Sophie: Un asesinato en West Cork

This seems a French way of filming. Dragging a short story long, with beautiful Irish scenes and many characters giving their serious views and impressions. As others already wrote, there is not much forensic evidence in this crime story. It is hard to believe that the pathologist(s) were not able to bring more information and that there is basically only one suspect, and a series of witnesses that change their statements over time. A very thin story. Having said this, it is worthwhile seeing it. It is also interesting that the Irish court was not able to convict the suspect while the French court was.

This kind of documentary show needs more appreciation. The crews interviewed many eye witnesses, dug old footages and even went back and forth between Ireland and French to show what happened.

It also shows no bias. All were interviewed. All available documents were presented. Two sides of the coin were covered so that audience don't have any doubt whatsoever, or or vice versa, even more doubtful?!

It's a real story, well made but still mysterious.

This is a Story of a lady who was murdered in suspicious circumstances in Ireland where no murder was reported since last 100 years. To the point seriers (Only 3 episodes) not at all dragged.

I just binged watch for few minutes and could not stop myself by watching all the episodes in one go.

Go for it without any doubt without reading about it, you wouldn't regret.

I really wanted to like this more, but it's two quarts of plot in a five gallon pot.

I should say up front that the cinematography is gorgeous, the soundtrack and music are expertly done, it has all the current tropes of a streaming documentary (though perhaps a bit too much use of the interview gimmick where the subject stares silently into the camera as their voiceover plays on the soundtrack), and within the first fifteen minutes I wanted to visit Schull; after the first hour I wanted to live there.

That said, stretching this documentary out to about three hours of episodes seems more like a contract fulfillment than a need to tell a long story. There are very few cliffhangers; and while Episode 1 ends on a suitably Wow note, the story sort of bumbles along after that, mindful of the need to have long, gorgeous shots of scenery in between interviews so as to not reach present day too quickly.

While the case is practically entirely circumstantial, there is a lot of evidence implicating the chief suspect, with little to none pointing elsewhere and no other plausible suspects to talk about. Our suspect's chief defense seems to be simply saying that he didn't do it, over and over, and as we are now used to seeing how a trace of DNA can nail someone to the wall even decades after the crime occurred, the absence of much new insight into the case now makes one wonder why the film was made. As we moved through Episode 2, it seemed like Episode 3 was going to be the final, modern-day resolution at last. It wasn't.

Netflix new thing is dragging out a 20min criminal storyline into 3h of nature videos and circulating the same 15 photos of the victim.