The Deliberate Stranger (1986) vs. Ted Bundy (2002) - The Deliberate Stranger (1986) Discussion

[–] lonenut2000 20 years ago

I liked them both, but I think The Deliberate Stranger is better...

This is a rotten way to end it!
This is not the end; you haven't read it yet.
In the Mouth of Madness

reply

[–] jessmarie12926 14 years ago

Deliberate Stranger, only cause mark harmon is a babe:) He is also in my spank bank forever from this performance, which makes me on hell of a sick individual, i feel bad for the girls tho, they didnt deserve it and ted bundy got what he deserved, but they shouldnt have hotties play serial killers, jus sayin:)

"Sometimes the best gift is the gift of never seeing you again."
Dr. Gregory [H]ouse M.D

reply

[–] Nijn1978 19 years ago

I think they are both good in there own different ways.
Deliberate Stranger is a very good t.v. movie with great acting from Mark Harmon. It is done more in a conventional, realistic way.
Ted Bundy (2002) takes a more satirical approach and succeeds within those limits.

reply

[–] birgitta-meijer 18 years ago

The Deliberate Stranger, Mark Harmon was fantastic as Ted R Bundy, he was ice cold and evil. But after i saw a picture of the real Ted Bundy i must say that Mark Harmon is waaay better looking that the real Ted Bundy. The guy in Ted Bundy (2002) look more like the real ted bundy. I would like to buy the The Deliberate stranger on DVD if i could find it. Because of Mark Harmon :-)

reply

[–] tylertheghost 18 years ago

that's a hard one, The Deliberate Stranger tells more about what really happened which is better, but Ted Bundy gives more details about what happened but doesn't show more of the background.

I would have to say The Deliberate Stranger.

"I'm a little short on cash...."

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] james_oblivion 17 years ago

The DTV Ted Bundy movie was simply awful, and doesn't really deserve to be compared with the infinitely superior TV movie, The Deliberate Stranger. The portrayal of Ted in the 2002 film was completely wrong, and just laughably bad. Mark Harmon didn't really nail the role, but he was far better than Michael Reilly Burke. And The Deliberate Stranger, though it changed some names, stuck far closer to the facts of the case. The 2002 DTV film was made for shock value, nothing more. It has little basis in reality and is an insult to anyone who's familiar with the Bundy case.

reply

[–] vocklabruck 17 years ago

I think Mark Harmon's movie is much better.

reply

[–] MistressKitty 17 years ago

Deliberate Stranger is soo much better than that crap fest DVD release Ted Bundy.They made several around the same time,the TB one, a Jeffrey Dahmer one and a John Wayne Gacy one.To me they were all poorly acted and directed.They all touched the surface of these stories,but if you have read books on these killers then you know that the straight to DVD ones are just bad.Deliberate Stranger is one of my favorite portrayals of a serial killer.I have it on VHS and watch it anytime it comes on Lifetime.

reply

[–] rmax304823 16 years ago

You're pretty much right. The TV movie was a character study. The feature film was a morbid slasher movie.

If I were teaching a film appreciation course, I'd run both films back to back, and the final exam would only have one question: Which did you prefer? Then I'd flunk everybody who chose the feature film.

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 16 years ago

Harmon was a lot more better
As he was way too convincing
Watched the latter movie as
Despite the character killing
Seemed to be way, way, too comical for my taste.

reply

[–] westvirginia 16 years ago

ShelbyTMItchell, I have a question for you:How does the scene in
the movie where Bundy is arrested in Florida go?

Almost Heaven, West Virginia!

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 16 years ago

The cop comes and tries to arrest him
But after Bundy tries to run at midnight about
The cop fires a warning shot and goes after Bundy
He gets Bundy as Bundy tries to climb a fence
And proceeds to beat up Bundy, then arrest him but
Before he does, Bundy tells him that he should had
Shot him before he got arrested.

reply

[–] westvirginia 16 years ago

What handcuffing technique did the officer use(or attempt to use)?

Almost Heaven, West Virginia!

reply

[–] simplement76 17 years ago

I agree. The Bright film is a comic book version of the story and lacks any kind of depth, but there are two great scenes in the film, the Lake Sammamish one and at Chi Omega. The Stranger Beside Me movie version however, which is faaaaaaaaaar from equaling the book by Ann Rule mind you, is better than Ted Bundy, the film.

