You could make a very violent, extreme, sensationalistic movie about Ted Bundy, notorious rapist and serial killer. Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil And Vile is not that movie. Named for remarks made by the judge who sentenced Bundy to death in 1979, the film takes a provocatively unintuitive approach to its true-crime material: It doesn’t depict the murders at all, and until its final scenes, actually feigns ignorance about Bundy’s guilt, as though it were still an open question. The intent is to present this human monster not from the certain hindsight of infamy but from something like the vantage of those just learning of what he may have done. Dramatically speaking, it’s a failed thought experiment—you get, watching it, why no one has really told this kind of story in this way. But it’s still hard not to admire the film’s perversely un-perverse strategy, its good-faith attempt to do something more than simply trot out the awful, salacious details.
Bundy is played, in an ingenious bit of stunt casting, by Zac Efron. The one-time High School Musical crooner has broken before with his teen-heartthrob past; the Neighbors films, for example, found comic reservoirs of bitterness and almost sociopathic rage underneath his superhero physique and matinee-idol charisma. With Extremely Wicked, Efron isn’t so much subverting his star power and sex appeal as putting them in a diabolical new context. Bundy, after all, was a ladykiller in more ways than one. He often used his good looks and charm to get his victims alone, and when he was on trial for multiple murders—the nation’s first nationally televised trial, in fact—those same qualities made him an object of public fascination and even desire. In a sense, Efron is hiding, too: You look at him and see his celebrity, not a cold-blooded killer. That’s the whole idea.
Technically, Bundy isn’t the protagonist. That role belongs to Elizabeth Kendall (Lily Collins), the divorced single parent who started dating him in the late 1960s, blissfully ignorant of what he was up to when she wasn’t around. Based on her memoir, The Phantom Prince: My Life With Ted Bundy, Extremely Wicked opens with Kendall visiting Bundy on death row, then flashes back to the night they met at a Washington bar and she brought him home. The film unfolds over a few years and several states, as he becomes the prime suspect in multiple homicide investigations, and eventually a media sensation. Kendall stays with him through his first incarceration, but stops answering his phone calls later on. On the sidelines, her denial melts slowly into horror.
Telling Bundy’s story from her perspective is interesting, especially given who’s doing the telling. Joe Berlinger, who also made the much more comprehensive Netflix documentary on the killer, has found an unlikely personal angle in Michael Werwie’s screenplay and its elisions and gaps in information. The director, remember, spent huge stretches of his career on the Paradise Lost advocacy documentaries, which operated under the conviction that the West Memphis Three were innocent, or at least not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. You could call Extremely Wicked a kind of nightmare inversion of those films. In Kendall’s crucible of realization, Berlinger finds his own worst case scenario: What if that imprisoned man—the one insisting upon his innocence, the one you look in the eyes and want to believe—really did it? Is that so different than being with someone for years and not knowing what they really are?
Extremely Wicked chews on a lot, but its power, its drama, remains largely theoretical. Berlinger gets caught in a catch-22. A version of the film with true conceptual integrity would be radically subjective (think: We Need To Talk About Ted), never leaving Kendall’s side, viewing Bundy only through her eyes. But there’s nothing particularly exciting about watching someone sit around crying and smoking and handwringing, glued to the sordid details on their television. So the movie cuts restlessly away to Efron’s Bundy and his headline shenanigans: escaping out the window of a courthouse; bantering with the judge (John Malkovich) during his Florida trial; marrying a different girlfriend, the inordinately trusting and loyal Carol Anne Boone (Kaya Scodelario), on the stand. Powered by yet another loaded jukebox of sub-Scorsese needle drops, these scenes swirl around a character who’s unreadable by design, a cipher concealing his true self from the public but also from the audience.
The mask never slips. Efron keeps it pulled tightly over whatever’s happening in Bundy’s head, helping us understand how someone could fail to recognize the wolf he draped in sheep’s clothing. (The performance is creepy because it never seems to be aiming for “creepy.”) Berlinger, for his part, leaves the mayhem off screen, refusing to show even the briefest glimpse of gruesome handiwork; no one could accuse him of mining real atrocity for cheap, voyeuristic thrills. But by only showing us Bundy’s public face, the tap-dancing charm that made him a tabloid star, Berlinger also risks minimizing the evil of a man who killed at least 30 women and did unspeakable things to their bodies. Ultimately, though, the film’s failure is baked right into its fascinating structural gambit: It depends on the viewer playing dumb and humoring its tunnel vision. That, or somehow not knowing who Ted Bundy is going in. But in that case, what would they be doing watching a movie about Ted Bundy?
