It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I just watched The Keepers after finishing this. Werner Spitz was consulted on it, too. He mentioned on The Keepers how he was used for the defense but his findings were not used because they were not helpful for the defense. As a native to the Raleigh/Durham area, this case has been covered heavily for years! I'd say no one believes him and he is a complete narcissist. I found his interviews odd and wondered why so many people stuck by him. I wish the still shots of him and the driving around with phone calls were edited out.

From the opening scene where he is explaining what happens that night, you can tell the MF is lying. He is a terrible liar. Goes into way too much detail about unimportant stuff to try and 'convince' you he is telling the truth. His body language/tone and speed of his voice both in his interviews, and on the 911 call are dead giveaways to me. If you think this guy is telling the truth, or believe an owl came in the house and murdered his wife, you are a gullible freaking idiot.Watched most of the 1st episode before I had to turn it off. It was so biased for the defense, as they interview his family who say "Before we even saw or heard what happened, we believed our dad". Then to find out one of the people who made this "documentary" had a relationship with the guy? Doesn't surprise me at all. LMAO wake up people.Saw another review on here that said it is an extraordinary story about relationships and emotion. LOL how about the story of a psychopath-sociopath who murdered his wife in cold blood you moron!Can't believe anyone was actually able to make it through the whole series.

As we watched the series we are left with two choices....either she died by fall (illogical based on lacerations and loss of great amount of blood) or the husband killed her (illogical because never once was there a beating without a brain fracture, and there was no fracture of the skull here so the beating theory is very weak ...plus, there was no evidence to show of a struggle, which would have happened. Oh, and does anyone really believe the blow poke was the weapon? Come on people! ). We were never left with door number 3, except at the end they discussed this theory that some barred owl may have done this. They only gave us a three minute video on that theory but after getting on the internet and doing further research, this theory makes the MOST SENSE to me. Did you see the lacerations on the top of her head for crying out loud? What do they look like to you? Talons!!! Hello people.....do you honestly believe a blow poke did that? And if you do, why was the blow poke in the house not shown as evidence as the weapon? If you believe that, you not only are gullible but I wouldn't want you as a juror in my murder case either because quite frankly, you aren't smart enough to think clearly and logically. I live with barred owls in my back yard and they are big and if they feel their young can be threatened, they can go on attack mode. Plus, look at the facts: at the time of death, Kathleen had a FEATHER in her hand, bloody twigs in her hand, her hair pulled out in her hand, and there were traces of blood OUTSIDE on the walkway going into the house which signifies she was attacked just before she came into the house. She even had needle point wounds on her arms as if she was protecting herself from this attack. Honestly, this theory makes much much more sense to me than the two they left us to choose from. I know they made a motion in May of 2016 to add this evidence so maybe if they had a new trial this would have been entered, but because of the Alford Plea, we will never know. Lastly, while the death in Germany was eerily similar, I really do not believe you can admit this as evidence because it is too prejudicial to the average juror who is probably being led more by emotion than logic. But, the fact is, there was no evidence in Germany that this was a murder and it was never thought to be based on their investigation. Case closed folks. So why let an American jury hear this if a German police department and DA determined there was not enough evidence to proceed as a wrongful death? I see no reason to allow, thus this judge screwed the pooch. Oh, and guess what? To his credit, he admitted at the end that he probably should not have admitted that evidence, because it probably was too prejudicial. That comment is right....too bad for Peterson he didn't have that logic in 2002.The judge also questioned whether he should have allowed the bisexual evidence but I think he had to allow that because after all, Peterson's lawyer did say their marriage was IDYLLIC. Well, that comment should be open for examination. Did Kathleen know and approve her husband wanting to have sex with other men during their marriage? In order to be idyllic you would have to prove this didn't bother her. Well, let me tell you, if my wife thought or knew that I was seeing other men (or women) while married to her, she would both beat me up (a former cop who works out every day) and then throw me out the door. I think most women would feel as my wife would, not the opposite. There was no evidence presented that Kathleen didn't mind Peterson getting it on with other men except his weak testimony. Don't forget, he did say, "we didn't talk about it" so this shows me she obviously did not approve of it. Personally, I think Peterson was lying about this and was telling us what made him look more favorable in order to remove motive. I enjoyed the series but I agree, it was slightly slanted toward Peterson's side and especially now knowing he was in a relationship with the editor of the series does not look good as being a totally OBJECTIVE documentary. I believe Kathleen's family should have been included much more so we could also experience what they were going through too. After all, they gave us way to much time showing us how Margaret and Martha feel, so why not show us how Candace, Lori, and Caitlin feel too? I know some people were upset with Kathleen's sister, Candace, for her harsh comments, but not me. She is her sister after all, and she is right...the evidence doesn't point to merely a FALL as the cause of death, so what else was she to conclude? Oh well, I guess i can't have everything, thus my 8 rating, and not 10. One last thing, I feel I should probably add this....I am an attorney, so I am seeing this through those colored glasses which can be slightly different from an average layperson. I hope you enjoyed reading this review...I know, it was rather long-winded wasn't it? Cheers.

What's interesting here, and supported by the judge's on-camera statements, is that the prosecution offered perjured evidence by Mr. Deaver and manipulated or hid inconvenient evidence, and relied excessively on the inflammatory bisexuality angle. Apparently the medical examiner changed her opinion under pressure from her superior; how was that discovered? What if anything was done about Deaver's perjury? Were other cases he'd handled examined? And here's what we get from IMDB reviewers: the director's purported sexual affair with Peterson, a $1.4 insurance policy on Kathleen (was it paid and to whom?), the German conclusion that went from accident to homicide and back again, and more. Some IMDB-ers stated that the documentary couldn't cover everything, but as an experienced editor (of narrative text, though not film), I think that view is wrong-headed. There is an appalling amount of flab in this documentary that ought to have been cut, much of it footage of Peterson blabbing on and on, saying mostly the same things repeatedly. I couldn't believe that so much of that hadn't been cut-it struck me as amateurish editing. Many of questions noted above could have been covered if room had been made for them. I felt the director was struggling desperately to fill more episodes. In the end, despite some good content, I don't see this thing winning any awards, and many of IMDB's rave reviews struck me as merely enthusiastic rather than analytical. FYI, I tried to get the BBC podcast and the sister's article mentioned by Shoyt_2001 and andy-love, but all my clicking got me was "can't find".