This has NOTHING to do with Tetris! The Tetris angle is forced in because without it, the facts of the case would only make up one episode. Instead, it is drawn out over three episodes with tons of lies to make it fit the supposed Tetris narrative. The case itself is very interesting, they didn't need to wedge Tetris into it. AnimaTek was formed in Russia, not USA. Robert Maxwell and Mirrorsoft didn't steal anything from Russia, Robert Stein did. The lies just goes on and on... This docu series went full r*tard. I wish I could list all the lies, but basically, everything "connected" to Tetris is a lie. If you want an accurate retelling of the history of Tetris, look up The Gaming Historian's fantastic documentary on Youtube. This is a tragic murder case, and it will probably never be solved. It's sad that the Tetris angle takes up 75% of this docu series. Stay away! And lastly, shame on Investigation Discovery for slapping their name all over this garbage.
4 Reviews
So bad and full of lies it becomes offensive to one's intellect...
daniel-backstrom19 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
A bit clunky- like a Tetris square
greatandimproving28 February 2024
What this series really comes down to is the disconnect between the federal and local investigative authorities. Having "Tetris" in the name is somewhat misleading. Beyond investigators trying to put the puzzle together like a Tetris game, the case has very little to do with that at all.
If anything, I wish they'd spent more time on why the Russian mob would have killed Vladimir and his family. A theory was suggested a few times, but it wasn't explicitly laid out until the very end. And even then it seemed thrown together on a whim imo.
I honestly think the police knew more than they let on throughout the series. During the episodes Sandra surprises them individually with some of the info she's learned, which feels like we're finally getting somewhere. But when they meet later as a group, she "surprises" them with much of the same info again and they pretend like they've never seen it before lol. So you can never tell what's sincere versus what's being staged for dramatic effect. In that sense, if you want to enjoy Ep 3 you'd better hope you forgot what happened in Ep 2 because you might just be seeing some old re-packaged as new.
Another frustrating element was how the script focuses on whether the Feds already had a file open on Vladimir at the time of his murder in 1998. Debate on whether they did or they didn't is a point of focus that spans the entire length of the series. Now I'm no detective lol but in Ep 2 they flash on-screen the FBI's response to her Freedom of Information request, where it says in the Subject line: "Pokhilko, Vladimir 1994-1999." Just from those *dates- if not from the seat of my couch lol- you see the Feds candidly admitting they were on him for four years before he died, and then for another year afterwards (possibly until the evidence was destroyed?). Yet the filmmakers continue to act dumbfounded as to how the FBI/DOJ could have been so responsive to his death in 1998, how the District Court took just two days to issue a subpoena, etc. Yes they were watching him! They told you they were watching him! Can we stop acting like they're hiding it?! It's little gaffes like that that lead you to think the series was produced more for our entertainment than to get actual answers to questions.
For that matter, if you were to ask me why it was deemed a murder-suicide, my answer would be similarly boring: that's just how cases like this are handled. This was a Russian family in the United States (presumably not American citizens yet) who got murdered by Russian hitmen. To what end should American time money and energy be used in an investigation, right? If you look at it that way it makes a lot more sense. Not that it's not dirty or controversial but authorities were looking for any excuse to close the book on it as soon as possible. Because despite the fact it happened on American soil, it wasn't technically an American problem.
And again, it's not like I'm Sherlock Holmes here. I think the police understood that as well. The drama was just sort of manufactured in order to produce a documentary. Fake true crime, if you will. Which is fine. I enjoyed parts of it too. But I wonder if it's not a microcosm of our relationship with media today, and how we're watching a lot of make-believe investigations. Even if they're done with good intentions, sometimes it seems they're conducted more to conceal the truth than to uncover it; more to obfuscate than to educate.
If anything, I wish they'd spent more time on why the Russian mob would have killed Vladimir and his family. A theory was suggested a few times, but it wasn't explicitly laid out until the very end. And even then it seemed thrown together on a whim imo.
I honestly think the police knew more than they let on throughout the series. During the episodes Sandra surprises them individually with some of the info she's learned, which feels like we're finally getting somewhere. But when they meet later as a group, she "surprises" them with much of the same info again and they pretend like they've never seen it before lol. So you can never tell what's sincere versus what's being staged for dramatic effect. In that sense, if you want to enjoy Ep 3 you'd better hope you forgot what happened in Ep 2 because you might just be seeing some old re-packaged as new.