I haven't seen The Deliberate Stranger in years and I hope there will be a DVD version, but that's the version that seems to stick with me the most as I still remember flashes of it 20 years later.

I also dream of seeing The Riverman, the book was a masterpiece, which I couldn't see where I am since there is no A&E. When is that going to be available on DVD also?

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 16 years ago

He told Bundy to lie down as he handcuffed
One arm before Bundy took off with the
Handcuffs that resulted in the very brief chase
And beating. The handcuffing him all the way.

reply

[–] westvirginia 16 years ago

How did the officer tell him to position
the hand that was cuffed?

Almost Heaven, West Virginia!

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 16 years ago

He told him to get down and lay down
Before Ted took off running.

reply

[–] westvirginia 16 years ago

What I meant was how did the officer have Ted position his hands
for cuffing?

Almost Heaven, West Virginia!

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 16 years ago

He had Ted lying down on his stomach
And putting both hands on his head.
Cuffing one of them.

reply

[–] lisaa_16 16 years ago

Ted Bundy (2002) was just horrible. It wasn't very accurate and it's a shame it was so terrible because the actor himself was good.

~~~~~~
*Twilight~Original*
<3

reply

[–] ShelbyTMItchell 16 years ago

I think that Bundy was indeed Harmon
As Harmon was way too convincing
One time, I got so used to him as Bundy
That is all that I could think of!

reply

[–] CorpseFuker 16 years ago

HOW CAN U ASK THAT? THIS ONE IS WAY BETTER THAN THE 2002 ONE. BETTER ACTING, DIRECTION, SCENES, SCRIPT, ETC.

"Sandy n' myself r no longer engaged or 2gether" Now u can call ME Mrs. Padalecki

reply

[–] myorkies 15 years ago

The Deliberate Stranger was brilliant, like a ghost story where you never see the ghost. You just... hear things... feel something is a bit off... but maybe it's just your imagination... but there it is again... but now, it's too late to stop... whatever it is.

Ted Bundy was just junk.

Eric: "Was there a reason I found brain tissue on my coat sleeve?"

reply

[–] terrywatt69 15 years ago

I'd have to say The Deliberate Stranger was better.

Far more chilling, even without any gore or graphic violence.

reply

[–] The_RoJo 12 years ago

Wow! That's exactly how I feel about Mark Harmon! I remember watching this with my mom when it was on tv (I was only 10 years old), and she told me it was a true story...scared the beep out of me!! EVERY time I see Harmon, I think of Ted Bundy. I could remember scenes from DS vividly 20 years later. There's no other actor that I can think of that I can't separate from the character he played except this one. I finally ordered a 3 pack of Mark Harmon made for TV movies (DS being one of them) from Amazon and watched DS last night...still a great, but haunting movie all these years later...

"Winning isn't everything...it's the ONLY thing!" - Vince Lombardi

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin2 15 years ago

I've only seen the 2002 one so far.

I think it's pretty good, but I'd bet Mark Harmon is much better

Main reason I checked out the 2002 film was it had Jennifer Tisdale in it, she a very good job with her brief role.

"It's not about money

It's about sending a Message

Everything Burns!"

reply

[–] CreoleJ 14 years ago

I could only watch a certain amount of Ted Bundy before moving on to somthing else.

The movie was laughable, and came across as a slasher/sex film. I don't know anything about the actor himself, but the writing obviously was just for shock value.

The Deliberate Stranger was great. I remember walking in on it half way through the first night. I was on my way to do something else, but I just stopped and kept watching, and didn't miss another minute of it.

The writing was great because the violence/his actions were implied. There were scenes in the series which showed certain things and left the rest to your imagination. Things such as (spoilers) Bundy following the young girl (Terry Farrell) as she leaves home for a Halloween party. Hearing her father's reaction at the Morgue. Bundy carrying the body in the snow in Colorado. Also, the way he was watching the little girl when he arrived in Florida..

Mark Harmon did an outstanding job as Bundy. You never saw his rage. But he gave looks throughtout which were indeed very chilling.

As another poster said earlier; it always takes me a while not to see Harmon as Bundy after each viewing.

Ditto that my brother. Creed

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fiatlux-1 14 years ago

The Deliberate Stranger was much better. While both actors were excellent and the actor in Ted Bundy looked more like him in the physical sense...the DB film told more of a story, and didn't focus almost completely on his serial criminal acts like TB did.

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Noirdame79 14 years ago

