Unmasking a Killer

It's a very detailed documentary with informative interviews, clips and great graphics. However, the series could have been done in maybe 2 episodes. Everything is repeated constantly, including graphics shown numerous times and even the graphic saying exactly what the interviewee says seconds later. There is numerous repeated descriptions of the different names of the killer and years they operated AND how many offences they'd committed. It would have been so much more impactful if they had kept it simple. It's wholly unnecessarily done - so it's informative and interesting but it drags on far too long!

This is a very effective series documenting the hunt for The Golden State Killer. Lots of detail is provided and it's done in an engaging way. My only real criticism is that they barely mentioned true crime author and blogger Michelle McNamara who was so integral to the investigation that its very unlikely DeAngelo would've been caught without her tireless effort. McNamara gave her life for this investigation in a very real way.

Very repetitive. Lots of repetition throughout the episodes. They stretched the series as much as they can. In the middle of some episodes, i had to fast forward some parts. Jesus Christ! One hour episode would have been enough.

It's interesting in the first episode, then it's a stretch. How many times do you have to repeat "serial killers doesn't want to show you how they really are", or "what may have happened since 1986?", "he's a really bad man". OMG. It is good for some people who have never ever watch a true crime documentary. For others, like me, there are things they say it's so obvious.

Minimum character limit met. Thank god. It was as painful as watching all the episodes.

Probably one of the most poorly produced documentaries out there. Yes, the video & graphics have a polished look and there are some crime scene photos and interviews, but for the most part, the series is nearly 7 hours of talking heads and repetitive graphics that could have EASILY been edited down to an hour.

In the style of those real crime documentaries that A&E used to crank out in the 90's, these seven separate episodes "tell you they're going to tell you something", "tell you something", "then tell you what they told you". Rinse & repeat.

There's really no more information here than any newspaper article before it. At no point do we see surveillance video leading up to the arrest, video of the arrest or interview of "the killer". There's no build up at all, just relief that it's over.

The "grand finale" is a recap of everything you've already seen 6-8 times. (Yawn). We're left wondering if there is a better documentary out there that will tell the story better.

The real crime here is how much money you imagine HBO paid for this to be made.

Together with "I'll be gone in the Dark" (HBO) and "The Golden State Killer: It's Not Over" (Discovery ID) I think u can complete your view and info enough to understand the case.

Hopefully there will be something in the years to come about motives, moves and history on the no longer unsub. I'm sure John Douglas will have a part 2 "Killer across the table" including the man that had 5 nicknames.

Seeing this series on one friday afternoon you realise the ammount of repetion there is. The amount of times the same things are said starts to become annoying after ep. 2. The chronology of the facts goes all over the place wich makes it really messy and blurry. A documentary, in my believe, may have some timegaps for suspension, but it has to remain informative. Too say in episode 3 that everyone in Sacramento was scared after the first 15 attacks is like totally irrelevant. I am sure they were, but it doesn't add annything besides getting your 40 minutes program. The first 5 episodes could have been compressed to two hours.

Also the ammount of times the different commentators say something in the proximity of "we have to catch him" or "we wanna know why he does this" or "we hope he will be caught" is annoying. I mean... duh... That also goes for the ammount of obvious remarks a 5 yo could have come up with. "After 50 crimes in this area you can be sure he must have lived in the area or at least felt save there." No.... really? What an insight.

The completeness of the information is great but the presentation is dissapointing.