problem with this movie is that it never achieves the tense feeling it was going for. It is very flat and not as interesting as it could have been. As a side note the music choices were awful, when you watch it you will see what I mean. Overall, flat and emotionless, even for a made-for-TV movie. I give this a C.
Love it
krishnadyehouse-663133 August 2021
Whomever selected the soundtrack should be promptly fired with no recourse for appeal and absolutely no chance for any further work in films.
bjj-5292310 June 2017
I think this film is well cast and, for the most part, pretty well executed. Without the absurd and ridiculous choice of music for its soundtrack, it could have been much better. Such hard rock and heavy metal music relates in no way whatever to the story or the time period. In fact, I opted to review this film simply because of how bad the soundtrack is. There are several things I appreciate about this film, particularly that it portrays the people and events accurately according to case files and history.
Not worth watching, especially with joke of a soundtrack
FlushingCaps31 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
As one who has read much about this grisly 1892 double homicide, and who has visited the actual home in Fall River, Massachusetts, I was appalled at the inaccuracies too numerous to detail here. As a person who normally pays little attention to a film's background music, this film had such horribly distracting rock music, with vocals, on many scenes that I understand the other reviewers here who claim they ruined the film.
But the film was ruined by many other things. First of all, there is almost nothing accurate about the Borden home as shown in this film. It was much narrower and has no interior hallways. One room leads to another. One of the keys to believing her guilty is how when Andrew Borden returned home that day, Lizzie stood at the top of the front staircase, laughing. Where she would have been--just outside her bedroom, she could easily have looked right and seen her dead stepmother. In this film, that bedroom was down the hall from the staircase, as shown when the maid went looking for Mrs. Borden. The film shows her downstairs when Andrew arrived home.
Also wrong, the film, after the police were examining the crime scene, has Lizzie sending the maid alone upstairs to look for Mrs. Borden. In real life, before the police arrive, she asked the maid and her friend to look for her because she was sure she had heard her stepmother return.
One of the key elements in making her a suspect in real life was that Lizzie told the police that she never entered the room where her father lay dead, never saw his hatchet-ed face, never even saw any blood, only his body on the couch. So without seeing anything amiss, why did she call to the maid reporting that father had been killed? In the film, she saw the bloody face and screamed wildly--not at all matching the facts.
The family all called the maid Maggie, but the movie only mentioned her actual name of Bridget. She was a popular suspect with the public, largely because she was an Irish Catholic in a town full of people that didn't care for either. This wasn't mentioned either.
The film shows the maid washing windows when Andrew was killed. Wrong. While Maggie was washing windows at the time of the first murder, she was napping when Mr. Borden was killed. This was her option after Lizzie had suggested she go shopping for a while--right after Andrew had returned home. Her room was on the third level, far from the first floor sitting room site of the murder.
They also showed Maggie inside, hearing a thud (the falling body of Mrs. Borden) when in fact she reported hearing nothing, (as did Lizzie).
The many times when an investigator referred to Mrs. Borden as her "mother" and was interrupted by Lizzie, insisting she was only her "stepmother" were omitted from this film.
The dress that was such a focal point had been burned in the kitchen stove, not an outside pot as stated in the film. When the police arrived, Lizzie had already switched to a pink dress, unlike what the film depicted.
Extra SPOILER alert: The film depicts a totally concocted scene about what Lizzie actually told her sister about the murders that totally contradicts the historical record. It appears to take place shortly after the trial, and the next day, Emma is seen leaving their home and words on the screen tell us they never spoke again.
In real life, they shared the much larger home they bought after the murders for a dozen years. Years after moving out, Emma insisted she believed Lizzie innocent.
A blade was found in the basement, suspiciously buried in ashes, with the handle broken off. This blade was fitted precisely to the wounds in the skulls. It is believed the broken handle was burned in the stove. Amazingly, the film omits all of this.
I was also distressed at how the farcical elements of the trial were omitted from the film. The chief defense attorney was not the family lawyer as shown, but the former governor of the state who had appointed to the bench one of the three judges that sat on the case. That judge had delivered the charges to the jury that were pretty much a second summation for the defense, instead of what they should be. He even presented a theory about the missing note that the defense had not presented, as if he was trying extra hard to help the defense in the case. You'd have thought his name was Ito.
It was absurd for the film to show closing arguments as a back-and-forth between the two sides, which isn't at all true. When the jury returned to the courtroom, they enter in slow motion for some reason.
The director also found it necessary to repeatedly show scenes, usually short bits, of the hatchet swinging and blood flying, in flashback format, as if one look at all the blood wasn't enough.