The Deliberate Stranger is definitely the best of all the movies about Ted Bundy. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws (it portrays Bundy as being way too confident early on, and there wasn't a lot of insight as to what made him tick, as others have stated), but I still consider it the best. Also, it was shot in the mid-80s, which was closer to the time period of Bundy's crimes. One of the main reasons why other films about Bundy haven't done as well is they fail to really capture the time period. I have to say, as good as Harmon is, he is much better-looking than the real Bundy, and while Bundy definitely already had "groupies" who thought he was a heartthrob, TDS probably added to his "fanbase" if you want to call it that. That's really my main gripe about this otherwise great TV movie.

Ted Bundy is by far more of a horror/exploitation flick. I don't find it terrible, I've seen worse films. But it's not a movie I would recommend unless the person has a strong stomach. Michael Reilly Burke portrayed Bundy's psychopathic side well, and probably bears the closest physical resemblance to Bundy of all the actors who have portrayed him.

All of the actors who have played the role of Ted Bundy should be commended for their efforts because it can't be an easy role to play. To portray such a notorious serial killer who took away and violently altered so many lives has got to be emotionally upsetting.

reply

[–] Merle_Dixon 13 years ago

I like 'em both, but 2002 movie is more like black comedy to me. And Mark Harmon was better at portraying Bundy, not perfect though. I hope that they will make a movie someday, that will do justice to good old Ted.

If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you.

reply

[–] gusdanjaq 12 years ago

I heard Harmon had trouble shaking off Bundy from his own personality. He was so committed to the role he would stay up whole nights, to king of achieve a similar deranged mentality Bundy must have had.
I believe in me. I'm a little screwed up but I'm beautiful.

reply

[–] eadaoin7 11 years ago

There are just too many flaws to overcome with the 2002 movie. But the one that bothers me the most is in the depiction of the kills.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, they were exploitative and with absolutely zero respect for the horror these young and REAL women suffered. Secondly, Ted was a necrophiliac. Most every woman was dead before he did anything sexually to them. The only exception is in his first Sammamish victim, whom he later confessed he made watch the 2nd victim die and be defiled before he then killed her.

SPOILERS DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone mentioned Mark Harmon's reaction after the fact. I remember reading somewhere that he had to take 6 months off to get back to himself again after playing Bundy. I'd have needed 6 years myself after playing someone so abhorrent and evil! Harmon did his homework - the almost-phoniness of his social persona, the mixed messages he gave his girlfriend and confidants - and I thought did a remarkable job.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eadaoin7 11 years ago

Good points TexasPsycho26. I guess that if Mark Harmon brought his acting chops to the 2002 movies' script, that would have been a better pairing. I agree that there are some elements of dark humor to the saga, mostly by some of the cops (who have to have a sense of gallows' humor to survive their jobs) and in Colorado after he escaped.

But I think what rubbed me the wrong way is that the 2002 movie tried to inject dark humor into the kills themselves. I found that disrespectful, because these were real girls who suffered horribly, and Reilly's Bundy sounded like Freddy Kruger throughout. I'll allow that it's probably just my hang-up.

Another hang-up I had with Reilly's Bundy was that we saw him in the first 20 minutes aping like a goon in the mirror, then peeping as poorly as a 10 year old would, then a failed attack...and then within the next 3 minutes we're seeing him in the act of his most successful kill (Lake Sammamish). No transition whatsoever--he just goes from inept bumbler to Phantom Spectre Extraordinaire in the time it takes to go to the restroom. Maybe if the film had allowed more time to watch him perfect his persona in between those scenes..........I dunno.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gluserty 9 years ago

For me, it's "The Deliberate Stranger" by a country mile. If I viewed "Ted Bundy" first, I may feel differently, but I prefer the creepier and more subtle approach of the TV movie. Also, I think of the two productions it had more of a varied focus (on the investigators, the victims, the victim's families, Ted's girlfriend). Sure, it din't demonstrate Bundy's heavy drinking or predilection to peeping, but then again, the TV movie began with his methods already established, and it the middle of when his spree became recognized.

reply

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

I saw Ted Bundy first, but I didn't prefer it. The Deliberate Stranger is better but it's still not great by any means. Harmon's Bundy is TOO pretty and TOO clever and successful and it doesn't show his failings very much. As others have said it shows nothing of Bundy's need for alcohol to do what he did and nor his compulsive stealing or his problems with work and university. It seemed to concentrate on Bundy as the prefect pretty boy killer who had it all, when that really wasn't quite the case. It also doesn't get across the sheer horror of what Bundy did and this is to it's detriment. This is why so many women fell for Harmon-Bundy. We didn't get any sense of just how *beep* evil he really was.

