Lifetime Movie

[RichardX]

Christina Ricci has reportedly agreed to take a whack at playing accused ax murderess Lizzie Borden in a Lifetime TV movie.

Ricci, 33, will apply her considerable acting chops to play Borden in the as-yet untitled TV movie that will tell the story of how Borden was arrested, tried and then acquitted in the double ax murders of her father and stepmother in Fall River, Mass., in 1992.

[snokkums]

I'm going to love to see this movie!! Thanks for the info.

[PossumPie]

I am looking forward to it as well...I hope they do research and not make up a bunch of stuff to make it sell.

[NancyDrew]

I believe it is being filmed in Nova Scotia. Hard to make anyplace in Massachusetts looks like the 1890's now, I guess.

I really hope the movie is accurate, and doesn't take too many liberties with the facts.

[mbhenty]

Yes: NancyD.

Accurate? It Not very likely.

Trustworthy rumor has it that it's going to be a "Slasher, basher." Blood and gore."

If indeed it gets done.

Though an announcement has been made, sometimes these things fall through or are delayed. Example, the announcement of the Chloe-Lizzie movie. At this time I don't think it has even started filming.

[RichardX]

I saw a brief preview for this movie last night during Bonnie & Clyde. It is going to air Jan. 25. The preview looked interesting.

[Darrowfan]

I saw a brief preview for this movie last night during Bonnie & Clyde. It is going to air Jan. 25. The preview looked interesting.

I saw that preview as well, Richard. I found it somewhat surreal, but I'm looking forward to seeing the film. I hope they don't take too many liberties. (No liberties at all would be even better, of course.)

[NancyDrew]

Jan 25, huh? Thanks for the info...I can't wait to see it and then of course, criticize all the things that the producer/director got wrong...!

[Nadzieja]

I can't wait to see it, but I have a feeling that it's going to be sensationalized. I really do wish however that they did film it in the actual house in Fall River. Even if the house were just used to do the inside shots.

[RichardX]

Airing this weekend. Should be fun even if it is awful. Ricci is perfect for the role.

[Nadzieja]

I too agree that Ricci is good for the part. Can't wait for tomorrow hopefully it will be better than just a slasher film.

[PattiG157]

Well, what did everyone think of the movie? Personally I liked it but I had a problem with all of the "mistakes" they made. What did yall think?!!

[Aamartin]

P.U. And the music was nauseating.

[FactFinder]

I could not have disliked it more. They made so many "mistakes" I don't think they should have been allowed to say it was based on a true story. They rewrote the entire case as fiction pretty much. Even down to leaving out Uncle John, and burning a dress in the back yard in the middle of the night. It was made for pure entertainment value and no value at all on what actually took place.

[Aamartin]

they even changed recorded testimony!

[PossumPie]

I immediately am suspicious of movies that start out with "BASED ON A TRUE STORY" Most of the time the only thing true is the names of the main characters. Even Epic movies like Schindler's List took 'creative license' with much of it...and I love that movie. I saw an interview with Ricci before the movie, and lost interest when she said Lizzie killed her step father and step mother. I'm hoping it was a slip of the tongue, but I doubt it.

[missy777]

I DVR'd it but haven't watched it yet...sounds like it was pretty bad.
Here's the LA Times review:


http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -79031064/

Missy

[Darrowfan]

I learned a few things from the movie that I had never known before:

1. The air in Fall River in 1892 was inexplicably filled with rock music.

2. The people and horses of Fall River in 1892 often walked in slow motion for no apparent reason.

3. Apparently, a man named John Morse never existed.

4. Lizzie went to a party attended by Nance O'Neill just before the murders.

Fascinating. Just fascinating. Now if you will all excuse me, I have to finish throwing up.

[Mara]

Random thoughts that I would have shared last night if a flood of movie-driven curiosity-seekers hadn't shut the site down (!):

It seems they took some pains with appropriate period touches in set décor and so on, so why the garishly intrusive "light metal" music or whatever that was? (Speaking of music, yes, I noticed the gramophone in the Borden home during what I think was a scene following the murders. Do you think that was a mistake, or an insightful early indication of Maplecrofts and Nance O'Neils to come?) Points off costuming for putting Abby in such fancy clothes for the murder scene and not being more true to what we know Lizzie wore in court. Extra points off for having her go to her inquest without a hat.

