User reviews

Written by Bryce Kass, and directed by Craig William Macneill, Lizzie is based on the cause célèbre of Lizzie Borden, who was accused and subsequently acquitted of the axe murders of her father and stepmother in Fall River, Massachusetts in 1892, a crime that is still officially unsolved. A "smash-the-patriarchy" (to use a quote from producer and star Chloë Sevigny) revisionist take on the material, the film presents Borden as a protofeminist lashing out against patriarchal oppression, homophobia, and sexual assault. Strikingly contemporary in its thematic concerns, this long-time passion project for Sevigny adopts the perspective of the #MeToo movement, proposing a version of events wherein Borden is forced to actively fight back against a lifetime of subjugation. Although the languid pace will alienate many viewers, whilst the liberties it takes with historical facts will irk others, there is much to praise here, including fantastic cinematography, terrific sound design, and flawless acting.

One of most interesting aspects of Lizzie is its narrative structure. Beginning on August 4 just as the (unseen) bodies are discovered, it then flashes back six months to the arrival of housemaid Bridget Sullivan (Kristen Stewart). Building up to August 4 again, we learn that although 32-years-old, Borden lives with her domineering father, Andrew (a lecherous Jamey Sheridan); stepmother, Abby (Fiona Shaw); and elder sister, Emma (a criminally underused Kim Dickens). When Sullivan arrives as a live-in housemaid, she and Borden quickly grow close, with Borden attempting to teach her to read and write. Borden later discovers that Andrew is regularly sexually assaulting Sullivan, and eventually, the friendship turns romantic. However, when Andrew learns of it, he forbids Borden from seeing Sullivan, something Borden refuses to accept.

In the second depiction of August 4, this time we are shown the bodies, but we don't see the murders. The film then jumps forward to the trial, before once again flashing back to August 4, this time showing us the actual killing. This pseudo-In Cold Blood (1967) structure is well-handled for the most part, and has a number of advantages. For one, it allows the film to briefly cover the trial, whilst still employing the murders as a powerful and very effective dénouement. It also allows the film to build tension around an event which the audience know is coming; by not showing the killings (twice), it has the effect that when the film does actually depict them, they are all the more impactful, placing a suitable cap on what is essentially a story of forbidden love.

From an aesthetic point of view, there's much to praise, with Noah Greenberg's cinematography particularly laudable. Often framing Borden in windows, doorways, and behind railings, whilst also using shallow focus to flatten backgrounds, the sense is that this is a woman living a confined life with little room to move, trapped in her immediate environment. When she and Sullivan first kiss, the camera pulls back to reveal that Andrew is watching them - even in this moment of release, they are still trapped in his domain. Borden is also often shot off-centre, or reflected in mirrors, particularly as she talks to someone who is on camera. This reinforces the sense that she is trapped, and also feeds into the metaphorical meaning of a later scene where she spreads the shards of a broken mirror outside the door of Sullivan's room to cut Andrew's feet as he emerges.

Dank and airless, the dimly lit Borden household, outside of which the film rarely ventures, is practically another character in and of itself. Complimenting Elizabeth J. Jones's production design, Greenberg's photography gives rise to a restrictive and claustrophobic mise en scène, which is often lit with only a single candle. However, it's not just how he lights scenes that impresses, it's also how he uses the camera; gliding over important details without hammering home why we should be paying attention (the first time we see the ax, for example). Also worth mentioning is how Macneill uses the full-frontal nudity towards the end of the film. Although it will no doubt be accused of gratuitousness by some, it's not only historically accurate, it's shocking, necessary, and makes a powerful statement. God forbid a woman should ever appear naked on screen in a scene not of a sexual nature. Assisting Greenberg's photography and Jones's design is Ruy García's superb sound design. Of particular note are the floorboards, which creak with the slightest touch, making any kind of clandestine interaction between Borden and Sullivan virtually impossible, and thus contributing to the sense of the household as a prison. Enhancing this even further, is the lack of warmth in the sound design, with footsteps and voices echoing and bouncing off the walls due to the lack of soft surfaces.