I believe this film poorly made, with the worst soundtrack I ever heard, to be excessively bloody, and with over two dozen factual inaccuracies (I quit counting) to be a real waste of time.
But the film was ruined by many other things. First of all, there is almost nothing accurate about the Borden home as shown in this film. It was much narrower and has no interior hallways. One room leads to another. One of the keys to believing her guilty is how when Andrew Borden returned home that day, Lizzie stood at the top of the front staircase, laughing. Where she would have been--just outside her bedroom, she could easily have looked right and seen her dead stepmother. In this film, that bedroom was down the hall from the staircase, as shown when the maid went looking for Mrs. Borden. The film shows her downstairs when Andrew arrived home.
Also wrong, the film, after the police were examining the crime scene, has Lizzie sending the maid alone upstairs to look for Mrs. Borden. In real life, before the police arrive, she asked the maid and her friend to look for her because she was sure she had heard her stepmother return.
One of the key elements in making her a suspect in real life was that Lizzie told the police that she never entered the room where her father lay dead, never saw his hatchet-ed face, never even saw any blood, only his body on the couch. So without seeing anything amiss, why did she call to the maid reporting that father had been killed? In the film, she saw the bloody face and screamed wildly--not at all matching the facts.
The family all called the maid Maggie, but the movie only mentioned her actual name of Bridget. She was a popular suspect with the public, largely because she was an Irish Catholic in a town full of people that didn't care for either. This wasn't mentioned either.
The film shows the maid washing windows when Andrew was killed. Wrong. While Maggie was washing windows at the time of the first murder, she was napping when Mr. Borden was killed. This was her option after Lizzie had suggested she go shopping for a while--right after Andrew had returned home. Her room was on the third level, far from the first floor sitting room site of the murder.
They also showed Maggie inside, hearing a thud (the falling body of Mrs. Borden) when in fact she reported hearing nothing, (as did Lizzie).
The many times when an investigator referred to Mrs. Borden as her "mother" and was interrupted by Lizzie, insisting she was only her "stepmother" were omitted from this film.
The dress that was such a focal point had been burned in the kitchen stove, not an outside pot as stated in the film. When the police arrived, Lizzie had already switched to a pink dress, unlike what the film depicted.
Extra SPOILER alert: The film depicts a totally concocted scene about what Lizzie actually told her sister about the murders that totally contradicts the historical record. It appears to take place shortly after the trial, and the next day, Emma is seen leaving their home and words on the screen tell us they never spoke again.
In real life, they shared the much larger home they bought after the murders for a dozen years. Years after moving out, Emma insisted she believed Lizzie innocent.
A blade was found in the basement, suspiciously buried in ashes, with the handle broken off. This blade was fitted precisely to the wounds in the skulls. It is believed the broken handle was burned in the stove. Amazingly, the film omits all of this.
I was also distressed at how the farcical elements of the trial were omitted from the film. The chief defense attorney was not the family lawyer as shown, but the former governor of the state who had appointed to the bench one of the three judges that sat on the case. That judge had delivered the charges to the jury that were pretty much a second summation for the defense, instead of what they should be. He even presented a theory about the missing note that the defense had not presented, as if he was trying extra hard to help the defense in the case. You'd have thought his name was Ito.
It was absurd for the film to show closing arguments as a back-and-forth between the two sides, which isn't at all true. When the jury returned to the courtroom, they enter in slow motion for some reason.
The director also found it necessary to repeatedly show scenes, usually short bits, of the hatchet swinging and blood flying, in flashback format, as if one look at all the blood wasn't enough.
I believe this film poorly made, with the worst soundtrack I ever heard, to be excessively bloody, and with over two dozen factual inaccuracies (I quit counting) to be a real waste of time.
decent TV movie - worst sound track ever
deschreiber25 January 2014
You probably know the "Lizzie Borden took an axe" children's rhyme and wondered where it came from. This movie tells the story of the real crime that formed the basis of the rhyme.
I was quite surprised that the actual case took place as recently as 1892. The rhyme had always seemed very traditional to me; I thought it must have been based on something a very long time ago.
Thankfully, the sound track was used at only half a dozen places in the film, because it was so inappropriate that it could easily have ruined everything. While the story took place in a sedate New England town, where people lived genteel lives, sipping tea and wearing frock coats (think Anne of Green Gables), the sound track was screaming rock. Unbelievably jarring. Even in a party scene where people were dancing whatever they danced in those days of long gowns--waltzes, I suppose--it was portrayed minus the sounds of the party, minus the music that would have been played there, all replaced with a nerve-jangling sound track of rock music. Whoever made that decision should find another field to work in. Horrible.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe, Gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, She gave her father forty-one."
