The Fall: Skydive Murder Plot

I still gave this a high rating because it told the story of something that I remember being in the news but knew very little about.

Unfortunately a poor production technique of mixing reality with "drama" made this a bit of a jumble.

They had all the actual people, so why mess with actors portraying the same people. There were times when the actual detectives and their acting doubles shared the screen. Why?

Although it highlighted the issue of coercive control it did not really get across exactly how this man was getting inside the women in his life's heads. As a viewer I couldn't understand how they appeared to be so easily taken in, serially. They seemed to want to come back for more? So it really was quite important that it be explained exactly how he was doing this.

As an avid viewer of the true crime genre, my personal rating system is inversely proportional to the number of reenactments in a given show. I want to hear from people who were actually involved in some way, not watch a bad high-school drama club stage production.

The Brits are often pretty good about avoiding cheesy dramatizations (and, thankfully, the recaps after the innumerable commercial breaks). But it's not uncommon for British true crime shows to come across as flat, since they usually eschew hype.

Here, we have a method of story telling I don't recall ever seeing before. There are indeed reenactments, but they're not only acknowledged, but we often watch them from behind the scenes, alongside two of the investigators (both of whom are awesome, BTW).

One could easily argue that this drags out a single episode story to three, and, if you're a "just the facts ma'am" kind of viewer, a valid one. But, in my case, I already knew this story, and yet I found out a lot more about it from this series. Could that have been the case with another method of storytelling? Maybe, but the people behind this effort should be commended anyway for trying a most novel approach.

My rating of 7/10 is overall, but it rates higher in terms of story-tell-risk-taking, and in terms of the emotions revealed & imparted, which is something that simply can't be told in a mere 45 minutes.

The investigators here were fully involved, both emotionally and professionally. They did an incredible job, in spite of everything working against them. The initial investigation by the parachute club members was awesome-- without them this case would have gone nowhere. Again, things that can't be adequately portrayed in a single episode.

Hearing from Victoria herself was the main coup though. To avoid spoilers I'll simply say that she doesn't look all that astute through a lot of the story, but in the final scene your heart can't help but go out to her. Guarded as she is, she still wears her heart on her sleeve, and she doesn't shy from her mistakes. She deserves SO much better.

In the end, this is a novel telling of a seemingly simple story, that is anything but simple once you've heard it. If you like cheesy "I Can't Believe I Married a Murderer" kinda stuff, or if your attention span is short, this will likely not resonate with you. If you watch true crime to learn about humanity and personal motivations (both good & bad), give it a look.

Not every true crime story would benefit from this style of story telling, but IMO this one does, and everyone involved deserves kudos for taking part in the effort. Currently vastly underrated at under 6/10, this one deserves a look for mature viewers of true crime docs.

The underlying story is fascinating. A timeless tale of male violence & female denial. Yet the production is dreadful. The director has decided to do it differently, which is fine. But the different approach is just a mess. The people who were actually involved, the actors portraying them, the film crew, the crew filming the film crew - they all just get in each other's way & in the way of the story.

I suspect that the bright spark who decided on this approach did so in large part to promote themselves more than the story, which is a terrible error in film making. Any respect for the director evaporated at the court room scenes. Everyone knows barristers & QC's don't dress like that. No doubt the director trying to be different but it just comes across as inaccurate & shoddy. The story still makes it worth watching but it's a spoiled opportunity.

Horrible story, for sure. For some reason that I'd like to know about, the makers decided to use actors.... and kind of intermix the scenes with the real people... AND shatter the 4th wall. We see the sets and hear the director issuing notes to the actors before a scene shoots. There's a big reason you don't see this method used.... erm....ever. It doesn't work. It completely pulls you out of the suspended disbelief required... even for a dramatised documentary. Crazy. Would genuinely like to hear the rationale behind the decision. And who or how anyone thought it worked afterwards.

Apart from that, it's not awful. Too drawn out... too much acting.

Decent but could have been much better, in my opinion.

The director etc have decided to try a novel approach to how they would convey the story to the viewer. The problem is that it actually gets in the way of the story, whilst adding nothing. The reason most either do a docu-drama or a documentary is that they work well. In this case the approach they take is a curious mixture of drama, documentary and also filming the tv show being made as if this is a documentary of the making of... The bottom line is that your focus is continually pulled away from the actual essence of this dreadful case. If you the film maker wants to try something new then they should make sure it enhances rather than distracts from the story.