As a narrative of female empowerment (albeit of the homicidal variety), most of the film's main themes relate to combating the patriarchal strictures of the Gilded Age, represented primarily by Andrew, his brother-in-law John (Denis O'Hare), and Abby, who reinforces patriarchal hypocrisy by unquestioningly submitting to it. Talking to the Huffington Post, Sevigny explains, "I wanted it to be this rousing, smash-the-patriarchy piece and then she gets everything she wants, monetarily." Presenting Borden as a woman driven to her wit's end, with few practical options in a society that looks down on her because she is unwed and in her 30s, the film depicts a free-spirit living in a cage, yearning for agency, with the murders presented, at least in part, as her attempt to break free of such restrictions. Suffocated by unquestioned authoritarian patriarchal rule, Borden essentially becomes a protofeminist heroine, actively rebelling against the dominion of men and the women who enable them.

Sullivan, who acts as the audience's moral compass, faces different obstacles, primarily related to economics and social caste. Her place in the ideological and socio-economic hierarchy is manifested in the fact that the family call her Maggie (the generic name given to all Irish servants). However, Borden's insistence on calling her by her actual name (which is historically inaccurate, as Borden also called her Maggie) lays the groundwork for their later emotional connection. Presenting their relationship as an illicit romance which they had to hide because of the moral bigotry of the age, the film very much adopts a #MeToo sensibility, as Borden and Sullivan fight back against self-righteous judgement, unchecked abuse, and socially sanctioned oppression. In this sense, when Borden and Sullivan strip naked before the murders, they aren't just undressing to avoid getting incriminating blood on their clothes, they are repudiating the garments that have restricted them in a physical sense just as much as men have in an ideological sense.

There are, however, some sizeable problems in all of this. For one, the film lacks energy, and the slow pacing will leave some viewers bored to tears. Additionally, apart from Sevigny and Stewart, the rest of the cast is wasted, particularly Shaw, O'Hare, and Dickens. None of their characters come across as possessing any kind of interiority, instead existing almost exclusively as archetypes; the wicked stepmother, the lecherous uncle, and the ice-cold older sister. Additionally, although he has a lot more to do, Sheridan's Andrew is completely over-the-top, only one or two beats away from a moustache-twirling mega-villain. Perhaps the most egregious problem is that the film seems as war with itself. On the one hand, it wants to be an elegant, period-appropriate tale of women attempting to take their destinies into their own hands in a Victorian society not predisposed to allow such, but on the other, it wants to present a modern story of murder and homosexual women. At times, such as the superb depiction of the murders themselves, you can feel the modern sensibilities rise to the surface, but for the most part, they're stifled by the hushed austerity of the more muted milieu.

Lizzie tells the story of an initially powerless victim who lashes out and, quite literally, slays patriarchal authority. Just by giving Sevigny the first significant starring role of her career, the film earns a lot of brownie points, as she's been an unsung, but consistently brilliant supporting player since her debut in Kids (1995). Alongside her, Stewart equates herself very well, even having a decent go at an Irish accent, and the passion between the two, though period-appropriately muted, is completely believable. However, the film's attempts to shoehorn in 21st century moral values doesn't entirely work, primarily because Kass's script tips the scale in Borden's favour to a ridiculous degree - there's Andrew's over-the-top villainy (not just an authoritarian homophobe, but a rapist to boot), John's creepy intimations, Abby's refusal to stand up for her step-daughters, Borden's protofeminist rhetoric and humanitarianism, and the alterations to historical fact to ensure the audience is never in any doubt as to where its sympathies are supposed to lie. Weighing the scales so decisively drains the film of any ambiguity and most of its vitality, presenting a binary story of righteous good slaying hypocritical evil, rather than a murder with many facets. A Gothic tale told from a #MeToo perspective, Lizzie tries to be many things at once - a revisionist history, a feminist tract, a championing of homosexuality, a murder mystery, a period drama - but ends up kind of falling into a no man's land between genres. Still though, there are aspects of the film that are enjoyable, if you can look past the enervating pace.

