2 reviews
The true crime stories fearured in this series, all revolving around a crime scene of a "dream" beach vacation somewhere in the world, are tragic and horrifying enough to compete with any other similar series.
Unfortunately, it's the low production values that let this show down. The main narration sounds almost as if it's computer-generated, or at the very least like it's being read off by the guy who delivered lunch to the set that day, having no real knowledge or interest in the cases he's talking about. Two of the three (former) experts that occasionally weigh in on important facts about the case are pretty good, in that they seem to care what they are saying and you get the idea that they might even be speaking their own words. The true crime author, however, who works as the second narrator to the aforementioned disembodied male voice, often comes off as flat, like she's reading off cue cards.
While it's fairly common to have reenactments of story to illustrate the narration, again the production is fairly low budget, think student film. The gold standard for me are the original Unsolved Mysteries, which carefully chose actors who resembled the victim, perpetrator, and other key persons - or even used the actual victim's family members and law enforcement officers from the crime. While obviously that's too much to ask for the dozens of true crime shows produced every year, most shows I feel do a decent job with reenactments. "Sunshine Slayings" falls short here as well, using hoky "dramatic" scenes played by actors who mostly have their faces blurred. I also really miss not only hearing from someone who actually knew the victim, but seeing a photo of them at least. Those key elements, that help the viewer to really sympathize and feel they know the victim a little, are sorely missing from these episodes.
The three stars I'm giving are for the original stories, since these days the same crimes seem to be appearing on various shows, and for the former medical examiner, who was credible in her explanations.
Unfortunately, it's the low production values that let this show down. The main narration sounds almost as if it's computer-generated, or at the very least like it's being read off by the guy who delivered lunch to the set that day, having no real knowledge or interest in the cases he's talking about. Two of the three (former) experts that occasionally weigh in on important facts about the case are pretty good, in that they seem to care what they are saying and you get the idea that they might even be speaking their own words. The true crime author, however, who works as the second narrator to the aforementioned disembodied male voice, often comes off as flat, like she's reading off cue cards.
While it's fairly common to have reenactments of story to illustrate the narration, again the production is fairly low budget, think student film. The gold standard for me are the original Unsolved Mysteries, which carefully chose actors who resembled the victim, perpetrator, and other key persons - or even used the actual victim's family members and law enforcement officers from the crime. While obviously that's too much to ask for the dozens of true crime shows produced every year, most shows I feel do a decent job with reenactments. "Sunshine Slayings" falls short here as well, using hoky "dramatic" scenes played by actors who mostly have their faces blurred. I also really miss not only hearing from someone who actually knew the victim, but seeing a photo of them at least. Those key elements, that help the viewer to really sympathize and feel they know the victim a little, are sorely missing from these episodes.
The three stars I'm giving are for the original stories, since these days the same crimes seem to be appearing on various shows, and for the former medical examiner, who was credible in her explanations.
- susannah-55380
- Sep 10, 2023
- Permalink
Why does the Canadian TV industry keep letting JH Moncrieff near a camera? She is behind a bunch of shows that epitomise the worst of true crime - Cruise Ship Killers is a carbon copy template for this, and somehow someone thought Moncrieff deserved a follow-up show. Probably cos she fills up lots of airtime, to order, and on the cheap. The shows heavily rely on Moncrieff and Hunter (an "ex-PI") as supposed "expert" talking heads. These two take it upon themselves to tell each victim's story, more often than not without anyone connected to the case appearing.
It gives the impression of a bunch of mates googling crime stories and then reading out a hackneyed, melodramatic script which is frankly insulting to those whose stories are being exploited by Moncrieff et al to line their own pockets. And the cherry on top? Read the blurb at the beginning - Moncrieff openly admits that these stories might be entirely made up, but we're not told who or which bits are invented. When you think about it, this show and the earlier "Cruise Ship Killers" abomination have this weird vibe with the silly narration and the lack of any real people being interviewed it would make sense if they were actually just stuff Moncrieff made up. But it is not *true crime*!
It gives the impression of a bunch of mates googling crime stories and then reading out a hackneyed, melodramatic script which is frankly insulting to those whose stories are being exploited by Moncrieff et al to line their own pockets. And the cherry on top? Read the blurb at the beginning - Moncrieff openly admits that these stories might be entirely made up, but we're not told who or which bits are invented. When you think about it, this show and the earlier "Cruise Ship Killers" abomination have this weird vibe with the silly narration and the lack of any real people being interviewed it would make sense if they were actually just stuff Moncrieff made up. But it is not *true crime*!