I was quite surprised that the actual case took place as recently as 1892. The rhyme had always seemed very traditional to me; I thought it must have been based on something a very long time ago.
Thankfully, the sound track was used at only half a dozen places in the film, because it was so inappropriate that it could easily have ruined everything. While the story took place in a sedate New England town, where people lived genteel lives, sipping tea and wearing frock coats (think Anne of Green Gables), the sound track was screaming rock. Unbelievably jarring. Even in a party scene where people were dancing whatever they danced in those days of long gowns--waltzes, I suppose--it was portrayed minus the sounds of the party, minus the music that would have been played there, all replaced with a nerve-jangling sound track of rock music. Whoever made that decision should find another field to work in. Horrible.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe, Gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, She gave her father forty-one."
Christina Ricci is super creepy
Calicodreamin3 October 2019
While this isn't the slasher film you might expect, it's still pretty good. Christina Ricci plays Lizzie Borden so well. She's the perfect mix of innocent and crazy. The storyline flows pretty well, and keeps you interested to the end, it's the perfect length with just enough details. Supporting characters also play their parts very well, some belief but mostly skepticism.
Not the thriller I expected
gscrl27 August 2019
Well I expected more suspense and more from the whole story line. The movie was terribly slow, very inaccurate on just about all accounts and as everyone else has said a poor soundtrack. Christina Riccis performance was bland and boring. You will find it hard to keep focused as you could easily day dream about anything else while trying to watch this snail paced drama. The whole movie was slow but did cover the key points of the case if you read alot about it. The 1975 movie with Elizabeth Montgomery is by far superior to this version.
Ricci Does Her Best With What She's Given
wisemantonofski14 March 2019
It plays more like the overly-dramatised reenactment segments of a poorly made documentary at times, and the absurd choices on the soundtrack never fail to pull you out of the moment should the attempt at a tense and unnerving atmosphere ever succeed at drawing you in. There is however, an element of charm to Ricci's hypnotic characterisation that piques the curiosity enough to sustain the other lackluster performances, she encapsulates the role perfectly and gives just the right balance of innocent and guilty to really play off the mystery of one of history's greatest unsolved murders.
Way better than most Lifetime fare
anniefairfield31 May 2018
First off, great title! Also, great star in Christina Ricci as Lizzie Borden. This is not your typical Lifetime movie. I don't watch much Lifetime but I saw the ad for this, and I was like I'm in! I like dark, eerie movies. This was not nearly as dark as it could have been, but given that it was a TV movie on Lifetime, it was much darker and creepier than their usual fare.
Great performance by Ricci, and good suspense throughout. The house, town, period piece elements were also really good.
Great performance by Ricci, and good suspense throughout. The house, town, period piece elements were also really good.
Terrible movie
petulalou25 March 2014
I was extremely disappointed with this film. The producers put no effort in even researching the case and just about everything in this film is sensationalized and inaccurate. I usually respect Christina Ricci but her acting is awful and she plays Lizzie like a psychopath in a modern horror film. Absolutely no sense of the time period she's supposed to be in. Props to Clea Duvall for turning a pretty good performance as he older sister Emma. I found this awful Lifetime movie unwatchable.
If you want a horror movie, go see a good one. Not this.
And, if you want information about the real Lizzie Borden, read a book.
If you want a horror movie, go see a good one. Not this.
And, if you want information about the real Lizzie Borden, read a book.
Pleasant surprise. Very enjoyable film.
Entertainment-Buff6 August 2017
Christina Ricci has certainly evolved as an actress since playing Wednesday in "The Addams Family" (1991). This is a very enjoyable, well-made film. I came across this on streaming Netflix, and what a pleasant surprise it was. The musical score is interesting - electric guitars, rock music, etc., which are incongruous with the time period (1890s), but somehow it WORKS. Good art direction, costuming, photography, and overall production values. Christina Ricci's performance definitely makes this worthwhile. I couldn't help comparing it to the Elizabeth Montgomery TV movie version, "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" (1975). There are elements of both films which I like.
Really?
Toonces_The_Driving_Cat25 January 2014
This movie was totally inaccurate.
I urge those who are new to the case to do a lot of 'Googling' and read the actual trial testimony, witness statements, etc.
www.lizzieandrewborden.com
is a vast wealth in information. (It is down at this time for maintenance but will be back up, so try again if you can't see it!)
The music and costumes were horrible.
The inaccuracies boggle the mind of anyone who has even done a rudimentary investigation of the case.
The 1975 movie with Elizabeth Montgomery was much better.
I urge those who are new to the case to do a lot of 'Googling' and read the actual trial testimony, witness statements, etc.
www.lizzieandrewborden.com
is a vast wealth in information. (It is down at this time for maintenance but will be back up, so try again if you can't see it!)