As good as the performances are in this film, for a long, long stretch it is very slow and staid. Chloë Sevigny and Kristen Stewart are quite good as Lizzie Borden and Bridget Sullivan respectively. The film looks at Borden's relationship with Sullivan and speculates about its playing a central role in the notorious events that followed. A film taking place in 19th century New England, this is also an examination of how dreadfully repressive life was for women at that time. Sullivan is a household servant of the Borden family but soon finds herself being used in other ways in a patriarchal home.

The film is very much told from Lizzie Borden's standpoint, but does not give too much of a backstory, other than to portray her family as regarding her as insane and in need of institutionalization. In addition, giving the audience a more in-depth sense of Borden's life thereafter is something the film could have done and should have. With that kind of void, we are left wanting. Nevertheless, I recommend this to those curious enough about this story and anyone who admires the work of the two principals.

I was more impressed than I expected to be with this film. It is slower paced in the first two acts, but Sevigny and Stewart both deliver performances worth watching, and the smaller details of the story are livened up enough that I was interested throughout. With some films surrounding killers, I feel as if the moment of murder is the only interesting aspects, but with this film, Lizzie's character was compelling enough to keep me engaged throughout. There were a few shakier scenes with some minor characters, and a few scenes that felt a touch overdone, but for the most part this was a very decent film.

I watched this at home on DVD from our public library, my wife skipped, not her kind of movie.

Lizzie Borden is a well established historical figure in the USA. Living in Fall River, Massachusetts, still single and at home at 32, her father and stepmother were found murdered on August 4th, 1892. It was established that the murder weapon was a small ax, several types were found in the home.

Lizzie was always the prime suspect, she was arrested and went to trial in 1893. A jury deliberated for 90 minutes and returned a verdict of 'not guilty.' Of course 'not guilty' isn't the same as 'innocent' and ever since that trial various studies of the sordid affair mostly concluded that Lizzie really was the murderer. Since it was established that the stepmother died over an hour before the father, by inheritance laws the two Borden sisters inherited everything from both parents.

Chloe Sevigny says she has been fascinated by Lizzie for a number of years, here she is both producer and stars as Lizzie. Complemented well by Kristen Stewart as the Irish maid who formed a close friendship, in this movie depicted as a Lesbian attraction. This version depicts Lizzie as the culprit, but the prosecution was unable to provide evidence.

I am not a student of Lizzie Borden's life, I knew very little about the story going into viewing this movie. It is a quite good movie, all the characters come across as authentic. No one really knows for sure what all happened, and what led up to what happened, but this depiction is interesting and plausible.

The IMdb rating appears to be a bit low at 5.7 right now. I see that over 7% of the ratings are "1" which is absurd, those voters must have an agenda other than the quality of this movie. Anyone interested in the Lizzie Borden story would do well to see this movie.

"Lizzie" chronicles one of America's most famous crimes-the hatchet murders of prominent Massachusetts businessman Andrew Borden and his wife, Abby. The suspect? His spinster daughter, Lizzie, whose name has gone down in infamy.

Originally a passion project for star Chloë Sevigny, around whom talk has circled for nearly a decade regarding a Lizzie Borden biopic/miniseries, "Lizzie" is a well-made psychological drama that will likely satisfy as many people as it will utterly alienate. The screenplay here, as with any kind of historical fiction, takes liberties and makes speculations, the most singular being that Lizzie committed the murders after her father uncovered a romantic relationship between her and the Bordens' house servant, an Irish immigrant named Bridget Sullivan. While this is obviously speculative, when one actually sits and considers the written accounts and evidence, it is not necessarily unlikely, and is a position that has been argued by several historians and journalists. Did it really happen this way? We will never know for sure.

