22 reviews
Why so much filler, with no answers??
I do not understand why there are so many moments/minutes of no one talking. This has soooo much filler in it. So unnecessary just make it a standard 2 hr movie format. 4 hrs was way over what was needed to tell this story.
Of course Iam not knocking anything about this writing because it's a true story.
The score doesn't always fit the story either. Overall this could have been made better .
I would have preferred this as a dateline episode to be honest. They probably would have done a better job.
Almost all of the first 5 minutes of each episode are filler just to start with.
My heart goes out to the families in this case . The police clearly blew it on this case and the cold case crew is currently doing there best.
Of course Iam not knocking anything about this writing because it's a true story.
The score doesn't always fit the story either. Overall this could have been made better .
I would have preferred this as a dateline episode to be honest. They probably would have done a better job.
Almost all of the first 5 minutes of each episode are filler just to start with.
My heart goes out to the families in this case . The police clearly blew it on this case and the cold case crew is currently doing there best.
- bkdash-31118
- Aug 6, 2024
- Permalink
Not for everybody
Do you like to see how a sausage is made? This true crime series might be for you. Do you want to be introduced to a crime, watch the leads develop and see the solution? Move along, this is going to bore the living skull out of you.
What seems to have happened is that Ridley Scott may have brought a cinematic quality to a procedural crime show that is incredibly heavy on procedure. This is a show that might become popular with law enforcement officers and wannabes who enjoy seeing the actual day to day activities that go into a cold crime investigation. You hear the same cops talking endlessly about the same subjects in that very vague legal speak that covers all bases and goes nowhere, for the most part.
This series is for these people. Not for casual true crime fans.
Also, the abrupt ending to the series, with DNA tests still pending, suggest that money on the production may have run out or that maybe the filmmakers decided to move onto other projects, but it definitely leaves the viewer with a feeling of having wasted 4 hours of their lives on this exercise in police interviewing. Cause that's basically what you get. Hours of cops talking about the same things, over and over.
But the production itself looks much better than your average show. The first episode, particularly, where they get a chance to recreate the crime as it happened, is dynamic and exciting.
The series title is a perfect giveaway and metaphor. "At Witt's End" perfect, exciting, engaging. "The Hunt for a Killer" incredibly boring, pedestrian, and overly long.
What seems to have happened is that Ridley Scott may have brought a cinematic quality to a procedural crime show that is incredibly heavy on procedure. This is a show that might become popular with law enforcement officers and wannabes who enjoy seeing the actual day to day activities that go into a cold crime investigation. You hear the same cops talking endlessly about the same subjects in that very vague legal speak that covers all bases and goes nowhere, for the most part.
This series is for these people. Not for casual true crime fans.
Also, the abrupt ending to the series, with DNA tests still pending, suggest that money on the production may have run out or that maybe the filmmakers decided to move onto other projects, but it definitely leaves the viewer with a feeling of having wasted 4 hours of their lives on this exercise in police interviewing. Cause that's basically what you get. Hours of cops talking about the same things, over and over.
But the production itself looks much better than your average show. The first episode, particularly, where they get a chance to recreate the crime as it happened, is dynamic and exciting.
The series title is a perfect giveaway and metaphor. "At Witt's End" perfect, exciting, engaging. "The Hunt for a Killer" incredibly boring, pedestrian, and overly long.
- pomeu-63850
- Sep 28, 2024
- Permalink
Modern 'documentaries'...
Worst crime doc ever !! DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME
I watch dozens of crime docs and I can easily say this was the biggest waste of time I have ever endured. FOUR PARTS that could easily be summed up in 10 minutes. Someone gets killed, they don't know who, they still don't know who.
Complete garbage, don't waste your time. I can't understand in this day and age how trash like this gets made. Who paid for this ?? Who produced this?? Who thought this was a good idea? Have you never seen TV before? Have you never seen a crime doc? Even writing a review about the waste of time this was seems like the show is wasting even more of my time. My hope is it will save others their time and they can watch something that is better.
ABSOLUTELY AWFUL PIECE OF TRASH.
Complete garbage, don't waste your time. I can't understand in this day and age how trash like this gets made. Who paid for this ?? Who produced this?? Who thought this was a good idea? Have you never seen TV before? Have you never seen a crime doc? Even writing a review about the waste of time this was seems like the show is wasting even more of my time. My hope is it will save others their time and they can watch something that is better.
ABSOLUTELY AWFUL PIECE OF TRASH.