I found the mixture of fact and fantasy to be a little interesting, though I was confused why they thought Lizzie would ever slink around the back yard in her underwear. And what was that handsome military voyeur supposed to be about? Oh and Lizzie as a temptress to Andrew? Well, I don't know about that, but maybe; we've tip-toed around the edges of such a thing here in the past, so who knows? M

uch of the testimony (inquest and trial) was spot on, but too much distorted. I thought the "it was old, and horrible and we wanted it gone" analogy between dress and Andrew was a little heavy-handed. Come on, moviemakers, give your audiences a little more credit for intelligence! You don't need to hit them over the head (ouch) with such things; they'll get it if you're more subtle, and will probably appreciate your cleverness, and their own for picking up on it.

What did you all think of how they handled the dynamic between Lizzie and Emma? The two occasions on which Emma locked her bedroom door really frightened me. That was well done.

Is it established that the murderer struck Andrew from behind? I thought it was. It seemed wrong that Ricci struck from the front. And why did they tone down the Andrew gore? Usually, if anything, they make it look worse than reality -- as they did with all the blood splatters on the bed et al. in the Guest Chamber.

Did they really use Villisca to suggest a serial killer alternative to the "Lizzie did it" assumption? [groan]

What was the deal with the pigeons in the barn? Did you get the impression Lizzie axed them all herself, or was she reflecting on Andrew having done so? That was confusing.

Thought they handled Bridget well, except for having her hear Abby go thump.

[Darrowfan]

Random thoughts that I would have shared last night if a flood of movie-driven curiosity-seekers hadn't shut the site down (!):

It seems they took some pains with appropriate period touches in set décor and so on, so why the garishly intrusive "light metal" music or whatever that was? (Speaking of music, yes, I noticed the gramophone in the Borden home during what I think was a scene following the murders. Do you think that was a mistake, or an insightful early indication of Maplecrofts and Nance O'Neils to come?) Points off costuming for putting Abby in such fancy clothes for the murder scene and not being more true to what we know Lizzie wore in court. Extra points off for having her go to her inquest without a hat.

I found the mixture of fact and fantasy to be a little interesting, though I was confused why they thought Lizzie would ever slink around the back yard in her underwear. And what was that handsome military voyeur supposed to be about? Oh and Lizzie as a temptress to Andrew? Well, I don't know about that, but maybe; we've tip-toed around the edges of such a thing here in the past, so who knows? M

uch of the testimony (inquest and trial) was spot on, but too much distorted. I thought the "it was old, and horrible and we wanted it gone" analogy between dress and Andrew was a little heavy-handed. Come on, moviemakers, give your audiences a little more credit for intelligence! You don't need to hit them over the head (ouch) with such things; they'll get it if you're more subtle, and will probably appreciate your cleverness, and their own for picking up on it.

What did you all think of how they handled the dynamic between Lizzie and Emma? The two occasions on which Emma locked her bedroom door really frightened me. That was well done.

Is it established that the murderer struck Andrew from behind? I thought it was. It seemed wrong that Ricci struck from the front. And why did they tone down the Andrew gore? Usually, if anything, they make it look worse than reality -- as they did with all the blood splatters on the bed et al. in the Guest Chamber.

Did they really use Villisca to suggest a serial killer alternative to the "Lizzie did it" assumption? [groan]

What was the deal with the pigeons in the barn? Did you get the impression Lizzie axed them all herself, or was she reflecting on Andrew having done so? That was confusing.

Thought they handled Bridget well, except for having her hear Abby go thump.

Well, Mara, you are a more tolerant person than I am. Whereas you "found the mixture of fact and fantasy to be a little interesting", I found it aggravating. I prefer my historical films be accurate to a fault. But that's just me. After I heard that bizarre rock soundtrack, I stopped taking the film seriously. They may as well have shown Lizzie using an Iphone, or have the prosecutor and the defense attorney greet each other in court with a fist bump and "What up, dawg?" In other words, the soundtrack really fouled the mood of the story for me. Needless to say, the numerous inaccuracies bothered me a lot too. When it depicted Lizzie attending a party full of cool young people, including an attractive young woman that Lizzie greeted as "Nance", my eyes nearly rolled out of my head.