55 Comments
I think there’s a “not” missing from that second-to-last sentence.
There was. Thanks!
Zac Efron’s Ted Bundy movie is an interesting, ambitious misfireImportantly, it’s the only Ted Bundy movie to score an A for Abs.
Liz Kendall didn’t date Ted Bundy for a few years in the late 1960s, she dated him right up until he went to jail for kidnapping in 1976, although they saw less of each other after he moved to Utah in 1974.Some years ago I found her book in the L.A. County library system. The book gave the distinct impression that the only reason she ratted him out is that he did in fact move to Utah instead of staying in Seattle with her.Incidentally the 20/20 documentary that nobody cared about that ran at the same time as the Netflix documentary was way better.
I cant imagine the trial would omit the gruesome details. Maybe the director didnt want to talk about it with blood and gore becausethat would be cheap sensationalism. I still dont get a sense for what kind of movie this is.
Interesting review, thanks. Sounds like a movie that I’m glad exists but don’t particularly want to commit my time to
It’s a head scratcher how someone could take Bundy’s story and make it boring. I stopped watching halfway through last night.
When are we going to stop pretending Ted Bundy was handsome?
Probably about the same time we stop pretending Zac Efron is handsome.
He was generic looking but apparently it was more based on charisma that he lured most of his victims? He just looks like a creeper in all his pictures
Yeah, like, it’s fine to say he was weird-to-average looking and used his charm to put people at ease (it’s how I got my fiancée, after all); the need to reinvent him as some incredibly attractive super predator is bonkers.
Totally agree. They did not need to make those sex scenes he had with Lily *so* hot. There’s no way sex with a serial killer would be so Hollywood hot. He brutally raped and murdered dozens of women. No way he was capable of fun sexy sex.
Apparently he was to a lot of people, though.I don’t get it, but the swooning I’ve seen over Adam Driver more less made me give up at understanding what women find attractive.
He was average at best.
He was okay-looking. I think he’s one of those people whose charisma makes him slightly more attractive. Looking at him through a modern lens, knowing what a monster he was changes how we look at him.
Plus it was the 70’s. Some weird-looking motherfuckers were considered heartthrobs back then. I mean, I love Burt Reynolds but I wouldn’t get in this guy’s car. (Sorry about the giant picture.)
Fuck yes. This. And let’s stop pretending he was “charismatic.” While that MIGHT have been the spin by the local news when he finally got nabbed in FL, this dude was, by all accounts, a fucking weirdo creep. He didn’t “charm” his way into that sorority house at FSU. He broke in, in the middle of the night, and beat those girls to death in their sleep. He didn’t “charm” Carol DaRonch into his car, he lied to her and told her he was a police officer and her car was broken into. She was immediately creeped out by him. Such a bullshit narrative.
Actually not bullshit, like ramierez the la nite stalker, women found him attractive. Bundy was married in prison, conceived a child, dumped her and had chemistry with his attorney. Before then he had numerous girlfriends. He did much better than the average guy when it came to charming women. You should read up before commenting.
I did. And while the narrative was that he was “charming,” the reality according to witnesses who encountered him was that he appeared harmless and milquetoast, so when he asked for help looking for his lost dog, or asked for help to put things in his truck because his arm was broken, or when he told Ms. DaRonch that his car was broken into, they let their guard down. Again, not because they were “charmed” by him but rather they didn’t think he was a threat. Because he was a white dude with a normal face. But Ms. DaRonch said, unequivocally, that she was IMMEDIATELY creeped out as soon as she got in the car with him. He was not some ladies man who was seducing women and then killing them. To the contrary, he was a fucked up dude who either attacked women when they were alone, or lied to women to get them alone and murder them. Weird dudes have girlfriends. That doesn’t mean his “charm” and “good looks” was his tool to commit these murders. That’s the false narrative.
Agreed. Zac Efron is a little too good looking for this role… Ted was just creepy.
You do realize standards have changed since the 70’s, yes?
I feel that the perspective of ‘not knowing’ whether or not he is guilty (in a film setting) is important to understand what went through the minds of the people that knew him and/or watched these events unfold. There is no question that he is guilty in real life, but the main character wasn’t sure about that in the movie and that’s the closure she gets at the end. The movie is much better than they say here, in my opinion.
Zac Efron and Olivia Wilde are tied for the most inexplicable continued opportunities at major roles in Hollywood.