Low rating for this one
I had to give this one to one out of 10 as the series promised a lot and all of the promotional trailers and information given out, but when you actually watch the film, it stretches out to four episodes of absolutely nothing. There was not enough focus on the life of Melissa Witt there was way too much time spent on Discussing A serial killer suspect who may or may not have had anything to do with Melissa's murder. I actually found it downright strange that they included so much information that was not even relevant to the actual investigation of her murder. It felt like there was some sort of preconceived notion and agenda by someone making the documentary who was willing the suspect serial killer to be the one responsible, even though there was really nothing that pointed to him. I'm sorry fake tears from the FBI agent did it for me It was gross and embarrassing that he fake cried. Overall, do not recommend this documentary for any reason. It was an absolute waste of time.
So bad I came out of retirement
Ridiculous at best
Nothing gets solved in this aside from New finally being able to find a bottle of acetaminophen for the headache I developed from having to listen to the ANNOYING SCORE that is constantly playing behind every single word that is spoken in this "docuseries." Ridley Scott really dropped the ball on this one. I really got my hopes up when I began watching this and saw 'Ridley Scott' in the opening credits. From here forward I'll be avoiding the work of this so-called seasoned veteran. Don't waste your time watching what could have easily been summed up in less than 15 minutes. A complete and total waste of time.
- showrootslove
- Aug 9, 2024
- Permalink
Review: At Witt's End-A Missed Opportunity and a Disrespectful Title
The Hulu docuseries At Witt's End attempts to delve into the tragic and unsolved murder of 19-year-old Melissa Witt, but instead ends up as a muddled, misdirected narrative that does more harm than good. The most glaring issue begins with the title itself-At Witt's End. This title is not only dismissive but also incredibly disrespectful to Melissa Witt and her memory. It reduces the gravity of her brutal murder to a play on words, as if her life and death are nothing more than a clever pun to attract viewers.
From the outset, it's clear that the docuseries struggles to find its focus. Instead of centering the narrative around Melissa Witt, her life, and the profound impact of her loss on her family and community, the series frustratingly shifts its gaze toward Charles Ray Vines, a known serial killer. The time spent on Vines feels forced, unnecessary, and quite frankly, beyond stupid. While the investigation into Melissa's murder should be the main thread, the docuseries instead meanders through Vines' background in a way that seems more exploitative than informative.
This misdirection does a disservice to the victim at the heart of the story. Melissa Witt was a young woman with hopes, dreams, and a future that was stolen from her. Yet, her presence in the docuseries feels overshadowed by the sensationalism surrounding Vines. The decision to focus so heavily on him not only dilutes the impact of Melissa's story but also diverts attention from the ongoing search for justice in her case.
Moreover, the series fails to adequately explore Melissa Witt's life, personality, and the emotional toll her death has taken on those who loved her. The lack of depth and respect in how her story is told is deeply disappointing. The docuseries could have been a powerful tribute to Melissa Witt, shedding light on her case and bringing much-needed attention to the investigation. Instead, it squanders this opportunity by prioritizing shock value over substance.
In conclusion, At Witt's End falls far short of what it could and should have been. The disrespectful title, combined with a misguided focus on Charles Ray Vines, turns what could have been a compelling exploration of Melissa Witt's life and unsolved murder into a frustratingly shallow and misdirected narrative. Melissa Witt deserved better, and so did the viewers.
From the outset, it's clear that the docuseries struggles to find its focus. Instead of centering the narrative around Melissa Witt, her life, and the profound impact of her loss on her family and community, the series frustratingly shifts its gaze toward Charles Ray Vines, a known serial killer. The time spent on Vines feels forced, unnecessary, and quite frankly, beyond stupid. While the investigation into Melissa's murder should be the main thread, the docuseries instead meanders through Vines' background in a way that seems more exploitative than informative.
This misdirection does a disservice to the victim at the heart of the story. Melissa Witt was a young woman with hopes, dreams, and a future that was stolen from her. Yet, her presence in the docuseries feels overshadowed by the sensationalism surrounding Vines. The decision to focus so heavily on him not only dilutes the impact of Melissa's story but also diverts attention from the ongoing search for justice in her case.
Moreover, the series fails to adequately explore Melissa Witt's life, personality, and the emotional toll her death has taken on those who loved her. The lack of depth and respect in how her story is told is deeply disappointing. The docuseries could have been a powerful tribute to Melissa Witt, shedding light on her case and bringing much-needed attention to the investigation. Instead, it squanders this opportunity by prioritizing shock value over substance.
In conclusion, At Witt's End falls far short of what it could and should have been. The disrespectful title, combined with a misguided focus on Charles Ray Vines, turns what could have been a compelling exploration of Melissa Witt's life and unsolved murder into a frustratingly shallow and misdirected narrative. Melissa Witt deserved better, and so did the viewers.