And the dialogue! When the woman at the party asks, "Lizzie, aren't you a Sundy School teacher?" Lizzie replies with a hint of wickedness, "Only on Sundays." (Too bad Mae West wasn't available to play Lizzie.) Anyway, if I don't stop ranting now, I never will. Suffice it to say I was very disappointed.

[FactFinder]

Random thoughts that I would have shared last night if a flood of movie-driven curiosity-seekers hadn't shut the site down (!):

It seems they took some pains with appropriate period touches in set décor and so on, so why the garishly intrusive "light metal" music or whatever that was? (Speaking of music, yes, I noticed the gramophone in the Borden home during what I think was a scene following the murders. Do you think that was a mistake, or an insightful early indication of Maplecrofts and Nance O'Neils to come?) Points off costuming for putting Abby in such fancy clothes for the murder scene and not being more true to what we know Lizzie wore in court. Extra points off for having her go to her inquest without a hat.

I found the mixture of fact and fantasy to be a little interesting, though I was confused why they thought Lizzie would ever slink around the back yard in her underwear. And what was that handsome military voyeur supposed to be about? Oh and Lizzie as a temptress to Andrew? Well, I don't know about that, but maybe; we've tip-toed around the edges of such a thing here in the past, so who knows? M

uch of the testimony (inquest and trial) was spot on, but too much distorted. I thought the "it was old, and horrible and we wanted it gone" analogy between dress and Andrew was a little heavy-handed. Come on, moviemakers, give your audiences a little more credit for intelligence! You don't need to hit them over the head (ouch) with such things; they'll get it if you're more subtle, and will probably appreciate your cleverness, and their own for picking up on it.

What did you all think of how they handled the dynamic between Lizzie and Emma? The two occasions on which Emma locked her bedroom door really frightened me. That was well done.

Is it established that the murderer struck Andrew from behind? I thought it was. It seemed wrong that Ricci struck from the front. And why did they tone down the Andrew gore? Usually, if anything, they make it look worse than reality -- as they did with all the blood splatters on the bed et al. in the Guest Chamber.

Did they really use Villisca to suggest a serial killer alternative to the "Lizzie did it" assumption? [groan]

What was the deal with the pigeons in the barn? Did you get the impression Lizzie axed them all herself, or was she reflecting on Andrew having done so? That was confusing.

Thought they handled Bridget well, except for having her hear Abby go thump.

Mara, I don't think that the inquest testimony or trial testimony was anywhere near spot on. Some of the things they had them saying never appears anywhere in record. Most of it was completely made up. As was the dialogue for pretty much the entire movie.

I don't think it was a reference to Villisca, Iowa. I think it was a reference to the Bertha Manchester murders which also happened in Fall River after the Borden murders. But I was confused as to why they would include that reference at all since it was established her killer was not even in the country at the time of the Borden murders.

I prefer historical films, especially based on a true murder case, to be true to the facts. I'd be hard pressed to find any facts included in that movie. It was more fantasy sprinkled with a few facts. A thin well dressed Abby Borden? Important characters were completely edited from the story. John Morse, Mrs. Churchill. Having her know Nance O'Neil before the murders. Bridget seeing the bodies. Knowlton questioning her the day of the murders. I think I need to go throw up myself.

[Mara]

Oh Darrowfan, I wasn't as tolerant of the movie as you might think. It really was awful. When I said the fact/fantasy mixture was interesting, I meant "interesting" as in the kind of times people used to pray to be delivered from! There didn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to why they sometimes chose to quote "scripture," and why they deviated so wildly from it -- sometimes in ways that were less compelling than the truth. Yes, that whole murders-eve party was appalling. I should have said so. I only caught the Nance reference in the News Year's Eve scene, not that one. I will not sit through the thing again to see what I missed. The whole "Lizzie as cloistered coquette" thing was silly. The only things that really worked for me (in addition to a passable, if too-pretty, Bridget, were those times Emma felt uneasy and locked her bedroom door. The "noises off" quality of those couple of scenes harken back to when moviemakers really knew how to scare people, as opposed to just blasting at them like a video game.

Mae West as Lizzie! LOL "Is that a hatchet in your pocket, or are you just a mysterious intruder?"

