At Witt's End the Hunt for a Killer

I do not understand why there are so many moments/minutes of no one talking. This has soooo much filler in it. So unnecessary just make it a standard 2 hr movie format. 4 hrs was way over what was needed to tell this story.

Of course Iam not knocking anything about this writing because it's a true story.

The score doesn't always fit the story either. Overall this could have been made better .

I would have preferred this as a dateline episode to be honest. They probably would have done a better job.

Almost all of the first 5 minutes of each episode are filler just to start with.

My heart goes out to the families in this case . The police clearly blew it on this case and the cold case crew is currently doing there best.

Do you like to see how a sausage is made? This true crime series might be for you. Do you want to be introduced to a crime, watch the leads develop and see the solution? Move along, this is going to bore the living skull out of you.

What seems to have happened is that Ridley Scott may have brought a cinematic quality to a procedural crime show that is incredibly heavy on procedure. This is a show that might become popular with law enforcement officers and wannabes who enjoy seeing the actual day to day activities that go into a cold crime investigation. You hear the same cops talking endlessly about the same subjects in that very vague legal speak that covers all bases and goes nowhere, for the most part.

This series is for these people. Not for casual true crime fans.

Also, the abrupt ending to the series, with DNA tests still pending, suggest that money on the production may have run out or that maybe the filmmakers decided to move onto other projects, but it definitely leaves the viewer with a feeling of having wasted 4 hours of their lives on this exercise in police interviewing. Cause that's basically what you get. Hours of cops talking about the same things, over and over.

But the production itself looks much better than your average show. The first episode, particularly, where they get a chance to recreate the crime as it happened, is dynamic and exciting.

The series title is a perfect giveaway and metaphor. "At Witt's End" perfect, exciting, engaging. "The Hunt for a Killer" incredibly boring, pedestrian, and overly long.

I had to give this one to one out of 10 as the series promised a lot and all of the promotional trailers and information given out, but when you actually watch the film, it stretches out to four episodes of absolutely nothing. There was not enough focus on the life of Melissa Witt there was way too much time spent on Discussing A serial killer suspect who may or may not have had anything to do with Melissa's murder. I actually found it downright strange that they included so much information that was not even relevant to the actual investigation of her murder. It felt like there was some sort of preconceived notion and agenda by someone making the documentary who was willing the suspect serial killer to be the one responsible, even though there was really nothing that pointed to him. I'm sorry fake tears from the FBI agent did it for me It was gross and embarrassing that he fake cried. Overall, do not recommend this documentary for any reason. It was an absolute waste of time.

Nothing gets solved in this aside from New finally being able to find a bottle of acetaminophen for the headache I developed from having to listen to the ANNOYING SCORE that is constantly playing behind every single word that is spoken in this "docuseries." Ridley Scott really dropped the ball on this one. I really got my hopes up when I began watching this and saw 'Ridley Scott' in the opening credits. From here forward I'll be avoiding the work of this so-called seasoned veteran. Don't waste your time watching what could have easily been summed up in less than 15 minutes. A complete and total waste of time.

The first episode was compelling but the next three got increasingly less so with each one.

The journalist who was a main commentator felt very self congratulatory, it bothered me that she seemed to repeatedly imply that she was the reason that various things were found, like because of her compassion and empathy she was responsible for getting this case some traction when nobody else around them was doing anything about it. That very well might be the case, but it just rubbed me the wrong way that here she was talking about this horrible story about what happened to this young girl and she seemed to prioritize the telling of a story in a way that made her the unspoken hero. It was distracting and I felt that it took away from the credibility of the story she was telling.

There was a lot of procedural stuff going on which can be interesting but in this case felt tedious and superfluous.

I don't know if it's just me, but I have a hard time with true crime documentaries that provide zero definitive answers. It just makes the whole thing feel somewhat anticlimactic, like OK so here's a story of another missing girl that never got found, stories like that are a dime a dozen so it's hard to invest all that energy, time and emotion into a story with no resolution. That's not to say that her story was not a story worth telling, but when it comes to true crime documentaries a huge part of the fascination with the genre is not just the investigation, but the way in which investigators followed clues to a resolution. When there is no resolution I feel affected by the documentarian's personal bias, we ultimately get fed a story which can be Terri picked in a way to fit whatever narrative the documentarian is pushing, like in this case one gets the impression that the suspect is most likely the killer, when in reality there are many other alternate theories none of them more credible than the other so in documentaries like these I feel somewhat misled. It's when there is a resolution that we are able to be shown the facts that led them to its inevitable conclusion.