- Generationxcritic
- Aug 8, 2024
- Permalink
Very informative and interesting.
- freewilldale
- Aug 7, 2024
- Permalink
Big budget, no substance
Was this created by ChatGPT? Total waste of time
- skuhn-55674
- Aug 7, 2024
- Permalink
Four hours of your life you can never get back.
- wmschoell-67025
- Aug 11, 2024
- Permalink
Drawn out, repetitive, confusing, disappointing
Disappointing
When I heard that Ridley Scott was behind At Witt's End, a Hulu docuseries, I was filled with excitement and high expectations. After all, Scott has a remarkable track record of delivering cinematic masterpieces. Unfortunately, At Witt's End falls far short of the mark, making it one of the most disappointing docuseries I've seen in recent years.
The series promised to delve deep into a fascinating story, but what we get instead is a meandering and unfocused narrative that struggles to find its footing. The pacing is painfully slow, dragging viewers through mundane details while skimming over the more intriguing aspects that could have made this series truly compelling. It's as if the creators were unsure of what story they wanted to tell, leaving the audience to wade through hours of uninteresting content.
The production quality is also surprisingly lackluster for a project with Ridley Scott's name attached. The cinematography is uninspired, with an over-reliance on dull, static shots that do nothing to enhance the storytelling. The interviews are poorly edited, with awkward transitions and unnecessary repetition that make the series feel like it's going in circles.
Furthermore, the docuseries fails to offer any new or insightful perspectives on its subject matter. Instead, it rehashes information that could easily be found with a quick internet search, making one question the value of investing time in watching it. There's no sense of discovery, no "aha" moments that you would expect from a well-researched documentary.
Lastly, the series' tone is inconsistent, at times attempting to be serious and somber, but often veering into melodrama, which feels forced and detracts from the overall experience. The end result is a series that feels confused about its own identity, lacking the cohesive vision that could have made it great.
In summary, At Witt's End is a missed opportunity. Ridley Scott's involvement led me to expect a high-quality, engaging documentary, but what we got instead is a docuseries that is painfully average at best. For those considering watching, I would suggest skipping this one and looking elsewhere for a more fulfilling documentary experience.
The series promised to delve deep into a fascinating story, but what we get instead is a meandering and unfocused narrative that struggles to find its footing. The pacing is painfully slow, dragging viewers through mundane details while skimming over the more intriguing aspects that could have made this series truly compelling. It's as if the creators were unsure of what story they wanted to tell, leaving the audience to wade through hours of uninteresting content.
The production quality is also surprisingly lackluster for a project with Ridley Scott's name attached. The cinematography is uninspired, with an over-reliance on dull, static shots that do nothing to enhance the storytelling. The interviews are poorly edited, with awkward transitions and unnecessary repetition that make the series feel like it's going in circles.
Furthermore, the docuseries fails to offer any new or insightful perspectives on its subject matter. Instead, it rehashes information that could easily be found with a quick internet search, making one question the value of investing time in watching it. There's no sense of discovery, no "aha" moments that you would expect from a well-researched documentary.
Lastly, the series' tone is inconsistent, at times attempting to be serious and somber, but often veering into melodrama, which feels forced and detracts from the overall experience. The end result is a series that feels confused about its own identity, lacking the cohesive vision that could have made it great.
In summary, At Witt's End is a missed opportunity. Ridley Scott's involvement led me to expect a high-quality, engaging documentary, but what we got instead is a docuseries that is painfully average at best. For those considering watching, I would suggest skipping this one and looking elsewhere for a more fulfilling documentary experience.
- seekingtruthinfilm
- Aug 8, 2024
- Permalink
Waste of time
The director should learn how to tell a story.
In stead we have constant reiteration, repetition, and tonnes of artsy footages of the area. Ate you promoting a new vacation spot or something?
I got that any investigation takes time, effort, the team meets and discusses the same ideas multiple times. But do we need this in the documentary? No. Do we need multiple people repeat the same things in different words? No. Do we need to have the same things discussed over the phone then in person then behind the scenes? No.
Chatgtp would have probably done a better job putting the story together.
Water of time. Really. Skip it.
In stead we have constant reiteration, repetition, and tonnes of artsy footages of the area. Ate you promoting a new vacation spot or something?
I got that any investigation takes time, effort, the team meets and discusses the same ideas multiple times. But do we need this in the documentary? No. Do we need multiple people repeat the same things in different words? No. Do we need to have the same things discussed over the phone then in person then behind the scenes? No.