[xyjw]

Why did the "filmakers" have to make an obnoxious story out of a really good story. The truth is always stranger than fiction. Why not just use the true story ? And yes, totally agree with Darrow about the 1890's atmosphere just rockin' with outlaw music and slo-mo horses.
I knew from the trailers it was going to be awful but just had to see it once. The only other lame-o distraction I will add to this posting are the blouses ( shirtwaists ? ) unbuttoned to the cleavage and filled in with silk neckties and stickpins that must've been attached to bare flesh ?
Even a dish of the famous mutton stew couldn't make me as sick as this "effort" did. Too bad so many of us are waiting for an excellent Lizzie Borden film that is historically accurate, and things like this flop get our hopes up.

[Darrowfan]

Why did the "filmakers" have to make an obnoxious story out of a really good story. The truth is always stranger than fiction. Why not just use the true story ? And yes, totally agree with Darrow about the 1890's atmosphere just rockin' with outlaw music and slo-mo horses.
I knew from the trailers it was going to be awful but just had to see it once. The only other lame-o distraction I will add to this posting are the blouses ( shirtwaists ? ) unbuttoned to the cleavage and filled in with silk neckties and stickpins that must've been attached to bare flesh ?
Even a dish of the famous mutton stew couldn't make me as sick as this "effort" did. Too bad so many of us are waiting for an excellent Lizzie Borden film that is historically accurate, and things like this flop get our hopes up.

Well said, xyjw. I think the problem is that both Lizzie Borden films (the 1975 version with Elizabeth Montgomery, and this one with Christina Ricci) were made for television, rather than theatres. I think theatrical film makers tend to have larger budgets, and thus can afford to spend more on things like research, etc.


I think what is needed to properly tell this story is a mainstream theatrical film.

[Darrowfan]

Oh Darrowfan, I wasn't as tolerant of the movie as you might think. It really was awful. When I said the fact/fantasy mixture was interesting, I meant "interesting" as in the kind of times people used to pray to be delivered from! There didn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to why they sometimes chose to quote "scripture," and why they deviated so wildly from it -- sometimes in ways that were less compelling than the truth. Yes, that whole murders-eve party was appalling. I should have said so. I only caught the Nance reference in the News Year's Eve scene, not that one. I will not sit through the thing again to see what I missed. The whole "Lizzie as cloistered coquette" thing was silly. The only things that really worked for me (in addition to a passable, if too-pretty, Bridget, were those times Emma felt uneasy and locked her bedroom door. The "noises off" quality of those couple of scenes harken back to when moviemakers really knew how to scare people, as opposed to just blasting at them like a video game.

Mae West as Lizzie! LOL "Is that a hatchet in your pocket, or are you just a mysterious intruder?"

Your points are well made, Mara. I acutally agree with you about the scenes where Emma locked her door. That was not only creepy, but entirely plausible as well. By the way, your line "Is that a hatchet in your pocket, or are you just a mysterious intruder?" made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. :)

[Darrowfan]

Random thoughts that I would have shared last night if a flood of movie-driven curiosity-seekers hadn't shut the site down (!):

It seems they took some pains with appropriate period touches in set décor and so on, so why the garishly intrusive "light metal" music or whatever that was? (Speaking of music, yes, I noticed the gramophone in the Borden home during what I think was a scene following the murders. Do you think that was a mistake, or an insightful early indication of Maplecrofts and Nance O'Neils to come?) Points off costuming for putting Abby in such fancy clothes for the murder scene and not being more true to what we know Lizzie wore in court. Extra points off for having her go to her inquest without a hat.

I found the mixture of fact and fantasy to be a little interesting, though I was confused why they thought Lizzie would ever slink around the back yard in her underwear. And what was that handsome military voyeur supposed to be about? Oh and Lizzie as a temptress to Andrew? Well, I don't know about that, but maybe; we've tip-toed around the edges of such a thing here in the past, so who knows? M

uch of the testimony (inquest and trial) was spot on, but too much distorted. I thought the "it was old, and horrible and we wanted it gone" analogy between dress and Andrew was a little heavy-handed. Come on, moviemakers, give your audiences a little more credit for intelligence! You don't need to hit them over the head (ouch) with such things; they'll get it if you're more subtle, and will probably appreciate your cleverness, and their own for picking up on it.

