srm-1

I am going to struggle here to find enough words to fill this review, when really all that is needed is the title I already typed: Dreadful.

It really is hard to think of any redeeming qualities for this film. It is not original, interesting, exciting or funny. I gave it a score of 2 because the soundtrack contained a couple of great tracks by Petula Clark and Thunderclap Newman. But kudos for those go to the Brits more than fifty years ago, and not to anyone involved in this piece of bland, beige celluloid in 2024.

Not so long ago this is the kind of movie that would have gone straight to video, and been forgotten. I actually watched it only half an hour ago and am already struggling to remember anything about it. Except for one thing: the end credits. Given how poor this movie is, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the credits would be a handful of people and some computers, but the credits list, literallly, hundreds. That's an awful lot of people who will struggle to justify why this dismal effort is on their resumes.

If you were one of the many millions who watched Making a Murderer (MaM) back in 2015 and became interested in the Avery case, then you owe it to yourself to take a look at Convicting a Murderer (CaM) and compare the two before reaching any conclusions.

For me, after watching CaM, it would seem that the producers of MaM have some serious questions to answer. The Manitowoc Police Department are right to be angry for their deliberate misrepresentations in the Avery case, simply to garner more viewers and pocket a few extra bucks at the expense of the reputation of local law enforcement. Their defense always seems to be, "We are storytellers, not journalists", and that is exactly what they do: they tell a story. The only problem is, it is not an entirely true one, and CaM does an excellent good job of filling in the blanks that its predecessor chose to ignore.

As CaM reveals over the course of 10 comprehensive episodes, rather than simply tell the whole story of the case, the makers of MaM instead chose to leave many important details out, and flat out manipulated many of the actual courtroom interactions to fit their own agenda. Sure, the police did make some mistakes, and none of them will be rivalling Sherlock Holmes for plaudits, but it really isn't a very complicated case - though MaM made it seem so.

As someone who made up their mind about Avery years ago, I didn't need any further revelations from CaM to support my original position. But what CaM does reveal is just how easy it is for the media to manipulate people. Of course, there have always been such people in society. Rest assured, those protesting on the streets outside the courtroom are exactly the same kind of people who stood in the crowd 2,000 years ago pleading for another murderer to be set free.

Nobody likes to see anybody wrongfully convicted of any crime that they did not do. But, in this case, I am sure that the family of Teresa Halbach regret every day that Avery's original 1985 conviction was overturned.

And that is the sad, sad truth of the real story.

Reviewing the acting in The Reckoning is easy - Steve Coogan is excellent. But reviewing the presentation of the subject matter is not so straightforward.

As someone born in the 60's, I grew up in what might be called, "The Savile Era" and have always been slightly irritated by the notion that Savile was somehow hiding in plain sight and that what happened was another manifestation of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' when, in actual fact, pretty much everyone that I grew up with considered him a weirdo many, many years before anything appeared in the newspapers. There were, in fact, kids up and down the land who were pointing and making fun of him on a daily basis right from the get-go. If anyone was starstruck by Savile, and is mainly to blame, it is the adults and not the children.

I have not read the book by Dan Davies, but assume that it must cover a lot more than was shown in this docudrama. To be honest, I was expecting more disclosures in this series than I already knew, but there didn't seem to be anything else to add.

There is no mention at all on his relationship with his father, and you'd be forgiven for thinking that Savile was an only child as his six older siblings are suspicious by their absence and barely get a mention - did they really all abandon their mother?

The BBC's/ITV's completely unnecessary decision to change the real suicide of (Samantha) Claire McAlpine into the story of an entirely fictional British Asian girl called Sara is not only disrespectful, but utterly unforgiveable. As a viewer, you know that the bar has been set pretty low when the writers have to resort to inventing conversations that took place in a church confessional.

Savile himself reveals nothing, despite the claims made in the final episode that he was going to - and then he died (see review by DC1977 for the veracity of this claim).

Savile comes across not as some mastermind groomer but as a chancer: a pathetic, hapless groper with a sense of misguided entitlement. There were lots like him around in the 70's & 80's and, I'm sure, there still are today.

A strange, creepy, evil man who exploited his celebrity status on vulnerable young people, but though he may have pulled the wool over the eyes of The Establishment, there were plenty of us (like Beryl Hullighan) who made up our minds about him very early on.

We thought he was a weirdo, and we were right.