Chatgtp would have probably done a better job putting the story together.
Water of time. Really. Skip it.
- nikaprovidebit
- Aug 7, 2024
- Permalink
Title of Documentary is a Cheap and Disgusting Play on Words. Shame!
As someone who knew Melissa Witt personally and cherished the memories we shared growing up, watching the docuseries At Witt's End was a profoundly disappointing and painful experience. From the very start, the title itself felt like a cheap play on words, making light of a tragedy that still haunts her family and friends to this day. It was disheartening to see that instead of honoring Melissa's life and legacy, the filmmakers chose to sensationalize her murder.
The series dragged on far too long, losing focus on what should have been the heart of the story-Melissa's life, her vibrant spirit, and the impact her loss has had on those who loved her. Instead, the filmmakers seemed more interested in playing up the mystery and drama surrounding her death, often at the expense of showing respect to her memory.
I was particularly dismayed by the lack of attention given to Melissa's family. Their pain and grief were overshadowed by a narrative that seemed more concerned with exploiting the tragedy for entertainment rather than providing a compassionate and truthful portrayal of the events. Melissa deserved better than to be reduced to a plot device in a drawn-out series that failed to capture the essence of who she was.
Ultimately, At Witt's End did not do justice to Melissa or her family. It was a missed opportunity to tell her story with the dignity and respect it deserved. As someone who knew her, I can only hope that future projects will remember to honor Melissa Witt for the person she was, rather than just the victim of a crime.
The series dragged on far too long, losing focus on what should have been the heart of the story-Melissa's life, her vibrant spirit, and the impact her loss has had on those who loved her. Instead, the filmmakers seemed more interested in playing up the mystery and drama surrounding her death, often at the expense of showing respect to her memory.
I was particularly dismayed by the lack of attention given to Melissa's family. Their pain and grief were overshadowed by a narrative that seemed more concerned with exploiting the tragedy for entertainment rather than providing a compassionate and truthful portrayal of the events. Melissa deserved better than to be reduced to a plot device in a drawn-out series that failed to capture the essence of who she was.
Ultimately, At Witt's End did not do justice to Melissa or her family. It was a missed opportunity to tell her story with the dignity and respect it deserved. As someone who knew her, I can only hope that future projects will remember to honor Melissa Witt for the person she was, rather than just the victim of a crime.
- reviewerstevens
- Aug 9, 2024
- Permalink
Disrespectful at best!
The title of this doc is disrespectful. "At Witt's End" is in no way honoring of Melissa Witt and this documentary team should be ashamed of themselves. I watched the docuseries HOPING against HOPE that the series would actually do right by the deceased teenager, but that was not the case. This doc is in no way respectful to Melissa Witt, her living relatives, or the hard-working detectives who have poured their lives into solving her case. Why on earth this was stretched into four episodes, I will never know. I am disappointed in Ridley Scott. You should fire this executive producer pronto. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!
- TrueCrimeCarrie
- Aug 8, 2024
- Permalink
Ridley Scott should have taken an Alan Smithey on this
Ik its just his production company but, geewilikers, in e3 there's an audio sync issue that I haven't seen in recent years - it's horrible and horribly distracting - but distracting of what you may ask? Hmm not much alas - basically they take a cold case and then via massively high production values, recreate certain scenarios - but here's the thing - they're spending all thier time on 'the usual suspects' and just fleshing out the possibilities - what is this?! It's hoakum ultimately - hoakum within a poor documentary
OK so 'hoakum' is too strong a word, I want to be fair - but it's something and I couldn't put my finger on it - I think that the Leo(s) depicted (law enforcement officers) were acutely aware of the filming and seemed to even stage these meetings and cherry pick the most titillating tidbits for the camera - now that's fine, it's entertaining BUT is it authentically honest - and if it's not - are the motivations for this documentary altruistic - I'm just saying, how come we started at 'a', quickly moved to 'b' and 'c' but in a sense, lost track of why we're all here in the first place which is 'a' - wait, forgive me, the reason is MELISSA WITT - not these cowboys behind badges that... Well.. You'll probably watch regardless - so, ok - be well and take care.
OK so 'hoakum' is too strong a word, I want to be fair - but it's something and I couldn't put my finger on it - I think that the Leo(s) depicted (law enforcement officers) were acutely aware of the filming and seemed to even stage these meetings and cherry pick the most titillating tidbits for the camera - now that's fine, it's entertaining BUT is it authentically honest - and if it's not - are the motivations for this documentary altruistic - I'm just saying, how come we started at 'a', quickly moved to 'b' and 'c' but in a sense, lost track of why we're all here in the first place which is 'a' - wait, forgive me, the reason is MELISSA WITT - not these cowboys behind badges that... Well.. You'll probably watch regardless - so, ok - be well and take care.
