some serious reservations about the Ted Bundy biopic

Every novel or filum has to be based on a perspective; they can be several, but there has to be at least one or, in other words, who is telling the story, where is the narration/narrator standing?

The film's POV inserts itself between Bundy and his gullible girlfriend: what she sees of him, how he behaves with her. What we are not shown is (any of) his atrocities, and I think that's problematic.

Now I must mention that I haven't finished watching it. Maybe, after spending 90 minutes showing what effectively is his public side, his very own version of the story (he is being persecuted, he is innocent), they will remind us of what he did engage in all the while. If this is not to happen, then I think the makers of the movie have some serious questions to answer.

Such as: obvious impression number one: Zach Effron isliketotallyhottyeah. I know that Bundy played on that, and they are pointedly showing it in the film, but, in the absence of a proper counterpoint reminding everyone of what Bundy did, they are in effect repeating his trick. This is not just irresponsible, it is downright questionable -especially in our (visually based) Instagram age.

For the life of me, I can't see how any of the families of the victims will find solace in the movie as it currently goes (I'm halfway through). The genuine horrors are being instrumentalised. To all intents and purposes, this is effectively a vehicle for Zach Effron.

Imagine "American Psycho" without the astounding violence: it would be a joke. 

Point number 2.

I would suggest that by not showing the facts / reality, this movie is a symptom of our terrifying "post-truth' age where a certain political discourse based on gratuitous, mendacious, utterly egregious, bare-faced demonstrably wrong but readily accepted (by morons, admittedly) claims (such as his "I am innocent") has gained the upper hand. 

If the movie actually ends without providing any factual  rebuke, then I guarantee you that it will fuel a new conspiracy (Bundy-was-innocent). 

And we are back to a familiar conundrum.

Granted, it's a work of art, it's not a university thesis and artists are entitled to take whatever point of view they fancy, but... 

PS: Nope indeed, they didn't really dwell on the actual atrocities committed by this man.