That aside, this take on the material is above-average in many ways: It's well-shot and atmospheric, with just the right touches of the Victorian Gothic. It's also remarkably well-acted, with Sevigny surprisingly turning in a convincing performance as Borden (as a huge fan of her work, I was personally skeptical of whether the role would fit her right). Kristen Stewart is perhaps more shockingly good as Bridget, the servant caught in the eye of the storm. I do feel the film stumbles a bit in terms of its narrative structure, as it begins with a snippet of the crime's "discovery," then loops back to the build-up before cutting away again just before the killings. The gritty details then are presented in a flashback which, though effective, I think would have better served as a straightforward conclusion in a chronological account. The court scenes that rear themselves in the last act, though brief, feel dull and ultimately draw the viewer out of the core narrative; and, given that the audience ostensibly already knows how it ends, I feel the filmmakers would have benefitted from laying the story out in a no-nonsense fashion.

Despite these narrative pitfalls, I still found "Lizzie" a compelling take on a rather common (and frankly well-supported) theory regarding the Borden murders. Did it happen exactly this way? Probably not. But there is potential truth here. And even if there's not, the story itself remains compelling all the same. 7/10.

There are certain ideas that every few years get reused for major movie releases. Examining the life of Lizzie Borden happens a bit infrequently compared to other concepts, but the 2018 film 'Lizzie' isn't the first to do so, and surely won't be the last.

The tale of Lizzie Borden is fairly common knowledge at this point: she is alleged to have murdered her parents with an ax, and when put on trial for the crimes, she was acquitted. The finer details of who Lizzie was, and how and why she did it, are the real points of debate and interest, and the things that filmmakers may emphasize or deemphasize as they see fit for the picture they want to make.

'Lizzie' chooses to focus on the build-up to the murders, with little time spent on the trial and a mere few lines of text to describe Borden's life after. What we are shown is how very abusive Lizzie's father Andrew was, in almost every way a father could be. From writing off Lizzie's future to destroying those things she held dear, we're given a poor impression of Mr. Borden - and of his wife, Abby, who Lizzie resents for her inaction.

Lizzie also recognizes her father's abuse of the family's live-in servant, Irish immigrant Bridget Sullivan. In Miss Sullivan this film finds another focus as it spends some time on the developing friendship between Lizzie and Bridget. One can't ignore that 'Lizzie' undoubtedly gets more steamy than other movies about its subject, too, as it imparts an intimate, sexual relationship between Miss Borden and Miss Sullivan.

The film's bent toward salaciousness is also built into the climax when both Lizzie and Bridget take up the ax against the elder Bordens, ensuring in the process that they get no blood on their clothing.

How does the thrust of the narrative here compare to other films about Lizzie Borden? How likely is it to be an accurate depiction of those events in 1892 that we can only speculate on? I leave those questions for Lizzie enthusiasts and historians. How is 'Lizzie' in and of itself?

The number one thing to remark on are the performances. In particular, Chloe Sevigny shines as Lizzie Borden, putting in a performance that is as powerful as it is stoic. As critics have remarked, she is so steady and flatly even in her role as to almost single-handedly give the picture a great air of seriousness. She is joined in a similar manner by Kristen Stewart as Bridget Sullivan. Stewart got a lot of flak for wooden, unmoving acting in the 'Twilight' films, but I rather think that folks forget she's an actress - given the freedom and direction to embody a character as she will, Stewart is very capable. In 'Lizzie' she largely mirrors Sevigny, if anything giving Sullivan a slightly greater emotive range even as she remains resolute, and loyal to her friend and lover.

That dispassion and restraint is built into the production as well, perhaps to a fault. The whole picture feels very understated; Jeff Russo's score is so minimized that one may be forgiven for forgetting that 'Lizzie' had any music at all. To an extent I can appreciate applying such calculated dampening to what is essentially a historical reenactment, but there needs to be some variation in tone, some peaks and valleys. As it stands, even as 'Lizzie' is anchored by Sevigny and Stewart's fine performances, it's also weakened by a lack of vibrancy in even the most dramatic moments.

