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...