Ted Bundy, on the other hand, goes the other way and portrays Bundy as almost a geek and a buffoon. It's sometimes too comical to be chilling.

reply

[–] linda_lee110282 8 years ago

I've always felt Bundy's necrophilia is really exaggerated, thanks to films such as "The Riverman", "Ted Bundy", and Bob Keppel, who is a good detective but some of his info from Bundy are speculations. According to Hagmaier (IMO, the person who has the most trustful infro from Bundy), Bundy commited necrophilia to some of his victims, not all of them. Today's this is almost set on stone, but he wasn't really a "classic" necrophiliac. If he was, he would work in a morgue. It was part of the murder ritual. And Bundy did really rape many of his victims, such as Kathy Parks, Linda Healy, Kimberly Leach and the Lake Sam girls. The last books on Bundy reveals how much more twisted he really was. His favourite method of killing was raping women while he strangled them.

reply

[–] eileen-guthrie555 9 years ago

Did you read any of the books written about Ted Bundy? I've read them all. He was a very cocky confident guy when in public but privately he lacked confidence and was unsure about himself and there was always a rage underneath him that he would strike out suddenly, like a pot of water ready to boil. He didn't have many friends but he could be very charming that made people like him, who really didn't know him at all. Out of all the movies made about Ted Bundy, The Deliberate Stranger this is the best.  I haven't seen the movie Ted Bundy, but I've seen The Stranger Beside Me and The Riverman (about Bundy's help catching the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway). Mark Harmon played Ted Bundy the best. Billy Campbell was more manic and menacing, he lacked the charm that the real Ted Bundy had and Cary Elwes I didn't care for his performance. Who plays him as very creepy, no charm that captured so many and was more megalomaniac. In the Riverman, Bundy only helped because someone else took him out of the headlines. He was a narcissist, egomaniac, arrogant and conceited on these things Elwes does much better, but this was way after being caught and put on Florida deathrow so would he still be that charming man that people saw in the 1970s. That affable, likable charmer. We don't now the man after he was caught. So overall, I think Mark Harmon did the best acting job out of the top three performances on the real Ted Bundy. 

reply

[–] inlovewithmovies 9 years ago

I saw the Ann Rule version as well and thought that version was ridiculous...she tried to make it about her and made it seem like she was a co-star in his story when she was probably a very bit player...and I think her role in that story was all made up---no way a lot of that happened.

I was really surprised at how good Mark Harmon was--who knew he was such a good actor. He out Bundied Bundy. Mark Harmon's version was good looking, charming and larger than life. The real life Ted Bundy I guess was somewhat attractive....but Mark Harmon's version you can see why girls who fall for his pretty face. What makes Mark Harmon's portrayal so good was that he played up that pretty boy/charming image, with a thin veneer of something was off...or didn't jibe right....but everyone kept giving him the benefit of the doubt because who wants to believe there are people in the world like that. And when Mark played the Ted in his psychopath moments...Mark would flash that murderous look in his eyes...and that scary music would come on. What's interesting about the Ted Bundy story is that surface charm with the darkness beneath. Most psychopath serial killers do not have that and are mostly forgotten. What was frightening about Ted was how he could fit into campus life, corporate world, crime prevention hotline...and Mark captured that. But, you do kind of wish this was a big budget film with all the fancy visual shots you'd see in a Fincher film. Most tv movies are pretty terrible...but this one was quite good considering.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 8 years ago

I think they show different POVs, so they can't be direcly compared in therms of who's better.

When 1986 was made, he was still alive and somehow seen as a real threat, even more since he scaped twice. When 2002 was made, they just wanted to show something new that was never shown before.

1986 showed him how he was, he was charming and seductor. It was easy for him to get girls interested, even after convicted. 2002 showed him as a pathetic person who relied on other people's goodwill.

1986 showed him actually seducting the girls and they willing to date with him, which I suppose is how it happened. 2002 shows girls just willing to help a debilitated person to open a door or carry some weight.

And also of course, 1986 barely shows any violence. 2002 was focused on it.

reply