Hand in hand with the somewhat muted feel of the feature, there's something to be said, too, for how its treatment of the life and times of Lizzie Borden dispenses with any commentary on society at the time. That unmarried Lizzie would see her father write her out of any possible inheritance, thereby severely limiting her means, would certainly be a strong motive for murdering him. Women's rights were far more of a nightmare in the late 19th century than they are even now, with almost no agency or autonomy to speak of. Almost any other movie would acknowledge sociopolitical issues with at least a passing line of dialogue, if not an active interest of a character. 'Lizzie' leaves it to viewers to pick up on these matters by themselves. Which is fine - there's no written rule of film-making that says every last detail has to be spoon-fed to the audience, nor would I want there to be - but it's striking nonetheless.

Between the blood, violence, sexuality, and nudity, it's not going to be for everyone, and discretion is advised as well for viewers with a keen focus on historical accuracy and/or Lizzie's legacy. Yet overall, I think 'Lizzie' is a pretty good movie that effectively conveys the events of 1892 for those unfamiliar. The stony evenness of its tone is off-putting, but Chloe Sevigny and Kristen Stewart's performances alone make it worth watching.

Don't go out of your way to find it, but 'Lizzie' is worthwhile if you come across it.

Just four years after Lizzie Borden Took an Ax and the campy TV mini series it spawned, were audiences really clamoring for another Lizzie Borden film?

An uninspiring cast sleepwalks its way through this speculative take on an all-too-familiar story in Lizzie (2018), written by Bryce Kass and directed by Craig William Macneill. The film pits Lizzie Borden and the family's live-in maid, Bridget Sullivan, against her tyrannical father and unsympathetic step mother in what co-producer and lead actress Chloë Sevigny described as an overtly feminist take.

The film opens in the aftermath of Andrew (Jamey Sheridan) and Abby (Fiona Shaw) Borden's murder. An investigator asks their 32-year-old daughter, Lizzie (Chloë Sevigny), whether her father had any enemies. From there, the film rewinds to the family's employment of a 25-year-old Irish maid named Bridget Sullivan (Kristen Stewart). According to the filmmakers, that was the catalyst for the eventual double homicide, and the answer to the investigator's question. There is never a question about Lizzie Borden's involvement in her parent's death. The obvious foil, and rival for Lizzie's inheritance, her uncle John Morse (Denis O'Hare), serves as a flimsy red herring.

Lizzie's central conflict is between Lizzie, Bridget, and her domineering father, who seeks to control all the women living under his roof. While Lizzie's sister, Emma (Kim Dickens), fades into the background, Lizzie and Bridget find themselves in a compromising position, one that leads to her parents' gruesome murder. Sevigny herself characterized this as a literal "smash the patriarchy" moment.

In real life, Andrew and Sarah Borden were found murdered in their Fall River, Massachusetts home on August 4, 1892. Their middle aged daughters, Lizzie and Emma, lived with them, along with their maid, Bridget Sullivan. There had been significant tension in the family leading up to the murders, and Lizzie gave conflicting alibis. Lizzie was arrested and put on trial. After 90 minutes of deliberation, the all-male jury acquitted her. Her trial was a national media sensation, but to this day, there are many competing theories about "whodunnit."

Like most dramatizations of these events, Lizzie both assumes Lizzie Borden was guilty and that she committed the murders with an ax. In reality, the murder weapon was never determined, though the movie does try to explain why the hatchet in question lacked any evidence of being used in the crime. The film also omitted the food poisoning the family suffered, and the extended trip Lizzie and her sister took prior to the murders. Although the house interior looked accurate, the exterior bears little resemblance to its historic counterpart.

There's also no evidence Lizzie was a lesbian or that she was sexually involved with Bridget Sullivan, or that Mr. Borden sexually assaulted Bridget. That allegation came from mystery author Evan Hunter (aka Ed McBain)'s 1984 novel Lizzie, a work of fiction. Contemporary rumors about Lizzie's sexuality were of the kind gossipers leveled at any unmarried, middle-aged person at the time.

