Confessions of a Serial Killer with Piers Morgan (2017– ) User Reviews

Disappointed

[susanarochinha · 4/10 · 17 December 2018]

I'm not a journalist, but if I were to interview an accused serial killer that denies the accusations, I would never interrupt them while they are trying to elaborate an answer.

Also, acting provocatively in a passive kind of way, will never create a comfortable environment for the interviewe to open up, and will push him further into his already-made victim character. Sooo I'm not sure what was the perfect scenario for the interviewer here.

Awkward

[bellhead-71244 · 4/10 · 2 August 2018]

It is a fine line that a journalist must toe when interviewing people of this caliber. Piers managed to alienate and aggravate both interviewees . The background information was interesting but to see footage of the men walking off camera was a waste of time.

A farce

[berenb · 3/10 · 2 January 2019]

Instead of being objective, presenting cases and evidence from different perspectives, reveal insight into the mind of victims and killers - so that viewers can make up their own minds - the Interviewer tries very energic and often clumsy to get each serial killer to confess. It seems like the goal to get a sensational confession (=stauts, cash for show creators) of a killer the only thing that mattered, as if the put all on that one card. Which evidently isn't working at all. At least that's the impression we had while watching Season 1. I'd rather have Netflix choose a different Interviewer and a more objective, sophisticated and interesting approach for a season 2.

Worst interviewer ever???

[steveyboyslim · 1/10 · 12 December 2018]

I never write reviews, but Piers has irritated me so much with his interviewing technique that I had to write one. He basically just annoys the hell out of the killers until they get up and leave. Even when interviewing law enforcement or people connected to the victims, he just uses loaded qustions to get them to deliver the answer he wants. It all just seems like someone trying to promote themselves instead of get into the mind of these killers. Serial killers=bad, so, Piers telling killers that they are bad means Piers=good. Afraid not you goddamn donkey.

Fecal matter

[anliab · 1/10 · 3 June 2018]

I don't hope Piers go around calling himself a journalist... What a moral bigot with no intentions other than to promote himself at the expense of people already in prison. This show is utterly one-sided and makes no effort to uncover anything.

Like watching a toddler argue and scream

[paronensamu · 1/10 · 14 December 2018]

I've never written a review before, but these "documentaries" made me so frustrated that I had to.

The biggest problem is the man himself. I'm not at all familiar with Morgan or his work, but I had the imperssion he was - at least to some degree - a distinguished journalist. After watching three episodes I was dumbfounded.

Piers must be the worst interviewer I've come across, ever. There's no objectivity. There's no dialogue. He's so strongly biased that it hurts to watch. Basically he keeps blaming the interviewee again and again. Same argument again and again. He doesn't listen a word he's told, he interrupts constantly and keeps coming back to the start. He keeps getting called up on his BS by all these guys but he just keeps at it until the accused is fed up and leaves. And every episode was exactly the same!

This abomination of a documentary does not: -Bring up any new information or evidence -Prove anyone quilty or innocent -Have _ANY_ information value

What it does: -Sets a textbook example of a worst case scenario interview.

How and why was this ever realeased?

No insight

[jensen_webber · 1/10 · 18 June 2018]

Two episodes in, and both killers claim innocence offering little insight into their own motives etc. Whats the point, very frustrating to watch.

Total garbage

[smundle-37908 · 1/10 · 21 December 2018]

Terrible. How does a show like this get funded?

No perspective supporting either side whatsoever. Interviews are completely useless.

Its like Jerry Springer for serial killers.

Piers, me me me

[hussain-ameen · 13 January 2019]

Piers is one of the most bigoted people I have seen ever, on television. Just logged into to write that. You are almost forced to take on the side of the serial killers because Piers is the most self righteous person, it is cringeworthy to watch.

Need more Information and Time with Killers

[jelloboyfrozen · 6/10 · 30 September 2019]

The first two episodes were fine, although you could see Piers be a little nervous with the first interview it seems. The first two killers had their say, Piers goes over the evidence, does a good background on both of them, gives key information and evidence that actually proves they were the killer and eventually builds up all this emotion and evidence providing it to the killer, building it piece by piece. His hope is to basically make them angry or come clean after they are presented it in a nice logical rational manner to us the viewers; and he always saves his ace up his sleeve of damning evidence for last.

However, on the third episode with Henriquez Alejandro, Piers you did a real job mate. First you shouldn't have a "time limit" to which you can only talk to these killers for your show...if you haven't come to a conclusion or if there is still conversation and dialogue that isn't boring and is interesting, you don't just cut the episode and say "WELL, WERE ALL OUT OF TIME FOR THIS ONE, GO BACK TO YOUR CELL NOW". Do you know how frustrating that is for all the viewers? Like I had to google this serial killer to get more information that you didn't even mention or present in your background of him! Your episode had me on the fence that he was even guilty!!!!! But after reading more articles after a google search it was exceedingly more than likely that he was in fact the killer, and it seemed like there was some DNA evidence that you didn't even bring up, nor fake phone calls he told his nephew to make to police among other things etc. This is my first review on IMDB because this episode was aggravating to watch, and then you just cut it by calling him a liar and ran out of time.

Please do better on future episodes <3. The show is still very good everyone, it doesn't deserve a 2/10, its a solid 6.

Netflix should be ashamed

[schazam-63059 · 1/10 · 21 December 2018]

Yes, Netflix should be ashamed of itself for showing this crap. Looking at the title on the Netflix home page you get the impression that this "documentary" is rather well liked. This rating is obviously a scam.

Piers Morgan is worthy of nothing more than contempt.

Why only 2 episodes!

