Everything I Loved & Hated About ‘Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil & Vile’
First off? The goddamn name of this thing. It’s harder to remember then all nine of Shawn Kemp’s kids Social Security #’s. (I mean, I would imagine) Have you tried talking to your friends about this film? “Hey did you watch, ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’ last night? I mean, Extremely Vile and Incredible Hulk? Ugh. The Ted Bundy flick. No, not the documentary. What was the name of that one again? Oh, fuck this. Kiss my ass, Greg.”
- Zac Efron puts together a damn fine portrayal of Ted Bundy. It helps that he looks just like him, albeit twice as handsome. Because the son of a bitch is twice as handsome as anyone. Four times as handsome as us normals. You can tell he took his time studying the nuances of Bundy and put together an impressive acting performance that’s arguably award worthy.
- Regardless of how the filmmakers chose to display the material for entertainment’s sake or morality’s (which we’ll get to)……the movie is directed and displayed well. The cinematography, pacing, editing and acting are all top notch. Especially, the editing. I couldn’t imagine the task of having to work around Bundy’s long and well known story to create such a non-linear story seen through the eyes of his Fiance. I have my scruples with the choices, but that doesn’t take away from the execution.
- Those wardrobes though. Amazing. They should have called him “The Turtleneck Terror”
- It’s nice AF to be able to watch a new release movie in your boxers on a Friday night so thanks for that, Netflix. Seriously though, fuck you for canceling ‘Santa Clarita Diet’.
- John Malkovich in anything is a bump up. Especially as such a memorable character. That judge really stood out in the Netflix documentary ‘Conversations With A Killer’ and I was glad they chose to put some effort into that part of the story.
- This movie felt very hard to remember as early as the next day. Does that make it not memorable? I think it might by pure definition.
- I think it may be unmemorable (see previous point), despite the fluent filmmaking and talented acting because they chose to omit so goddamn much of what makes Ted Bundy Ted Bundy. The film focuses on the relationship with the Fiance and is based on her out of print book on the subject. I understand this. But why? Ninety percent of what was shown here was well known material already. We received only one half of the duality of Ted Bundy in this film. The love struck, innocence maintaining, smooth talker. There are tons of people like that out there. The reason we are watching a movie about this one is because he also happens to be a depraved serial killer and rapist with an insatiable appetite and force to kill young women. What’s so interesting about the duality of someone when you only focus on one side of it?
- I’m not mad and don’t feel like they “glorified” or “sided with” Ted Bundy because I truly don’t think that was the filmmakers intention. They wanted to show how easily this could happen to someone. How easy it is to become that person we all see as an idiot for not knowing they live with a mass murderer. “JUST LEAVE HIM KAREN, HE’S MURDERING SHIT LOADS OF PEOPLE!” “I can’t! My CD’s are in his truck!!!” I understand the intent, so there’s no need for moral anger on my end. I just think ‘Extremely Wicked’ needed to hammer the point home by focusing at the right moments on what he was doing when he was off camera. There’s almost no focus on the murders or the victims.
- The filmmakers really should have explained more at the end of the film just what it was this guy confessed to. Other than the hacksaw moment (not as dark as it sounds) there’s barely a mention of just how in depth his confessions were and how sick his crimes, once unveiled. Why not hammer the point home how sneaky and manipulating this guy was (which was the whole films intention) by explaining just what he was out there doing at night?
- Most of the story beats we hit in ‘Extremely Wicked’ don’t provide any new information or insight. Again, if you are going to tell all this through the eyes of the fiance and use her book as basis, why still focus so much on the court cases and arrests we already knew about? The film decided not to touch on a couple of frightening stories from her book about the several times Bundy struggled with the thought of murdering his own fiance. He once shoved her out of a raft into freezing cold water for no reason and looked as though he’d considered her murder. Another time he admitted to her he tried to kill her by shutting the opening to a fireplace and putting a towel on the other end of the door after she’d gotten drunk and passed out. Why would you leave all of this out of the movie when it’s some of the only information not present in every other Ted Bundy documentary?
- I can’t believe what a misfire it was to have nearly ZERO scenes of Bundy committing his acts. It’s not that I want to see the scenes of violence or need the action. It’s that it would have been fascinating to see the other side of this character the film seemed to root for at times. SHOW US HOW WRONG WE WERE TO TRUST ZAC EFRON’S CHARMS! Otherwise, what are we doing here?
- I have an idea, Netflix. I think it would be legendary. This film needs a sequel. Tell the entire film from the same beats as ‘Extremely Wicked’ only this time show the audience what was really going on in those moments. Tell her story through Ted Bundy’s eyes. Show his struggles to deal with this “force” and his attempts to become normal. Show what he was doing when he wasn’t at home with his fiance. Tell the story from Ted Bundy’s angle with 100% non-sympathy. Be ‘Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile’ and show the audience who Ted Bundy really was. Two films would be the perfect way to explain this mans two sides. You spent an entire film showing us how charming a killer can be. Make an entire film showing us just how wrong we all were.
Also, fuck you for cancelling ‘Santa Clarita Diet’.
Thanks for reading! We’ll have a full video review up this week on the channel.