Review: Lizzie Borden


Set in Massachusetts in 1892, this is the true story of Lizzie Borden, a supposed wild child alleged to have murdered her father (Stephen McHattie) and stepmother, and put on trial. Clea DuVall plays Lizzie’s more stable and upstanding sister, who believes in her sister’s innocence, but with increasing reservations. Billy Campbell turns up as Lizzie’s lawyer who argues a woman is incapable of caving in two skulls with an axe, and Gregg Henry plays the other side of the fence.


AKA “Lizzie Borden Took an Ax”. The underrated and frankly underused Christina Ricci (who earned Golden Globe and Emmy nominations, deservingly) is the whole show in this not very interesting TV movie retelling of the famed true crime story. It’s directed without distinction by Nick Gomez (Writer-director of “Laws of Gravity”, and “Illtown”), but it’s the screenplay by Stephen Kay (who has directed TV movies mostly, as well as the underrated “Get Carter” remake and writing the film version of “The Mod Squad”) that’s not remotely up to snuff.

 

The real-life story should’ve made for a much more interesting story, but Kay treats it as a courtroom drama with far too much emphasis on whether Lizzie did or did not commit the crimes. History (or at least really, really old gossip) has pretty much written her off as a crazy murderess at this point, making any whodunit aspect seem somewhat moot, really, even though as this film points out, it’s not as cut and dried as that. We’ve just all grown up with this notion of Lizzie Borden being a crazy chick with an axe, and assumed it was true, pretty much cut and dried.

 

While I get that the real-life case is actually still somewhat up in the air, Kay doesn’t give us an interesting take on it. Hell, he doesn’t even give us a strict adherence to the known facts, anyway, if you do any research on the case. Kay pretty much gives us a 90 minute episode of “Law & Order”, right down to the tacked on twist that changes everything, in the cheapest way imaginable. **** SPOILER WARNING **** The film spends so much time casting doubt on the notion of Lizzie’s guilt. Way too much in fact, and then tacks on a twist at the end akin to ‘LOLZ, I totally did it. Or did I? It’s a mystery! OK, see ya, bye!’ If you’re gonna do this story, at least take a side and have the courage of those convictions. **** END SPOILER ****

 

Lizzie, murderess or not, deserved a much more interesting treatment than this, and so do the cast. Ricci is spot-on, and both Clea DuVall (who plays the most interesting character in the film, actually) and Canadian character actor Stephen McHattie are well-cast in the period setting, though Billy Campbell is the most boring man on the planet not named Patrick Wilson. McHattie in particular may not be in the film much, but is really fine as the stern but ineffectual father, and seems like something out of a Poe story. And a Poe picture wouldn’t have been a bad thing for this film to aspire to be something in the vicinity of. The story has grisly melodrama all over it. The film…not so much.

 

I must also rake composer Tree Davis over the coals for providing the least appropriate music score of 2014. The film is set in 1892, but Davis trip-hops his (her? Do trees have genders?) way through the film like it’s a Massive Attack video rapped over by Kanye West. Then after a while we get a down home banjo type deal, which is only marginally better. I mean, this ain’t “Deadwood”, either dude.

 

It’s the very notion of treating this as a courtroom drama to begin with that bothers me most. Read the damn plot synopsis and tell me this wouldn’t make for a better horror film. Unfortunately, this was made for the Lifetime Channel, a station devoted to TV movies, I gather, and thus that was never going to happen (HBO might’ve taken a crack at it, though). But still, who though that, looking at the story, the film was best told mostly in the courtroom? It’s dry as hell as a result with no room for character depth. We want to know what made Lizzie tick, and hatred of her stepmother is a pissweak motivation. Surely there was a chemical imbalance there too, right?

 

No, this just won’t do. We may not know for certain that Lizzie did it, but the legend makes us believe so, and this film doesn’t create enough credible doubt, despite Ricci being awfully petite for an axe-wielder. The film is thin, flimsy, and focuses on the least compelling facets of the case.

 

Rating: C

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade