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'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.