I'll Be Gone in the Dark

As others have noted, this series is as much about Michelle McNamara as it is about the California rapes and murders. McNamara's story --- a sad but unremarkable descent into obsession and addiction --- is simply not interesting enough to justify the extended treatment it gets. The series is on surer footing when its focus shifts to the crimes and, in particular, to the victims of those crimes.

I couldn't actually get through every episode. Most of the episodes seemed to be about Michelle, the woman obsessed with researching the case. At first i thought that could be interesting, hearing how she helped investigators on the case. But it quickly became gross to listen to this woman describe how she, and i quote, "gets off" on solving these things. It felt self centered on the people solving it and dismissive of the actual victims. Even the writings of Michelle that they showed made me feel uncomfortable. It feels like she does this not to help victims but to make herself feel important or smart. She kept going on about how skilled she was at putting together the puzzle pieces. The weird ego boost paired with descriptive r*pe stories felt insincere and weird.

The first episode just aired yesterday, so obviously my review isn't my final, overall opinion. I just wanted to address the reviews that gave the first episode low marks. It seems as though the reviewers don't realize that this is a documentary series in 6 parts. There's more to it than just the first episode, therefore, the entire story is not going to be told in the first 60 minutes.

I don't think it was disjointed, as others have said; I think it does a good job of laying the groundwork for the rest of the series to build on. And yes, there is a focus on Michelle McNamara, the author of the book. The full title of the book is "I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer," that indicates that some of the documentary is going to be about her search, along with the EAR/ONS's crimes.

I read the book recently and I'm excited to see how this series unfolds, partly because there will be interviews with people who were involved with the original investigation, along with interviews of victims as well. Ms. McNamara interviewed people for the book, but to be able to hear it directly from them should be interesting. I just hate that I can't binge-watch it all at once!

This series is advertised as being a true cime story about the Golden State Killer. Very quickly in the first episode, you feel like it's rather an advert for Michelle McNamarra's blog, podcast and book. The blog's URL is repeated multiple times like these bad adverts for car insurance and we're told by various people how great Michelle is and how great her book is going to be. A lot of time is spent explaining how Michelle got interested in the case, how she investigated it, how she got access to evidence and sources, her thoughts and theories and how she wrote about it all. Is this just a badly disguised tribute to Michelle from her family and friends? If you stick with it, you do end up hearing from the victims and their story, and how the GSK operated but it does take a while. The episodes though are often a jumble of bits which don't seem to have a particular order or flow to them. You don't feel like you are progressing through time or through an investigation. It's more like listening to someone remembering parts of Michelle's life story in random order until you reach the point when the crimes themselves are discussed. This makes it difficult to get into and at times quite boring. Had they stuck to talking about the crimes, victims and investigations/evidence, it would have been a 2 (perhaps 3) episodes series but interesting throughout.

Disappointing. The last person I want to see in a serial killer crime documentary is Patton Oswald. Lol.

Sorry for the passing of McNamara but should've focused more on the crimes, the victims and the perpetrator. Stopped in the first episode.