I'll Be Gone in the Dark

This is simply excellent documentary filmmaking. I'm very familiar with the EAR/ONS (Golden Stare Killer) case having studied it on my own for many years. Of course, I'm ecstatic with the arrest of a suspect (leaving name out since he's not convicted) as I'm sure Michelle would be too. The first episode really hit home because I know what it's like to spend hour after hour day after day obsessed with amateur detective work. You sometimes wonder if you're having any impact at all and are often mocked for trying to shed light into places where it's never landed before. Michelle's work proved that amateur slueuthing can make a difference in subtle and important ways. Would the case have been solved without her contributions? Maybe, even probably, but that's not really the point. Her work demonstrates that the victims in these terrible crimes do matter, no matter how long the cases remain unsolved. The victims matter to her and to all of those who strive to solve these mysteries, and it's that fact that keeps amateur detectives motivated to the point of obsession and NOT some morbid fascination with human tragedy. I said all of the above because I feel the filmmakers have done an excellent job capturing the real motivations for people like Michelle McNamara and all other armchair detectives. Since the subject matter is both the Golden State Killer case and Michelle McNamara's obsession with it, it's much more nuanced than a more traditional true-crime documentary where the subjects are generally comprised of police officers, the subject of their investigation, and, on occasion, surviving victims and family members. 'I'll Be Gone in the Dark' functions on all of those levels too but also goes deeper by using a non-traditional protagonist. The filmmakers deserve kudos for utilizing this unique angle, and in the first episode they've done an excellent job of setting up the the characters and the conflict of the documentary. If the remaining episodes are on par with the first, this documentary series will easily score an 8/10. (Note: I am not affiliated with the filmmakers, Michelle McNamara, or her estate in any way. The above review reflects my unbiased opinion of this documentary. Rest in peace Michelle.)

All the reviews that say "iT's mAiNlY aBoUt ThE aUtHoR" are so stupid. that's how it was advertised. it never said it was strictly about the GSK. you can't watch the Leaving Neverland documentary and get upset that they don't talk about MJ's music. seriously people.

as for the documentary, its good! Michelle's story is intriguing and relatable as a fellow crime enthusiast. at times it does jump around a bit but I don't feel lost watching it. give it a try!

The first episode just aired yesterday, so obviously my review isn't my final, overall opinion. I just wanted to address the reviews that gave the first episode low marks. It seems as though the reviewers don't realize that this is a documentary series in 6 parts. There's more to it than just the first episode, therefore, the entire story is not going to be told in the first 60 minutes.

I don't think it was disjointed, as others have said; I think it does a good job of laying the groundwork for the rest of the series to build on. And yes, there is a focus on Michelle McNamara, the author of the book. The full title of the book is "I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer," that indicates that some of the documentary is going to be about her search, along with the EAR/ONS's crimes.

I read the book recently and I'm excited to see how this series unfolds, partly because there will be interviews with people who were involved with the original investigation, along with interviews of victims as well. Ms. McNamara interviewed people for the book, but to be able to hear it directly from them should be interesting. I just hate that I can't binge-watch it all at once!

Disappointing. The last person I want to see in a serial killer crime documentary is Patton Oswald. Lol.

Sorry for the passing of McNamara but should've focused more on the crimes, the victims and the perpetrator. Stopped in the first episode.

This series is advertised as being a true cime story about the Golden State Killer. Very quickly in the first episode, you feel like it's rather an advert for Michelle McNamarra's blog, podcast and book. The blog's URL is repeated multiple times like these bad adverts for car insurance and we're told by various people how great Michelle is and how great her book is going to be. A lot of time is spent explaining how Michelle got interested in the case, how she investigated it, how she got access to evidence and sources, her thoughts and theories and how she wrote about it all. Is this just a badly disguised tribute to Michelle from her family and friends? If you stick with it, you do end up hearing from the victims and their story, and how the GSK operated but it does take a while. The episodes though are often a jumble of bits which don't seem to have a particular order or flow to them. You don't feel like you are progressing through time or through an investigation. It's more like listening to someone remembering parts of Michelle's life story in random order until you reach the point when the crimes themselves are discussed. This makes it difficult to get into and at times quite boring. Had they stuck to talking about the crimes, victims and investigations/evidence, it would have been a 2 (perhaps 3) episodes series but interesting throughout.