Like Lizzie, Lifetime's biopic Lizzie Borden Took an Ax (2014) also weirdly sexualizes her. Both films depict her as a seductress and show her committing the murders in the nude and drinking alcohol. Lizzie Borden was, in real life, an upper class spinster, Sunday school teacher, teetotaler, and member of the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

Their contemporary revision of Lizzie Borden's personality is where the two films part ways. For all its faults, Lizzie Borden Took an Ax at least accurately portrayed Lizzie and her sister Emma's close relationship, while in Lizzie, Emma vanishes for most of the film. Their actual family dynamic was sidelined to make room for a lesbian fantasy, which at this point is such a boring cliche in feminist film.

Lizzie grossed $642,157 at the box office, and currently holds a 65% rating from critics and 56% audience favorability on RottenTomatoes. The filmmakers were obviously hoping controversy and its two leading ladies would carry their film, but even a contractually-obligated effort on the part of Chloë Sevigny and Kristen Stewart couldn't save this dreary rehash of a 126-year-old unsolved murder.

"Lizzie" (2018 release; 105 min.) is a bio-pic about Lizzie Borden. As the movie opens, we are told it is "August 4, 1892", and we see Lizzie walking around in the garden, and then going into the house, where we hear her scream and the camera shows a heavily mutated slain body. We then go to "6 Months Earlier", as we get to know Bridget, an Irish girl who has gotten work as a maid in the Borden family that is ruled with an iron fist by Lizzie's dad. Lizzie and Bridget strike up an unlikely friendship... To tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the 2nd feature length from up-and-coming director Craig William Macneill. Here he brings the latest Lizzie Borden movie adaptation (it'e been a TV movie several times over). While this is in a sense a "whodunnit" movie, as we are eager to find out exactly what happened on that August 4, 1892, it really is far more than that: Macneill is interested in showing us the atmosphere within which the Borden family (and maid) were living in. Bware: almost the entire film plays out in the Borden house, so at times this very much has the feeling of a stage play. On top of that, the music is sparse. It all has a bit of a claustrophobic feel to it. But the most important thing the movie has going for it are the terrific performances from the two lead actresses, Chloe Sevigny (who also co-produced) and Kristin Stewart. Yes, Stewart at times uses her patented "pained look", at quite effectively within the circumstances.

"Lizzie" premiered at this year's Sundance film festival, to positive buzz. It finally opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and I couldn't wait to see it. The Sunday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended dismally (3 people, including myself). If you are interested in a decent character study set in the late 19th century and blesses with some wonderful acting performances, I'd readily suggest you check this out, be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion,

The first maybe 40 minutes of the film, (Give or take) seem to be going just fine, but then, the film starts to wrestle with itself. For one thing, I found the camerawork to be a little distracting at times, which is unusual for me. I'm a person who's literally seen thousands of films. I just started to feel that the extremely wide and narrow shots were strange given the context. At times, they took away perspective, and at the same time it made the film feel more modern. Sadly, that is somewhat how the film starts to feel as it goes on. We start to realize we're not watching a story from the late 1800's. Nope, we're watching a modern film with a story that by the time it's all said and done, really feels so unauthentic to its very own story. The killings, the way that they were done, if anything point to the fact that this story is not sufficient to explain what actually happened. The reimagining here is just not thought-out well enough to make much of the audience believe it.

4/10.

The acting of Chloe Sevigny, Kristen Stewart, and Jamey Sheridan carries this film, as I see it. It's the latest interpretation of what happened on August 4th, 1892, in Fall River, Massachusetts, when the sensational axe murders of Andrew and Gabby Borden occurred in their home.

The movie is quite slow paced, and has several lurid, gruesome, and violent scenes perpetrated against both humans and animals. There's also a concurrent theme of sexual molestation, as well as graphic nudity in the final 25 minutes or so of the film.