What did you all think of how they handled the dynamic between Lizzie and Emma? The two occasions on which Emma locked her bedroom door really frightened me. That was well done.

Is it established that the murderer struck Andrew from behind? I thought it was. It seemed wrong that Ricci struck from the front. And why did they tone down the Andrew gore? Usually, if anything, they make it look worse than reality -- as they did with all the blood splatters on the bed et al. in the Guest Chamber.

Did they really use Villisca to suggest a serial killer alternative to the "Lizzie did it" assumption? [groan]

What was the deal with the pigeons in the barn? Did you get the impression Lizzie axed them all herself, or was she reflecting on Andrew having done so? That was confusing.

Thought they handled Bridget well, except for having her hear Abby go thump.

Mara, I don't think that the inquest testimony or trial testimony was anywhere near spot on. Some of the things they had them saying never appears anywhere in record. Most of it was completely made up. As was the dialogue for pretty much the entire movie.

I don't think it was a reference to Villisca, Iowa. I think it was a reference to the Bertha Manchester murders which also happened in Fall River after the Borden murders. But I was confused as to why they would include that reference at all since it was established her killer was not even in the country at the time of the Borden murders.

I prefer historical films, especially based on a true murder case, to be true to the facts. I'd be hard pressed to find any facts included in that movie. It was more fantasy sprinkled with a few facts. A thin well dressed Abby Borden? Important characters were completely edited from the story. John Morse, Mrs. Churchill. Having her know Nance O'Neil before the murders. Bridget seeing the bodies. Knowlton questioning her the day of the murders. I think I need to go throw up myself.

Good observations, FactFinder. I too thought the actress who played Abby was the wrong type. Surely there must be an American actress in her mid-sixties, who is somewhat overweight. The always wonderful Kathy Bates comes immediately to mind.

[twinsrwe]

I couldn’t force myself to finish watching this movie; it was so awful! I’m thinking that since I didn’t finish watching it, I probably don’t have the right to make a comment, but I’m going to anyway.

‘Based on a true story’? I think not!!! The hair styles were not anywhere near those worn by the women who lived during the 1892 time period. The acting was absolutely terrible, not to mention the obvious errors portrayed in this movie; the movie came nowhere near the actual facts of the Borden Murders as we know them. The music was extremely irritating; kind of like fingernails scraping across a chalk broad! And what was up with Andrew having brown hair? Really? For as much of this movie that I did manage to watch, IMO, this is definitely just another melodramatic piece of garbage.

I prefer to watch movies that come ‘a bit closer’ to the actual events that took place in a true crime murder case. I know there has been a lot of criticism regarding the 1975 movie titled, "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" starring Elizabeth Montgomery, but I think her portrayal of Lizzie Borden was much better than Christina Ricci’s portrayal of Lizzie. In my opinion, "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" movie, is by far a superior version.

[Nadzieja]

After the first 15 minutes I shut it off. I couldn't take it. Then after about an hour curiosity set in & I turned it back on and lasted another 10 minutes. Then today I read a couple things about it of facebook & a few people whom I've studied this case with commented about how good the last 5 minutes were. So now, tomorrow I'm going to force myself to sit through the entire thing so I can say I saw it and then comment on the last 5 minutes.
If you know anything about Victorian manners you know so much is very wrong. One thing about that party was that Lizzie didn't drink. She belonged to the Temperance Union which had an office downtown in the Borden building. Also "Nance" didn't meet Lizzie until years after she was acquitted.
So far the two things that bothered me the most --- 1. The house That house was so much larger than the real one. There was really very little privacy in the real one because you actually walked through one room to get to another, there are no real separating hallways.
2. It really bothered me they portrayed Lizzie as someone who was dim witted. I feel she was very intelligent also very well read. She took care of her own home and was very particular.

I also hated the music, it did not belong in such a period piece.

Of course I'll have to post after I actually watch the whole thing tomorrow.

[NancyDrew]

Okay, finally the site is up. Yay! I am home.

The movie. First off, I don't think I could enjoy ANY movie about this case unless it was nearly perfect in accuracy; I know too much. This one fell so short that my jaw dropped. At one point my husband came in the room and asked "Why are you yelling at the tv?"

