Heartland Homicide

Stories are pretty interesting. Narrator has great voice but seems to wish to create suspense - but it doesn't work. Repetitive information and annoying music do not help. I agree the legal expert's nasal accent is "unique" to say the least. In Season 1 episode 8 - Summer Inman - in the initial introduction they say the town Logan is in Michigan. One minute later they say the town Logan is in Ohio. How can an editor miss that error? I have seen other inconsistencies but not as flagrant. I hope to get through all episodes. One good thing - at least I haven't noticed U. S. bashing which is the norm from many Canadians. Thank you!

Get some competent, un-weird/obnoxious/samctimonious "commentators" with some experience outside of Canada. Things work different in the U. S., and some of the "experts" seem to be oblivious in that regard.

Between the woman who appears to be gasping and laboring with every syllable, the motor mouth lawyer and the way too hypocritical former RCMP guy espousing the virtues of indigenous people (in spite of the RCMP's woeful history of callous indifference to the plight of said people), this is just a lame attempt at appearing relevant and sincere.

It's a great concept and there are unfortunately far too many cases for subject matter but the "credentials" of the spokespeople are inadequate.

This is like a dream where the events are being played out in slow motion. Even the narrator's voice is an agonizingly drawn out monotone. I checked to see if I could change the speed settings, but no. The choice of crimes is great -- I had not heard of any of the first three crime episodes, and I watch a lot of true crime. If the script, dialogue, acting and direction had been done well, I wouldn't stop at the third episode. I stopped at the third episode. A lot of the "action" is even filmed in slow motion and the same scenes shown multiple times in one episode. Maybe that was supposed to create suspense, but once was more than enough. Just. Plain. Stupid. Z-z-z-z-zzzzz.

The one positive about this series is that they present interesting cases. Other than that, the show is not good. (1) It is very, very slow and extremely repetitive - they repeat the same points over and over again. (2) The information presented is not always accurate. For example, in one episode they show a person using a hammer to commit a murder, and repeat this "fact" over and over again. However, upon checking the case court records, I found that there was no hammer used - it was a pipe. I think they put the hammer in for effect, which is lame. Nobody wants to have to check facts when watching a true crime series. (3) The reenactments are also very poor (bad direction, bad "actors", bad in general). And, last but not least: Benji Greenberg (the legal expert) and her voice/manner of speaking have to go. Her vocal fry is so annoying that it absolutely ruins anything positive about the show. I found myself dreading her appearance in each of the episodes I watched (five in total). This is the reason I ultimately stopped watching the show. I would voluntarily listen to fingernails dragged over a chalkboard for a year straight before I listen to one more second of her voice. Think Donald Duck with structured vocal fry and you have hit the bullseye - yes, it is that bad.

In a really misguided effort to dramatize these crimes this series moves at a contrived snails pace, and could easily have been a 1/2 hour show or even less, which honestly may have been pretty decent. But by the time it jerks the viewer around with misleading dramatizations, really poor actor portrayals, and intentionally confusing time and story lines which make little sense, I wasted 45 minutes of my life.

I thought episode one was relatively interesting but progressively worse after that. I had to constantly fast forward through the incredibly repetitive recaps, multiple times during the show. Finally bailing after Episode 10, it was the last straw.