Again I believe its noteworthy to point out that I can not remark upon the actual subject matter (other than it definitely being worthwhile of being told, in terms of human interest), but merely the mechanics and technical aspects of the film ITSELF - {which is wierd because this is only true in cases of documentary films}
Here is my biggest issue, and it's a big one - shortly into episode one, we hear 'the words' of Starkweather read to us as if its the man's voice and inflection and cadance and emphasis, HOWEVER it's not the voice of Starkweather at all, nay, it's a voice actor and that's not fair - that's not kosher - that's BAD BUSINESS - especially considering they never do tell the viewer that it's an audible recreation
Similarly, much of it is filmed in what I like to call 'Confuse-a-Vison', where they smash cut quickly between and thru still photos and images that are circa 1950s but have zero connection to the actual case - mere filler shown under the guise that the viewer might see this and feel that the film maker has all of this never before seen footage - however once again this is NOT the case
Now I'm not saying this is unacceptable, however at no time are we told about these recreations but rather left to either be cowed into believing that we're watching and listening to authentic relics of the case when simply we are not
That all being said, for me, it's a massive detractor.
Here is my biggest issue, and it's a big one - shortly into episode one, we hear 'the words' of Starkweather read to us as if its the man's voice and inflection and cadance and emphasis, HOWEVER it's not the voice of Starkweather at all, nay, it's a voice actor and that's not fair - that's not kosher - that's BAD BUSINESS - especially considering they never do tell the viewer that it's an audible recreation
Similarly, much of it is filmed in what I like to call 'Confuse-a-Vison', where they smash cut quickly between and thru still photos and images that are circa 1950s but have zero connection to the actual case - mere filler shown under the guise that the viewer might see this and feel that the film maker has all of this never before seen footage - however once again this is NOT the case
Now I'm not saying this is unacceptable, however at no time are we told about these recreations but rather left to either be cowed into believing that we're watching and listening to authentic relics of the case when simply we are not
That all being said, for me, it's a massive detractor.