The music and costumes were horrible.
The inaccuracies boggle the mind of anyone who has even done a rudimentary investigation of the case.
The 1975 movie with Elizabeth Montgomery was much better.
A straightforward telling
callalou128 June 2015
I loved it! I suppose there is nothing better than a real event that remains a mystery ever afterwards, and the story of Lizzie Borden is one of those. It never ever fails to fascinate and after all this time still excites much discussion about whether she did or she didn't! This movie is no exception. It was all the better for being a straightforward telling of the facts as they were known at the time with little added or taken away for the sake of sensationalism. What gore there was, was strictly in keeping with what happened on that fateful day. The soundtrack was an unexpected but nice surprise. Hardly contemporary with the days of the late 1800s, it nonetheless added a new dimension to the telling of the story and gave it a fresh feeling. If I have a criticism it is that Christina Ricci was a little doe-like and vulnerable as Lizzie. She acquitted herself well in the part, but by comparison with the real Lizzie she seemed a little less robust than she ought to have been.
THAT'S JUST AN OLD STEW STAIN
nogodnomasters8 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This Lifetime retelling of the story portrays Andrew Borden (Stephen McHattie) as a stern man who was disliked by everyone. Lizzie (Christina Ricci) is depicted as someone who lies, steals, is rebellious and flirty with her father. She is not played by Lindsey Lohan which would have been great considering how she butchered Elizabeth Taylor.
The film doesn't develop character much beyond that. It utilizes a modern soundtrack to help us feel that mental imbalance of Lizzie. This is about as close to a grindhouse Lifetime will ever get. It doesn't show the actual killings, but like the court of public opinions, leads us to believe she was guilty and used the superior Elizabeth Montgomery, killed them while naked, explanation. Her wild eyes cast nicely into the role of a mentally unstable person.
How is it that 34 year old Christina Ricci still looks like she is 14? Is she a vampire sucking off the blood of virgins or what? I mean you can still see her ribs. Doesn't she eat?
Okay viewing. Not much in the way of horror, court room drama, or historical drama.
The film doesn't develop character much beyond that. It utilizes a modern soundtrack to help us feel that mental imbalance of Lizzie. This is about as close to a grindhouse Lifetime will ever get. It doesn't show the actual killings, but like the court of public opinions, leads us to believe she was guilty and used the superior Elizabeth Montgomery, killed them while naked, explanation. Her wild eyes cast nicely into the role of a mentally unstable person.
How is it that 34 year old Christina Ricci still looks like she is 14? Is she a vampire sucking off the blood of virgins or what? I mean you can still see her ribs. Doesn't she eat?
Okay viewing. Not much in the way of horror, court room drama, or historical drama.
Lizzie Buries the Hatchet
wes-connors29 January 2014
The familiar rhyme, "Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her mother forty whacks. And when she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one," is where this TV movie obtained its title. Before the opening credits, we see Sunday school teacher Christina Ricci (as Lizzie Borden) sensuously eating a pear while watching a darkly attractive man outside her window. After this, she walks over to napping father Stephen McHattie (as Andrew Borden) and discovers he has been hacked to death. Understandably shaken, Ms. Ricci's "Lizzie" lets out a scream...
After the credits, we "flashback" to meet the Borden family of Massachusetts and witness the events leading up to the infamous double murder of 1892. Although we were led to believe she is innocent, Lizzie quickly reveals some serious personality flaws. Also involved is big sister Clea DuVall (as Emma Borden), who performs most genuinely. This "Lifetime" TV movie doesn't appear to know what it wants. We end up with a courtroom drama and always wonder where the story is going – if we knew that, we'd know whether or not it got there. A jived-up soundtrack ranges from puzzling to very distracting. The film's pieces simply never fall into place.
*** Lizzie Borden Took an Ax (1/25/14) Nick Gomez ~ Christina Ricci, Clea DuVall, Billy Campbell, Stephen McHattie
After the credits, we "flashback" to meet the Borden family of Massachusetts and witness the events leading up to the infamous double murder of 1892. Although we were led to believe she is innocent, Lizzie quickly reveals some serious personality flaws. Also involved is big sister Clea DuVall (as Emma Borden), who performs most genuinely. This "Lifetime" TV movie doesn't appear to know what it wants. We end up with a courtroom drama and always wonder where the story is going – if we knew that, we'd know whether or not it got there. A jived-up soundtrack ranges from puzzling to very distracting. The film's pieces simply never fall into place.
*** Lizzie Borden Took an Ax (1/25/14) Nick Gomez ~ Christina Ricci, Clea DuVall, Billy Campbell, Stephen McHattie
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