“Vehicular Homicide of a Minor”Spiked drink Ms. WildeYou are incredibly beautiful now. I can’t imagine what it was like for people to see you over two thousand years ago. Maybe they were less insulting when you were a Spartan hoplite.
I think I can explain it with one word: “hot.”
Booksmart looks really good, though.
Efron is *hilarious* in the Neighbors movies…I’m not sure what Wilde’s done, though.
So is the director’s only other non-documentary film, Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
It’s interesting to see the reaction to this movie compared to that Sharon Tate movie with Hilary Duff. They are both exploitation films. They both capitalize on the dead and on turning a spotlight to psychopaths and murderers in order to get acclaim and money. One was rightfully pilloried, while the other seems to cause people to twist themselves into knots to see it as something more than it actually is. Lily Collins actually gave an interview claiming that Ted Bundy’s victims visit her and tell her how important the movie is. This is the type of grotesque publicity-seeking that you would only see if Christopher Guest decided to parody this schlock genre. It’s so grotesque that if he did parody it, some would likely not even believe it would happen in real life. Meanwhile, Zac Efron is doing the usual poor-me-this-was-so-hard-for-me-I-am-still-upset-give-me-an-award routine everyone knows so well. Poor Zac. Poor Lily. The actual victims – well, we don’t like to talk about that.I guess it’s because many still think Netflix shits prestige, and because they get to go on about how much they want to fuck Zac Efron as a serial killer and other people get to write thought pieces about why they or others want to fuck Zac Efron as a serial killer. If this does launch Zac Efron into a bigger career of dead-eyed, unwatchable characters, after the many years he’s already spent playing dead-eyed, unwatchable characters, I guess we can look forward to Miley Cyrus as Aileen Wuornos. I’m sure Netflix already has the backing ready to go.
A well-worded comment. Now take your pill.
Having watched both, there is a level of competence just in basic filmmaking here that the Hillary Duff/Sharon Tate movie lacked. Additionally, that film took tremendous artistic license in depicting the crime itself. Is this exploitative? Sure, but not in anywhere near the same place and at least sticks to fairly factual and verifiable events.
You nailed it.
“I guess we can look forward to Miley Cyrus as Aileen Wuornos.”Would watch.
I think you’re way off. It shows the other side, the people around him that did not want to believe or did not believe what he did. It’s not exploitive at all, IMO.
It’s my understanding that the Hillary Duff movie turns the Tate murders into a gory slasher flick, while this film says that Bundy’s murders aren’t depicted at all. So say what you want of this film, it doesn’t seem fair to compare it to that one.
I have been watching documentaries and what not on Ted for so long now and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and think Efron did a fabulous job. 100% disagree with this article but to each their own.
Whatever else people think about this movie I was really surprised with how much I enjoyed his performance.
What a weird movie this was. The Netflix doc made Bundy look like this charismatic and handsome genius and it’s an insult to the victims. In reality, he was just a fucking loser who couldn’t get over a breakup.
The fact that the judge that sentenced him for the Chi Omega attacks told Bundy it’s a tragedy to see such a total waste of humanity and then followed it up with “I’d have loved to have you practice in front of me” and “I have no animosity toward you” still pisses me off to no end.
Cheryl Thomas ended her dance career because of equilibrium damage and permanently lost her hearing from Ted Bundy bashing her in the skull repeatedly and this piece of shit is focused on Bundy’s potential legal career? It’s just so rage-inducing
The judge really said those things though. Not that it makes it any less gross. But it wasn’t Netflix casting Ted as a charasmatic dreamboat… oh and also murderer… that’s how society cast him. Which is why the whole Bundy story is so fascinating and disgusting. He was a vile monster who society trusted and slightly admired despite his horrendous acts and total lack of respect for women and their lives because he was decent looking, white, and educated and society did not want to admit that people like him could be capable of pure evil. They still don’t. And that’s why rapist and murders who look and act like Ted still don’t get the same level of punishment or judgement that people of color, immigrants, and under educated folks get for lesser crimes like drug offenses. Netflix didn’t glamorize the story, it showed the truth- that Ted Bundy was evil and that our system and the way we give privilege and trust is far from just.