Overall, this film won't appeal to everyone and can be difficult to watch at times, but, for me, the fine acting was enough to keep me engaged.

Loved the chemistry between Stewart and Sevigny and it is beautifully shot. The Borden house is almost a character in and of itself. With so many films that move so fast, it was refreshing to watch the tension build in the household slowly.

This film added so much more to the infamous story that I already knew. It brought it to life. While Sevigny may not be happy with the final product, as a fan of hers and Stewart's I was impressed. Also, great performance by Denis O'Hare as Lizzie's uncle.

I thought this was a pretty decent film well acted by Chloe Sevigny and I thought Kristen Stewart's accent work was good too. This film may fall under the horror category but except from the last 20 min or so, its not very horrifying. It's definitely more of a drama of a woman stifled by her time. But still very interesting at times. There are some moments here and there that do feel slow pacing wise.

The lesbian storyline doesnt bother me. No, its not a fact that Lizzie was one. Although to be fair its not like people were exactly "out and proud" then. And yes, it mostly came about as a theory/rumour because she never married. But nonetheless has been a theory so its not like this plot point comes out of nowhere to create a certain agenda.

I liked it, but it wasnt perfect. I think a 7 is fair.

Could have been such a creepy story.... turned into a snooze fest

In the late 1800s, a light is shinned on a tattered family dynamic with a motherless home, an overbearing and emotionally cruel father with daughter and step-mother who hire a live-in maid that takes abuse from the father. The daughter and maid form a unique relationship while the father receives threats due to his wealth and social standing. The characters play out the story with those factors in mind and a string of pleasantries are not around the corner to say the least. The core of the plot is the daughter who feels degraded and under her coarse father's thumb and how she deals with her family situation. This is a well-crafted story with long takes, great acting, moody minimal music score accented with a muted color pallet. There are some very unexpected heavy moments at least in the way they played out. And by the end you learn this is based on a true story!

If you want a movie that is nearly 2 hours of boredom, lesbian scenes, and kind of some action that doesn't actually show anything, and a mystery that isn't much of a mystery, then this movie is for you. The movie moves so slowly that if you fell asleep for half of the movie, you would not be behind. The only positive part of this movie is Kristen Stewarts accent. It's semi believable. The actors played their parts well but apart from that, it was a terrible rendition of 1892 murders.

Good actings and photography, the story has not been developed very well due to some ambiguous story points but it could be indeed entertaining specially for crime genre fans.

100 minutes of very little action. No atmosphere built at all. The worst I've ever seen Chloë Sevigny, who I usually admire. Stewart was her usual dull as dishwater, this time with a bad Irish accent, and even the wonderful Denis O'Hare was given nothing to work with. A flat film devoid of emotion, other than one scene of animal cruelty. If life is a rich tapestry, this was navy blue aertex.

I loved it. I was never bored, was never questioning anything about the plot or dialogue. I can see how it might be slow to someone who doesn't enjoy literature or the theater -however I do, and it was everything I was hoping it would be.

Being very familiar with this case, I went in thinking this Film should be better than the 1975 TV Movie Starring the late Elizabeth Montgomery "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" but it was not. That said did find it to be visually arousing and graffic, yet somewhat confusing the way the story jumps around. Bravo to the Actors, deserved a bit better script and direction. Violence in 1892 perceived much different than now ?

If you want to watch this for accuracy, this is not the film. This was just a movie made for the "Me Too" movement. It has Mr Borden sexually molesting the maid, (Bridget) and Lizzie getting into a lesbian sexual affair with her as well. Which there was absolutely no proof that this ever happened.

Did not happen. Lizzie acted alone in real life. Period.

This is based of a fictional novel from 1984. This doesn't have anything to do with the murders except the name, and the axe.

If you want an historically accurate movie, go watch Christina Ricci's movie, Lizzie Borden: Took An Axe.

Well, I didn't find it to be much of anything at all. Plodding. Uninteresting. In fact, I didn't finish it and I'm a big fan of both the female leads.

Too bad. Forty-one whacks.