It. Was. Horrible. Awful beyond words. A lot of the music was Rock-a-billy, and it was so incredibly inappropriate. The music during the supposed "party" that Lizzie went to (with all that cleavage!) drove me NUTS. Meeting "Nance" before the murders? Excuse me?

And leaving out Uncle John. The dress burning being totally screwed up and misused. Lizzie walking around barefoot in her underwear.

Heck, they couldn't even get the name "Maggie" into the movie!!!

It was an unmitigated disaster; and for someone that studies this case nearly every week, it made me very angry. How dare they say "based on a true story." That movie wasn't based on any true story. It was complete fiction...it seemed to be packaged to a young crowd.

Where was George Robinson, by the way? They seem to have left him out too.

I've been on IMDB all morning, raving about the mistakes. Oh well. Still waiting for the contract disputes over the 1975 flick to be settled, and then I can buy my own copy.

What a waste of time, huh?

[NancyDrew]

After the first 15 minutes I shut it off. I couldn't take it. Then after about an hour curiosity set in & I turned it back on and lasted another 10 minutes. Then today I read a couple things about it of facebook & a few people whom I've studied this case with commented about how good the last 5 minutes were. So now, tomorrow I'm going to force myself to sit through the entire thing so I can say I saw it and then comment on the last 5 minutes.
If you know anything about Victorian manners you know so much is very wrong. One thing about that party was that Lizzie didn't drink. She belonged to the Temperance Union which had an office downtown in the Borden building. Also "Nance" didn't meet Lizzie until years after she was acquitted.
So far the two things that bothered me the most --- 1. The house That house was so much larger than the real one. There was really very little privacy in the real one because you actually walked through one room to get to another, there are no real separating hallways.
2. It really bothered me they portrayed Lizzie as someone who was dim witted. I feel she was very intelligent also very well read. She took care of her own home and was very particular.

I also hated the music, it did not belong in such a period piece.

Of course I'll have to post after I actually watch the whole thing tomorrow.

Oh, Nadzieja, you'd better have a glass of wine before you watch the whole thing. It's really, really bad. My daughter, who, through conversations with me, has become a Borden-o-phile, said there will probably be parodies of this on the internet SOON. If I find any, I"ll post them.

If you don't drink, then have anti-nausea medicine at the ready...the writer to the script to this tragedy of a tv disaster should be chased with an ax...

[blanche]

I seldom, well, really never post, but I love this site and have for years. I knew the board would buzzing after that ridiculous Lifetime Movie. I almost didn't watch it because I just knew they would get the history wrong, but I never expected it to be THAT far off. I ended up chasing my husband out out the room because I kept shouting "WRONG!", "WRONG!", continually.
I would LOVE for someone to do a film based on the known history. Some speculation is fine, but this was just, well, awful.
*sigh*

[stargazer]

I am so glad that I missed it. Next film, they need to consult US ! We will make it the best ever !

[PossumPie]

There must be creative license in movies or the average "joe-6-pack" won't watch. I loved some movies like Titanic, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre that were so loosely based on facts as to be name only. I watch knowing they are not real. I also am a huge fan of Historically accurate movies...John Adams mini-series comes to mind, where it is microscopically accurate. I understand however that they only draw a small devoted audience. SO.....how about a movie now that is spot-on-accurate of the case? Trouble is, we DON"T KNOW who done it. Couldn't show the actual killer, and we would have a schizophrenic Lizzie who was upstairs laughing, and down in the dining room all at the same time when Father comes home!!! I guess it is relegated to Forums such as this.

[PattiG157]

I agree with all of your comments. I kept saying, "that's wrong," throughout the whole movie. I mean, couldn't they have at least picked up a book and read it, so they get at least some of the "facts" correct? No mention of Uncle John, burning the dress in the back yard, the mentioning of the dress and the prussic acid in the courtroom, etc. etc. etc. The acting was okay, but the script was awful ... it got basically nothing right.

[Curryong]

I was regretting not being able to see it due to my location but, having read all your posts I'm glad I missed it! Was Christine Ricci's performance dreadful too?

[snokkums]

IT
WAS
AWFULE
MOVIE!!!

[snokkums]

YES!!
HER
Performance
wasbad!!