You'll definitely want 3 1/2 of these hours back
This was TERRIBLE. I can't emphasize this enough...and I say this as someone who likes (some) true crime shows. You'll start it and then stay with it because you'll want to know who did it and how they figured it out. All you'll get are 4 hours of boring, repetitive talking s t r e t c h e d out ad nauseam. That's it. Nothingness stretched like taffy. But this is nothing new for an ABC News production...if you've ever watched a "20/20" episode from the last, say, 15 years, you're already familiar with the way they take 10 minutes of content and stretch it, very thin, to 40.
On top of how incredibly boring this is & how much you'll regret wasting 4 hours of your life, there's the score, which is not only over-the-top (musically), but it plays almost the entire time and becomes maddening.
None of this is meant as any disrespect for the victim herself, her family, her friends, and all of the people - especially the detectives - working so hard to find justice. In fact, it's disappointing that all of these people are disrespected by such an awful production of her & their story.
On top of how incredibly boring this is & how much you'll regret wasting 4 hours of your life, there's the score, which is not only over-the-top (musically), but it plays almost the entire time and becomes maddening.
None of this is meant as any disrespect for the victim herself, her family, her friends, and all of the people - especially the detectives - working so hard to find justice. In fact, it's disappointing that all of these people are disrespected by such an awful production of her & their story.
So-so, hard to watch, not sure if it achieved any sort of justice.
I sympathize with the families, but wish this documentary had been done in a better manner, so that it could achieve some justice for the victims. I find it frustrating that these documentaries get into these people's lives yet fail to provide true means towards justice.
A lot of redundancy in what information is being discussed or set forth. Apparent, distracting direction, I think the production teams should have rethought their choices on going forth with with the team they had in place.
I will credit the law enforcement officers and agencies with being very thorough and doing their best to solve this case. I find their actions to be very commendable, in fact, the footage covering their efforts is the only documentation worth watching in this series.
One thing I found irritating, was that Charlene Shirk seemed to always subtly turn it back to be about her and not the victims. I don't find her to be a very credible journalist. She'd be best just to stay out of the documentary field, except, she seems to want make herself front and center, and enjoys the schadenfreude.
A lot of redundancy in what information is being discussed or set forth. Apparent, distracting direction, I think the production teams should have rethought their choices on going forth with with the team they had in place.
I will credit the law enforcement officers and agencies with being very thorough and doing their best to solve this case. I find their actions to be very commendable, in fact, the footage covering their efforts is the only documentation worth watching in this series.
One thing I found irritating, was that Charlene Shirk seemed to always subtly turn it back to be about her and not the victims. I don't find her to be a very credible journalist. She'd be best just to stay out of the documentary field, except, she seems to want make herself front and center, and enjoys the schadenfreude.
- wfstrasburg-1
- Sep 14, 2024
- Permalink
4+hours of wasted time
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
Yap YAP YAPP!
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
First episode held promise of an intriguing story but it just turned into non-stop yapping about nothing. What an utter waste of time. Skip this one.
Yap YAP YAPP!
Guess I am an outlier
Apparently most of the reviewers hated this to the point they wanted their four hours back.
But, I beg to differ. I actually thought this was really interesting. It is a rare true crime documentary that appears to follow the investigation in "real time" -- or "as it happens". And so, there is a lot of stuff that some people think is boring, but I found strangely fascinating.
I come from a law enforcement family... but I need not have that pedigree to say that crime solving is not SVU or CSI. It is a lot of dead ends and rabbit holes and making mistakes. And not solving anything.
I am so used to the normal retrospective kind of documentary series that it took me a while to figure out this series: that we were following the investigators alongside them.... as I said, in real time. And to be honest, maybe I'm nuts and imagining what I figured out.
But, I beg to differ. I actually thought this was really interesting. It is a rare true crime documentary that appears to follow the investigation in "real time" -- or "as it happens". And so, there is a lot of stuff that some people think is boring, but I found strangely fascinating.
I come from a law enforcement family... but I need not have that pedigree to say that crime solving is not SVU or CSI. It is a lot of dead ends and rabbit holes and making mistakes. And not solving anything.
I am so used to the normal retrospective kind of documentary series that it took me a while to figure out this series: that we were following the investigators alongside them.... as I said, in real time. And to be honest, maybe I'm nuts and imagining what I figured out.