Having never really followed Ted Bundy or any serial killers when I saw the movie at Sundance I was like there’s NO WAY a judge said this shit to him but also the movie wouldn’t be able to fictionalize that without being accused of glorifying him — I had to go look up the video and it blew my mind. That’s some crazy white male privilege and also is one of the biggest indications of how charming Bundy was — this guy was sentencing him to death and still was like “wish you could have come worked with me”
Dude, it’s a fictionalized movie, not a biography on Bundy. Read a book on Bundy. I recommend Ann Rule’s The Stranger Beside Me.
I’ve read it. Also was more commenting on the Netflix doc than this movie.
“The Only Living Witness” by Michaud and Ayneworth is a hundred times better than Rule’s book but for some reason, I guess the hook that Rule knew Ted before the murders, Rule’s book is way more famous.
Ah, come on now. A loser would have been caught by the third murder, easily. Plus, a loser accusation from Dusty Rhodes, a professional [well-paid] loser? C’maaawwwn.
Wooooow. Calling The American Dream a loser? Hard Times daddeh
Effron really nailed the “crazy” eyes part. And still counld’t come close to the real dude’s scary eyes.
I’m so over the serial-killer-chic that I don’t know why I watched this. But it was surprisingly good. I think it’s better than a “C” at least. Nice turn by Metalica’s James Hetfield.
There are larger problems than this, but it’s almost absurd that they used Covington, Kentucky as a stand-in for Aspen. They just CGI’d some mountains and let ‘er rip
At the very least it didn’t get overly into the depiction of violence he committed. That sort of stuff just isn’t an interest to me. I’m just not sure what they’re trying to accomplish with this though. Like, I sort of get Mindhunter because it’s a more about psychological insights into serial killers and why they do what they do , but there’s not that sort of thing here. Almost glamorising a shitheel who committed absolutely disgusting acts on innocent women.
I have to disagree with Dowd here. I think the whole approach is the most appealing thing about the film. It’s the restlessness of wanting to see what we all know happened that creates a certain crescendo on the viewer. That the ending shows us just the tip of the iceberg works as well, as a montage of all his crimes would have been too on the nose and cheap. We get just enough, as we all know (or imagine) the things he’s done. I find the classic “this is exploitative” or “minimizing of evil” a little pearl-clutching, or worst, moralizing so that no film should try this approach ever again. I prefer to see this as “just one film with a radical style about this subject” and not expecting another “definitive film about this subject, so cover all the bases” that I have already grown tired of.
I think the only “misfire” is this review. This whole article is bias and subjective. I just watched the whole movie and I can give a different analogy that is neither glorifying a monster nor “feigning ignorance”. I know who Ted Bundy is and throughout the film I was forced to consider the fact that (I am pretty sure was the whole basis of the film) the devil is extremely well versed in hiding who he really is. These poor, innocent, precious children of our Holy God, never had a chance. Through cunning charm and deceitfullness this man who seemingly had the world in his hands was actually a viscious demon. I am sorry to say but I think your critique of the film is actually minimizing the deaths by suggesting that this is a movie about Ted Bundy’s attractiveness. That fact is a mainstay but its a fact that should be portrayed as the thing that made an evil that was unimaginable. May our Lord keep you all
“biased”. Why do people have such a hard time using this word correctly? Jesus.
Do they show Zac Efron as Ted Bundy committing necrophilia? That Netflix Ted Bundy documentary skipped over how that monster would revisit his victims and defile their corpses until they became putrefied. Ted Bundy was an actual fucking monster with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Why was this movie made exactly?
Watched it.Have to say I’m surprised and somewhat disappointed by the structure. I imagined going in that the movie would be about Liz and Ted’s relationship 1969-1974, and how she gradually began to see disturbing signals in her “phantom prince” of a boyfriend, and how she really started to get nervous after the eyewitness reports and sketch of the man at Lake Sammamish. In her book she reports him looking at her body under the sheets with a flashlight—this was the only weird Ted thing in the movie. In the book she also talks about how he stole practically everything he owned and about how he threatened to “break your fucking neck” if she ever told. She talks about how he once threw her off a dock for no damn reason. She mentions finding a bunch of keys in his room. She mentions spotting plaster of Paris and IIRC a crutch in his room–after the Lake Sammamish murders it was known that “Ted” approached his victims wearing a cast on his arm. And she talks about how his interest in sex with her fell off sharply in the first half of 1974. None of this is in the movie, except for the flashlight part. Instead their whole relationship prior to his arrest takes like 15 minutes, and the rest of the running time recounts how she deals with Bundy’s involvement with law enforcement (badly, with lots of drinking). Her calling in his name is shown to be motivated only by his resemblance to the police sketch. Seems like a mistake.