[Mara]

Hey FactFinder, I'm gonna stick up for myself. I wrote "Much of the testimony (inquest and trial) was spot on, but too much distorted." Give me credit for the "but" part, okay? My point was I thought it was weird that they did use some direct quotations from transcripts (the "spot on" part), then deviated wildly from it (the "too distorted" part).

Curryong, I think Ricci's performance was pretty good, but the direction -- what she was told to do with Lizzie -- was way off. She carried off a few subtle things that were pretty creepy, but to appreciate them, you'd have to buy into the suggestion of incest that motivated them. Other times she was cringe worthily obvious. I don't know. I'm kind of ambivalent about how she did. I know a lot of people love her as an actress, but she ain't my cuppa.

I think we can all agree that this flick was a total waste of time. What a shame.

[Wordweaver]

There must be creative license in movies or the average "joe-6-pack" won't watch.

Possibly, but the changes are supposed to make a movie MORE interesting, not less! Instead of one of the great mysteries of the nineteenth century, populated by fascinating characters, they presented a bunch of flat, lifeless stereotypes with little coherence, less accuracy, and no plausibility.

They wrecked the single best line in American crime: "She is not my mother, sir; she is my stepmother; my mother died when I was a child."

I spent the whole movie yelling at the TV -- to the amusement of my housemates, who had warned me it was likely to be dreadful.

All the Bordens -- not to mention the lawyers, the neighbors, and every chronicler of the case from Edwin Porter to Victoria Lincoln -- were spinning in their graves last night. The only one who was likely to be happy was John Vinnicum Morse, whose only comment so far has been, "Thank God they left me out of it."

[PossumPie]

I was regretting not being able to see it due to my location but, having read all your posts I'm glad I missed it! Was Christine Ricci's performance dreadful too?

I WISH I was in your location. You are in warm Summer, while most of the USA is Below Freezing...it is 2 degrees Fahrenheit (-17 Celsius) here

[Curryong]

Yes, I'm sorry, I don't want to taunt any of you unnecessarily, he he! but we are enjoying a giant heat wave of 39 degrees Celsius, which I think is about 102 degrees Fahrenheit isn't it? I really feel for you all, but as a matter of fact I went out for the day yesterday without putting on sunscreen and am suffering the effects today so it isn't all marvellous!

[Fargo]

How did Bridget get on the 1st floor when lizzie discovered Andrew when she was on the 3rd floor laying down ? No one mention the paint on the dress that was burned. Andrews ring appeared in court during the trial when it was actually 6 feet under buried with Andrew. Eli Bence was allowed to testify at the trial when at the real trial he wasn't called to the stand. The service at the cemetery was interrupted by taking the bodies away while the mourners were still there. In reality it happened after they left. It showed Bertha Manchester getting axed but explained very little about it. The staircase was on the left of the front hall instead of the right side where it really is. I could go on and on.

[NancyDrew]

Curryong, where are you (I'm sorry if you've mentioned where before; I didn't catch it.)

Today is my birthday! I'm 52 today so I'm going to wax miserable a bit more about this awful movie.

One thing that absolutely ruined it was the music. I'm really wondering WHO thought it was a good idea to put rock'n-roll, along with some old gospels (more appropriate for a movie based on the deep South) in this film. I also wonder if the movie, with more period-appropriate pieces, would seem less terrible to us.

And now...a good thing to say: since I've had a chance to calm down (i"m so glad I wasn't the only one yelling at the tv "that's WRONG, that NEVER HAPPENED!" constantly) let me comment on Riccis' performance: She did manage to capture Lizzie fairly well, even though her freakishly tiny and weirdly proportioned body was a tad distracting.

She played Lizzie as spacey, distracted, and neurotic. And I think Lizzie Borden was indeed, all those things. Greedy, associating materialism with peace, sexually immature, check and check.

As a gesture to historicity, one of you should come with me to the IMDB boards, where naive people are making outrageous assumptions. I'm LuvvieHowell over there. (yup, my homage to Gilligans Island...my fav 60's screwball comedy). I spent more time there than I should have writing huge posts about all the mistakes in this movie.