Another frustrating element was how the script focuses on whether the Feds already had a file open on Vladimir at the time of his murder in 1998. Debate on whether they did or they didn't is a point of focus that spans the entire length of the series. Now I'm no detective lol but in Ep 2 they flash on-screen the FBI's response to her Freedom of Information request, where it says in the Subject line: "Pokhilko, Vladimir 1994-1999." Just from those *dates- if not from the seat of my couch lol- you see the Feds candidly admitting they were on him for four years before he died, and then for another year afterwards (possibly until the evidence was destroyed?). Yet the filmmakers continue to act dumbfounded as to how the FBI/DOJ could have been so responsive to his death in 1998, how the District Court took just two days to issue a subpoena, etc. Yes they were watching him! They told you they were watching him! Can we stop acting like they're hiding it?! It's little gaffes like that that lead you to think the series was produced more for our entertainment than to get actual answers to questions.
For that matter, if you were to ask me why it was deemed a murder-suicide, my answer would be similarly boring: that's just how cases like this are handled. This was a Russian family in the United States (presumably not American citizens yet) who got murdered by Russian hitmen. To what end should American time money and energy be used in an investigation, right? If you look at it that way it makes a lot more sense. Not that it's not dirty or controversial but authorities were looking for any excuse to close the book on it as soon as possible. Because despite the fact it happened on American soil, it wasn't technically an American problem.
And again, it's not like I'm Sherlock Holmes here. I think the police understood that as well. The drama was just sort of manufactured in order to produce a documentary. Fake true crime, if you will. Which is fine. I enjoyed parts of it too. But I wonder if it's not a microcosm of our relationship with media today, and how we're watching a lot of make-believe investigations. Even if they're done with good intentions, sometimes it seems they're conducted more to conceal the truth than to uncover it; more to obfuscate than to educate.
True crime, fantastic across the board.
tlunsf18 June 2023
More please! So many questions!
Three episodes so far, all packed with details about a family of three who died mysteriously in Palo Alto, California in the late 1990's.
The main "character", for lack of my knowing a better term for true crime roles, is a retired detective who was part of the murder investigation 25+ years ago. She is very interesting to watch doing her job, essentially continuing her investigation and discovering new evidence along the way.
Production values are solid throughout, not blatantly sensationalistic. Certainly we're manipulated by the music and sounds effects, mostly in an additive way.
Lots more to investigate. It's unclear whether more episodes will be created.
Three episodes so far, all packed with details about a family of three who died mysteriously in Palo Alto, California in the late 1990's.
The main "character", for lack of my knowing a better term for true crime roles, is a retired detective who was part of the murder investigation 25+ years ago. She is very interesting to watch doing her job, essentially continuing her investigation and discovering new evidence along the way.
Production values are solid throughout, not blatantly sensationalistic. Certainly we're manipulated by the music and sounds effects, mostly in an additive way.
Lots more to investigate. It's unclear whether more episodes will be created.
Actually pretty interesting
Lamborghini_Mercy15 January 2024
The show has some good moments and quite frankly, I enjoyed it. There is clearly a cover up and it was done so well that we will never know the whole truth. The manner of the deaths are suspicious and the FBI involvement is odd.
When you have seen as many crime documentaries as I have, it's easy to pick out the ones that are basing things off of ideas rather than true evidence.
Really shocked at the low rating for this. Not really sure what the other reviewer, daniel-backstorm, problem is. I wish they would list all the lies that they supposedly claim. Give it a watch and do your own research. You cannot rely on others to speak the truth.
I give it a 9 because I don't think the third episode was necessary. You would be fine just watching the first two episodes and getting everything you need.
When you have seen as many crime documentaries as I have, it's easy to pick out the ones that are basing things off of ideas rather than true evidence.
Really shocked at the low rating for this. Not really sure what the other reviewer, daniel-backstorm, problem is. I wish they would list all the lies that they supposedly claim. Give it a watch and do your own research. You cannot rely on others to speak the truth.
I give it a 9 because I don't think the third episode was necessary. You would be fine just watching the first two episodes and getting everything you need.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