[runninmb · 10/10 · 12 August 2018]

I was really excited about this series but I'm really bummed that there are only two episodes! I enjoyed watching both and I love piers Morgan but really still pretty bummed there weren't more than two episodes. Please make more

Decent Watch, Ignore the Piers Haters

[acrides4 · 7/10 · 22 August 2020]

People are obviously review bashing this for their hate of Piers Morgan instead of the actual show. It's an interesting watch, don't be put off by the keyboard warriors.

Piers is such a bad interviewer that you almost start sympathizing with the killers

[thedisco · 1/10 · 14 December 2018]

Terrible. Piers Morgan simply doesn't have the skills to interview these people. He is a former tabloid journalist who then went on to do a breakfast show on British TV. All he knows is sensationalism and his attempt to recreate it here is a colossal failure. His interviewing technique (not that there is one) is so annoying that you can't watch the show. He doesn't listen, doesn't give the interviewees an opportunity to speak, repeats the same thing over and over, doesn't apply any thought to what he is doing. It's one big bowl of bad journalism. Avoid.

Piers: me, myself and I

[anniekdevreede · 1/10 · 17 December 2018]

It looks like Piers practiced his questions and statements in front of a mirror, never expected a reply and therefore not being able to handle them. The prisoners don't get a chance at all to tell their side of the story. Piers interrups them, twists their statements and just simply provokes them until they get up and leave. These people were convicting of horrible crimes, but seeing them being interviewed like these you are very tempted to take their side. Just because Piers shows how easy it is to twist facts.

Piers, what the heck?!

[Groovykat10 · 1/10 · 20 August 2018]

Piers, you can't possibly interview a serial killer and get any useful information or insight by antagonizing them. I understand you feel for the families, I do too, but pissing these killers off is getting you nowhere IF you want information from them. The whole point I thought was to gain some insight or to get them to admit to something they wouldn't before. Neither happened and will never happen with your interviewing style. Now if that wasn't the point of your interviews then I'm not sure what was. Just to chat and piss them off? You wanna see how it's done just ask me, I would love to show you how it's done! Your interview style can be great for some things but this is not one of them.

Pathetic

[shanayneigh · 1/10 · 30 December 2018]

I couldn't even finish the first episode. I refuse to believe that Piers Morgan has a degree in journalism. These are some of the worst "interviews" I've seen. Furthermore, the structure of the show is horrendous. They sprinkle out some background information here and there throughout the episode, but it's so poorly done that you don't get a clear picture of what happened when and to whom. This is not a show for the history books. This is tabloid garbage with moving pictures.

The worst interviewer ever

[seraeumesma · 1/10 · 19 December 2018]

I'm a forensic psychologist and I usually watch those kind of documentaries to study cases. However this was the worst show I've ever seen of this kind, Piers is not a interviewer, he doesn't know how to listen, he's biased and he don't know how to keep it to himself. By the end of the last episode I was so annoyed by the way he handled the interviews that I just couldn't watch anymore. I left the room like the convicts did.

Awful

[thomasnerheim-74066 · 1/10 · 27 January 2019]

The biggest psychopath on this show is Piers Morgan.

Awful show, awful host

[VibesonFleek · 1/10 · 23 December 2018]

Man enters interview with Piers. Man convicted of brutal murder, serial murder, and here's the evidence. Man claims he's not guilty. Piers says he is! Man says no, wrongly convicted. Piers says You're evil! Man says no I'm not. End of episode.

Just crap, shallow interviews. This format has potential but Piers is too biased and completely out of his depth. He sucks at his role of interview and sticks to his bias and shallow, dumb questions. Dumb show.

Thoroughly good idea for a docu series

[clivejamesrd · 16 September 2018]

As I say in my title, this is a terrific idea for a series, but it has a few shortcomings in the execution. However, I'm only taking up one here, because it's the seam coming apart issue. Who in his/her right mind thought Piers would be the man for this job? You need a human being for his role, not the well dressed imitation, sorry, irritation. I am certain there are careers well suited the personality and character that goes by the name Piers Morgan, but appearing in front of a camera and speaking to an audience isn't one of them. He would make an outstanding professional hermit. Or a lighthouse custodian, but I don't know if that's a thing any more. Aha, it just came to me, after professional hermit, CCTV screen watcher. Second choice, mind, but a really good one.

Really liked it

[timothykarnopp · 10/10 · 19 April 2020]

Overall ratings don't look good, but I found Piers Morgan interviews very compelling. I hope a second season occurs.

Not a Documentary - Arrogant interviewer

[TiredTiger · 1/10 · 20 December 2018]

Piers Morgan just attacking these people and trying to put words in their mouth. It is really one sided documentary. Not many facts shown, and a lot assumptions. Pierce Morgan trying to dominate suspects like he is trying to make them break down and confess everything.

One sided snooze

[triciakronenburg · 1/10 · 17 December 2018]

Disappointed at the utter lack of actual investigation. Piers tries to interrogate the convicted felons by provoking and belittling. Reminded me of Jerry Springer sensationalism. One sided and lazy "journalism".

He is destroying his and others opportunities

[mmbbccirm · 1/10 · 9 February 2019]

This is the worst documentary I have seen. He is not able to interview with some objectivity at all. And he is destroys a golden opportunity to understand the mind of these killers. With such a bad teqnichue, he is also destroying it for others journalists. Is he even a journalist? He is stamping on the hard and professional way of doing an interview and I really think that Netflix should stop sending this "documentary". He just wants attention, but this is not the way to get it! this was just frustrating to watch, so I was actually making an account just to post this comment.