The director of this movie was born in Massachusetts. He is my age; why did he let so much of his own state's history be made into a cheap farce? Does anyone know if anyone from the production team contacted LeeAnn or ANYONE from our neck of the woods or website to verify facts?

Thanks!

[Curryong]

I live in Australia, near Melbourne, Victoria. January, February, March are really hot months here.

[dalcanton]

I'd give it 1 out of 5 stars. What I didn't like:

1) that awful music - so obviously out of place for that time period

2) Lizzie sneaking out to the party at the beginning & the low-cut blouse she wore. Lizzie was a spinster & dressed more conservatively

3) Stepmother was too “made up” & less bulky than the real Abby. Kathy Bates would’ve been perfect for that part

4) Father should’ve had white hair

5) Did not like the dress-burning scene. Why stray from the facts? Have her burn it in the stove - not in a fire pit out back

[Fargo]

The dress was burned in the day, not the night like the movie shows. In the trial they say lizzie burned the dress on September 15th. On that date Lizzie would have been in jail because she was arrested in August. lizzie never fired Bridget but she does in the show.

[Mara]

Off-topic for a moment to wish NancyDrew a very happy birthday!

[Mara]

I wonder if the music decision came from the mind of some youngster who thought the rock music in the latest Great Gatsby movie was swell. Or who saw "Moulin Rouge" as a kid and never got over it. (I think I must be the only person on earth who couldn't stand that thing.) Anyway, it was an awful decision.

If I'd been in charge, I would have suggested adapting some early Charles Ives songs; the bitonality of some of his work from that period would have been just creepy enough without losing the period. And what about some snippets of Gould's music from the Fall River Legend ballet? That's modern, but at least it's modern with a raison d'être.

[Richard]

I am not shy about liking a movie that contains historical inaccuracies. One of my favorite films from last year was American Hustle which grossly distorted the story it was based on, but I thought it was a masterpiece.

Yet, Lizzie Borden Took an Axe irritated me in a way that at first I thought was irrational. I thought long and hard about it, read Stefani's very positive review (the basis of her criticism which I cannot disagree with), but then realized that was bothered me the most was the REASON why they distorted things.

That reason was very obvious, now that I look back on it. They were targeting a younger audience. Their choice of a small actress that could easily pass for her early twenties put her in the exact demographic that would appreciate the techno hard rock that was used on the soundtrack. They are going after the same audience that would like Twilight or The Hunger Games. Showing teenagers (and Ricci did look like a teenager, and so did Nance O'Neil for that matter) murdering people with axes, hatchets and crossbows is really hot right now in Hollywood. Anyone who has read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies would recognize echoes of the Barrett Sisters smashing zombie skulls with their blades.

For this reason I thought the movie scoped out into a territory that doesn't interest me. I feel like it was made for an audience that has no real interest in Lizzie Borden. For this reason there was nothing about Andrew's business, or Fall River for that matter, or any other true historical context. Such an audience would not be interested in the Lizzie Borden story if it was filmed like a Sinclair Lewis novel for a more historically literate audience.

There must have been a corporate meeting at Lifetime where they planned everything exactly because they were aiming for a specific audience. If the women wore hats, the 20-something Twilight fans would think it's old fashioned. If they used period music, they won't download the soundtrack from iTunes. If they cast a teenager-looking actress, the teenagers in the audience will assume she is a teenager. If they show stuff about Fall River and the textile mills, they'll flip the channels to another station. If they don't show Lizzie hacking up bodies, the movie will be boring. In short, no ambiguity, no subtlety, no grown-up issues. Let's make a movie about a 32 year old woman who is really a trouble teenager who wants to smash open people's skulls like they do in the zombie and vampire movies.

For this reason alone, I didn't like the film. I just can't get past it. And that has little to do with historical accuracy. After all, who am I to shout about historical accuracy!

So my ultimate assessment is that the movie wasn't an artistic vision that succeeds or fails on its own internal merits (I do agree with this standard by the way). I don't think the film was anything other than a carefully marketed product that was made by committee and not the vision of one writer or director. I guess that makes it fall completely into the realm of entertainment, but I don't get entertained by the teen violence market. I just ignore it.

[Mara]

A very thoughtful commentary, Richard. I believe you're right on all counts. And by the way, I love your Kafka quotation; it's so true, and of course, most à propos for this forum!