User reviews

A detailed overview of various serial killers throughout the decades, with some interesting insights from criminologists and behaviorists about aspects that they share in common or that distinguish them. The main issue for me is that same interviews are used in many, if not all of the episodes. Consequently, one episode tends to blend with the others. They could have cut this series by maybe a third by not repeating the same material across episodes. still, for people interested in the subject, it is a fascinating series.

The information in this series is very good. However I find it quite annoying when the "experts" continually mispronounce people's names. I don't know if people think this makes them sound smart or something, but it doesn't. Ed Gein is pronounced "Geen" not "Giyn". How do I know this, because the guy himself pronounced it as "Geen". Also most of their nick names they use have never been used or heard by anyone.....ever. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were never known as the "kinky sex killer buddies" . Also nobody EVER called Bundy the "Genius of Death" nobody. The best expert in this series is Katherine Ramsland, glad she's in it. The rest are questionable. Also please get the one expert some sticky stuff for his dentures.

It was sufficient on the topic - but I wished for more psychological, biographical info on what makes someone become a monster. Important, educational documentaries.

This show was so awesome and 7 episodes just didn't feel like enough! As someone who loves anything to do with serial killers and finds it extremely interesting working in the Justice field this show went above and beyond in allowing viewers to get an in depth look into the minds and motives of the world's most famous serial killers. As a viewer at times you will not only feel creeped out by what you see but also you will feel educated as you get to hear first hand from many different experts from the fields of Psychology to law enforcement. While there is many more things to be talked about in regards to serial killers Becoming Evil does a GREAT job with giving viewers a look into the depraved but also interesting minds of Serial Killers. A DEFINITE recommend!

The subject matter should be interesting however the narrator and the "experts" are insanely boring which makes it difficult to focus on what they're actually talking about. Aside from the numerous factual errors, it's difficult to listen to these people blather on about things that they seem to have picked up directly from various made-for-tv movies. Try giving "City of Angels: City of Death" a watch for a far more interesting show on serial killers. "Becoming Evil: Serial Killers" was just a snooze-fest.

There are three main experts in this series, one seems okay, a bit outdated and a bit of a bias of those times, one is okay overall but the last one, Rhode Island College, is completely talking out of his.....you can actually watch this man make up the words as he goes based on quite literally zero facts other than his hot air. It's embarrassing for the study and profession of criminology. Not sure how it got included.

Reviewing: Becoming Evil: SERIAL KILLERS. First, let me note the misrepresented title on this review site may be partially to blame for the low number of reviews. It was never renamed Sisterhood of Murder, although one of the 7 episodes does focus on female serial killers.

I'm one of those people who is somewhat fascinated by serial killers. But I found it trying to listen to the many professionals & quasi-professionals whose name and title rarely flash on the screen. Most filmmakers would go to the trouble of reminding presenters to avoid saying "eh" repeatedly in between words, even though much of the dialog does seem to be less rehearsed than the parade of prompt-readers we normally find.

But this series allows too much personal opinion & slanting of facts; and, at times, attempts to mock the high-level behavioral science that many real serial killers reflect including that those with higher IQs have proved to be the hardest to catch (the Unabomber with an IQ of 186 eluded capture for 20 years). It also immediately claims that 50% are black. Actually, looking at data from Radford EDU (where most other sites obtain their info), we see that from 1900 - 2020 an average of 39% were black; however that reflects a huge leap in the last 3 decades to as much as 59% in the most recent decade but does not reflect that in 1900-1980, blacks made up less than 25%. Radford also reminds us that the data presented doesn't reflect those who were never discovered, captured, or reported citing that many countries did not report serial killers so as not to alter political opinion or opportunity, or to discourage tourism. Some countries that have a very high rate of murder and abduction of tourists are not reflected on this list for various reasons. And so, the Radford data shows the US as having a significantly higher number of serial killers, which is probably more reflective of careful records, organized investigations, and free-speech media outlets in the US than of accuracy.

The average IQ of serial killers, according to Radford, is 94, which is on the high end of the median IQ for the general populace. So this series telling us that the predominance of serial killers being high IQ is not true is inaccurate. It also claims the popular belief is that most are white males in their 20s. Actually, the popular thought is that they are white males, and this is true at an average of 51% over the decades shown, and an average of over 60% in the decades prior to 1990. If we include the idea that they are in their 20s, then the percent plummets to 12.

I do a lot of research in general since I have degrees in law and psychology, and tend to have a lot to say about these issues. I'm not sure if anyone came here to learn all this or if they find it interesting.

But I can say, this series isn't a no-go, per se. It tries to be informative and brings to light some issues and facts the casual viewer probably didn't know. But it lacks the most basic attempts at being visually stimulating such as a lack of snippets of these infamous killers or even offering cosmetic or hair assistants to the presenters, who seem to not be coached in any way. It's not the worst production I've ever seen. 5 stars is probably generous but it's mainly for the attempt to do something a bit different with well-worn subject matter.

I didn't make it very far unfortunately. The intro summed it up for me when the "experts" concluded that women are oddly drawn to these stories because they want to protect their families from the big bad wolf like a scared little mommy bunny or something. Looking at the all white, old male staff, it's clear why it's so shallow. There will be no new or significant insights in this series, unfortunately. Maybe the focus should be around a white-male dominated society that continues to throw women and girls away at profound rates, only caring when someone "important" finally goes missing and they can no longer sit at their desks and shrug their shoulders at these "witty" criminals. The only thing provocative about this show is how many male criminologist think Ted Bundy is handsome. That always surprises me but isn't enough to hold my attention. Another painful example of hubris exposing ignorance, the never ending drive men have to crow their genius to the point that they are blind to their own faults.

One example of the laziness, an "expert" casually says that someone named Scott Jacobs called psychopaths the "people of the lie". He was most likely referring to Dr. Scott Peck's book, People Of The Lie, which was not strictly about psychopaths. And that's just one of many small inaccuracies as an "expert" enjoys the sound of their own voice.

Despite the original idea of updating our understanding of who can be a serial killer, they go on to reinforce some outdated and disgusting stereotypes when discussing gay serial killers. They claim they aren't more prone to deviant or violent behavior but follow that by outlining horrific details of crimes by specific gay killers. Yet I can think of many details by killers such as Ed Kemper that are just as disturbing. They refer to one killer "living his gay life" as though it's a lifestyle choice.

I haven't finished the series yet and will amend this review if there's any improvement, but I'm not holding my breath...

What happens when a bunch of 70 year olds try to not sound misogynistic? It doesn't work and you end up with a horrible mis information filled dumpster fire.

The documentary itself is genius, however, this is a low budget piece of garbage and the people speaking on the show are horrible! One lady sounds like she has cottonmouth which is absolutely disgusting and can be prevented (Biotene for dry mouth) and the other ones put me to sleep.

Yikes. Ok, I truly thought this was from 2002 or earlier, and would still maintain that belief were it not for the fact that discussion about the GSK puts it at least in 2018. It's those same 3-5 white dudes you've seen in every low-budget documentary from the last 20 years, but there's this weird #notallmen vibe to it which is absolutely bananas to witness. Victim blaming, overly empathizing with the murderer, every one is a "prostitute" It's not 100% trash. It's tons and tons of original footage, they do a good job of name-checking the victims, but "50% of serial killers are black/POC" whatever they claimed with no citation whatsoever is beyond the pale. At least pretend to do the leg work, boys!