Ted K

source: Ted K

Excellent movie with brillant acting. Not made to be entertaining but as true to the facts as possible. One could almost say it's a documentary. An excellent history lesson. Top notch music score. Magnificent photography too.

This film start with a bunch of people riding on a snowmobile, and a man "Ted" staring at them scene! As turnout, this film is about a man "Ted" need to take revenge on all the people causing damage to the forest! Entire film full of boring conversation, and annoying overuse scene! Such as, overuse of the walking scene, overuse of the searching scene, overuse of the calling names scene, overuse of the burning scene, overuse of the riding bicycle scene, overuse of the cursing scene, overuse of the making bomb scene, overuse of the watching TV scene, overuse of the driving scene, overuse of the sending mail scene, overuse of the staring scene, overuse of the narration scene, overuse of the red color on screen scene, overuse of the jet flying scene, overuse of the long angle scenery scene, overuse of the song playing at the background scene, overuse of the typing scene, overuse of the writing scene, overuse of the reading scene, overuse of the hallucinate scene, overuse of the talking on the phone scene, overuse of the eating scene, overuse of the shaving scene, overuse of the bombing scene, overuse of the running scene, overuse of the cutting wood scene, and overuse of the doing daily chores scene! Make the film unwatchable! At the end, Ted been captured by the FBI! That's it! Wasting time to watch!

Being a true crime fan and having seen several documentaries about the unabomber I was looking forward to seeing this movie. After the opening credits, and given the initial approach I thought I would be in the presence of an intimate film. An "Author's Film". And this biography has everything to make that happen. But in my opinion the film falls into too many elements that have little to do with the nature of Ted himself as well as his odyssey. Even chronologically. I think the film would be more effective if it had an unknown actor. Although technically the film is excellent, highlighting the photography, although the soundtrack is also very adequate, the truth is that seeing the film as a whole, one gets the feeling that in reality, this could have been another film that "could have been" . Anyway good but not excellent.

We have a historical bio about a mail bomber so lazily put together. Is any of this even chronological? There are no dates or times to help the viewer follow along. Instead, we get the main actor in the wilderness narrating, upset at jets, machinery and helicopters. Once in awhile he's building a bomb, working a job and dropping a package off at a mailbox. That's it. Finally, after about an hour, you'll wake up because one goes off in an office.

Far too much character study and dramatised mental-illness scenes shadowed the facts, and intelligence of this man. I am assuming they didn't want to glorify him in any way, but pigeon-holing him into 'the angry little petty lonely man' does the truth great injustice. Of course aspects of this side of his personality led to his identification and capture, but to me it came across as a half portrait filled in with abstract nonsense.

It's a great story and great character, but done with a very weak approach, just terrible editing with a mix of crossfades and alternating sequences with no substance or meaning, like the classic cliché of using slow-motion for explosions. It's very repetitive with scenes showing the damage being done to the mountains and the noise pollution or the phone conversations he has with his brother. Also the music goes all over the place, it doesn't have a solid approach, only in the last part of the film it seems to stick to a synthesizer that doesn't really fit at all. I mean, in a way it builds tension, but if this is Ted's point of view (and it is because we experience his fantasies as real as he does) he would probably be against using machines to make music. All this shows there's no particular direction or sensitivity, no point of view, no depth. I think that without all these effects and post-production paraphernalia it could be a very powerful film. Sharlto Copley is amazing, but the film doesn't really let him shine. The best scene is probably when he goes to the phone company to make a complaint. Maybe a more organic and natural approach with the music and a minimalist editing or camera work could also make the film better.

By mr copley , delving and diving deep into the caracter of ted kazynski aka the una bomber. Its made on a dime or less budget, filmed a shot in almost authentic natural environment, and gives you a gawping inclusion of a frustrated lonely on the outer edge of sanity personal tragedy that led to 3 deaths and at least 22 injured people by sending death by mail. If you hope that this is a documentary about mr ted, then look somewhere else, this is more the hypertheoretical human genious mastermonster and a reflection over his sturdy conviction of the industrialistic nations of the world, the greedy capitalistic systems that rots and damages our natural resources, polluting water and wrecks forests and landscapes for the thrill of a dollar earned. Its also a look into the madmans manifesto that became published in media as a try to stop the mailterror. Its a well acted, filmed and edited story that will grab your intestines if youre a tree lover and environmentalist. But even though that the grumpy old man feels that they are just grasping the surface in order to be a biopic. Anyway its a film to watch due to brilliant acts of mr copley, a recommend.

When I see garbage like this I have to wonder what the ulterior motives are of those who wrote, produced and directed it. There is little mention of what led to this man's tormented life, specifically the mk ultra experiments that were performed on him at the very university he attended that some argue created the damaged human being we know as the unabomber. He is portrayed as an outsider in school, yet he was active in school groups. He is portrayed in this movie as a simpleton yet he was a mathematics professor and successfully evaded the FBI for 20 years while performing his acts of terrorism. What I suspect is that this is an attempt to marginalize this man to provide some form of comfort for society. I can't speak for the whole film as I was too disgusted to watch it in its entirety.

I would recommend people read some of the NY Times, NY Magazine, ABC News pieces looking into Kaczynski's own writings and statements to friends. This would make it clear that the simplistic analysis in this film as well as many other shallow treatments of his views/rationalizations ignore the clear evidence that Kaczynski was an anarchist, climate activism terrorist, and if classifiable at all, would be far left. This bizarre treatment him as some kind of incel is simply not fact based.