Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The acting in this movie is really good.

You would have to have been living under a rock for 40+yrs to no know who this is about. That being said, the actor chosen for the main character is so hopelessly miscast and a bad actor with none of the killer's charm or charisma. The details are all there, but the poor choice in actors tends to derail the entire thing. Overacting, bad hair, makeup, bulging eyes, none of the intensity of the actual killer and not in the least bit attractive (not that I considered him attractive but he was to many). Pass this and find the one with Mark Harmon. Much better done, much better characterization. Poor execution(no pun intended) by all parties.

The actor did not serve the story well. Ted Bundy was able to attract the women he murdered because of his movie star looks and charm. This actor was not dressed and groomed to take advantage of his looks, and he was allowed to appear too menacing, too often. Key elements in the story were left out. One minute he's free and engaging in more killings, then he's on the phone from jail. We're told later he was picked up for driving a stolen car. The story does not follow his trials very closely nor can we understand his motivations for what has been served up for our enlightenment with respect to this murderer's killing sprees. The last episode ends creepily with the statement to the effect that we don't know exactly how many more women he killed.

I thought this was a very factual treatment of the Ted Bundy case. Many docudramas have so much invented drama that it leaves the authenticity of the "docu" parts in question. No extra drama here, just the facts, but with only three hours there were so many interesting things they had to leave out. Some background about Ted's childhood and what made him who he was would have been nice. Bob Keppel didn't care about the "why" but lots of people, including me, do. I liked the casting of Bundy even though the actor looked nothing like Ted. That was not the point. He had important similarities like the disarming grin and the ability to look very different depending on hair style, dress and lighting. He well portrayed the charming yet deadly chameleon Ted Bundy was.

This is a 3 part television series about a serial killer, operating mostly in the Northwest. There is a real attempt to create tension, mostly by not naming the killer until about half way through the series. The camera work is solid and there is a good sense of place. The lead detective is quiet and intense and reminds me of William Hurt. Unfortunately, nothing new is discovered about this very famous case, so it ends up being a bit humdrum. Also, the actor playing the killer is poorly cast, and bears no resemblance to the familiar real life killer - he is also a real ham, popping his eyes and tossing his hair all of the time.