Best movie of this year hands down!

just watch it!

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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.

Tricky. As always with serial killer films, you hope that the subject is handled in such a way so as to justify you having invested time in it. Matthew Bright's instalment into the hall of shame legacy left by one Theodore Robert Bundy, is uncompromising and unforgettable. Could the charge of exploitation be levelled at Bright and his backers? No, I don't think so.The advent of time where film is concerned has seen film makers now be able to tackle difficult subjects for maximum impact. Bright, in the main, follows the real life of Bundy and his vile crimes. His home life and trail of destruction are covered graphically, so if anyone was in any doubt about the measure of Bundy's evil via previous film, TV or literary interpretations? Then this is the gaping wound of Bundy tellings, with salt poured in.It's nigh on impossible to recommend as an essential viewing experience, I myself haven't been able to get some of the images out of my head some 5 days after watching it. But that's the point, surely? Some minor fabrications aside (we cheer the events just prior to the electrocution, but it didn't happen), this is one of the best films of the bloody sub-genre of horror it sits in. For impact and Michael Reilly Burke's bold and scary performance as Bundy, it has artistic merit. If you have the stomach for it that is. 8/10

Ted Bundy is anything but a stranger to our screens; the fascination with this personification of evil, the man who became the first serial killer – in name if not in deed – knows no bounds, and certainly didn't for the daffy women who became his trial groupies. We see none of that here because his trials are glossed over, clearly something had to be in order to keep the film to a manageable length.Michael Reilly Burke puts in a convincing performance, and there are some graphic scenes, but arguably the two most memorable are where he kidnaps Carol DaRonch – called Tina Gabler here – and gets the worst of it from a young woman who fought like a tigress knowing full well that if she didn't escape his clutches then and there, she would not get out of that car alive. The other scene is where across a prison table his girlfriend finally sees him for the monster he is. Bundy's arrest for the DaRonch kidnapping should have been the end of his reign of evil; it beggars belief how such a clearly dangerous individual was permitted to escape not once but twice. The result was the sorority house murders and then his final victim – the youngest we can say for certain – 12 year old Kimberly Leach. She was given a "nom de plume" here, but her name slipped out in the archive footage at the end.There has been criticism of this film from other reviewers, but as with similar efforts, like the more recent "...Dirty Little Secret", the film-makers strived for authenticity and achieved it in some degree. It is our fault rather than theirs that so many of us consider serial murder to be entertainment.

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.