The Motive (2020–2021) User Reviews

Overly long with an unkempt defence attorney who enjoys pretending he 'knows something that would change everything' but isn't going to tell anyone. What nonsense!

[James_Denton · 4/10 · 29 October 2021]

One episode would have been enough.

A 14 year old boy who without compassion, empathy, care or regret murdered his mother, father and two sisters shooting them at point blank range. He later re-enacts what he did with the same gun to police, standing at the same spot and showing them how he shot the gun into their heads.

The archival footage is interesting, but you don't learn anything other than what happened with interviews from the boy's defence attorney who clearly enjoys telling the interviewer "I know something you don't know, but I'm not going to tell you" - what a load of nonsense. He would be better off having a bath/shower, then shaving or trimming his beard.

An interesting case which starts to become dull.

Wild story, pointless doc

[Calicodreamin · 6/10 · 29 October 2021]

A wild story, no doubt. If it had just stuck to facts that would have been one thing. But they tried to be investigative, but didn't get a single thing out of anyone. Good use of archival footage, but could have been shorter, the defense attorney said nothing useful and instead wasted our time and the documenters'.

Way to long really and way to dusty

[bazookamouth-221-898097 · 4/10 · 3 November 2021]

This documentary could have been done in 45 minutes but its stretched out to nearly 2+ hours into repeating nothingness. The footage is confusing and the interviewed people irritating particulary the defense lawyer who was as useful to the programme as a chcolate teapot.

Is Netflix buying student projects now?

[trashcab · 2/10 · 31 October 2021]

What a waste of time. Horribly edited, lacks any narrative, structure or satisfying conclusion. I regret watching it.

Now, you could say the story is somewhat interesting, but it is nowhere as mysterious as they want it to be. This is not the first time a psychopathic child murders their family for "no apparent" reason. Even his defence lawyer said that the child wanted the verdict to be "manslaughter", and not "murder", so that he could inherit the family possessions. Is this not a motive? After getting the reduced manslaughter sentence, he says "life starts at 20", implying he will get out of prison and start living on a blank slate with the money and properties his family had. He never showed any regret or remorse. What a mystery.

What was the point ?

[mklvntwar · 6/10 · 29 October 2021]

Kept showing the same scenes over and over again , and to this day no one knows the motive. A horrific crime like the one committed should have been far more compelling, instead it became boring .

No Satisfying End

[NeverNicole · 2/10 · 29 October 2021]

The only thing this documentary was good for was to bring attention to this old case to those who had never heard it before. It happened in 1986 in Jerusalem so most of the world has probably never heard of this tragedy until now.

Issues with this documentary are that the archival footage blends in with the reenactments and the filmmakers don't give any indication of the difference. A slight annoyance but not one that will make or break the story, I suppose.

The main problem with this series is there isn't a satisfying end. It's called "The Motive" but the true motive was never uncovered. None of the two major motives stick. "A green man told him to kill his family so did" - That motive doesn't work when you find out the kid showed no remorse or sadness over what was done. You'd think if someone forced you to murder your loved ones not only would you mourn their deaths, but you would be terrified because the "green monster" is still running around loose!

The other motive was that he was an abused child and killed his abusers. That doesn't quite work when you find out he didn't just kill his parents, he killed his older sisters too. Supposedly, they were killed to "protect them"...but that doesn't make any sense at all.

So, the filmmakers leave it there regarding motives. That's it. Pick one. Your guess is as good as anyone else's'.

The biggest disappointment came when it's revealed the boy, now a grown man, only spent 9 years in jail. He's out now and has a wife and kids. Since he was only convicted on Manslaughter charges, he was allowed to inherit the family home and assets. Some describe him as happier after the brutal murders of his parents and sisters which leads them to believe his motive was really to start a fresh life without his family. But why? No one knows.

That's it. Unsatisfying.

So wait ... I'm watching all re-enactments?

[benhampel · 6/10 · 30 October 2021]

The premise of "The Motive" is intriguing enough to warrant a documentary. A fourteen year old boy kills his parents and two sisters, shows no remorse and never provides a justification. The 'no remorse' aspect can be attributed to a mental disorder. However the roughly two hours of episodes never provides an answer as to why he did it. The frustrating attitude of defense lawyer Yossi Arnon of "I know but I'll never tell" just gets played out for far too long. And having to watch close up shots of his old man gecko-like tongue flicking in and out of his mouth was unpleasant. Watching four episodes and never hearing the name of the central figure was confusing at first. I had to search online for why that was. The identity of minors must has been protected by law in Israel. That's fine but it's never mentioned in the docu-series. So you are left wondering why his name is never mentioned and yet he's shown throughout in news footage and home movies. Only until the end credits roll do you realize that it was all re-enactments. Re-enactments in documentaries are now common place but they usually are so stylized that you know what they are without needing to be told. But with 'The Motive' I felt very confused as to what was real and what was a re-enactment. I can only be sure that the interviews were real.

Huh - spoiler

[chriscupo · 4/10 · 30 October 2021]

I have watched many of these true crime documentaries on Netflix. After watching 4 episodes I still have no idea why the son committed these terrible crimes. You have a defense attorney who hints at motives but won't tell us. I would have liked some resolution after watching. The only thing we find out is that the son served 9 years and is now happy and feels no remorse. What was the point of this? Another thing is that it could have been handled in one 90 minute documentary especially since there is no resolution at the end. Disappointing.

Meh

[LGuerrero-a-x-e · 6/10 · 1 November 2021]

Fascinating case but boring/poorly made documentary, it definitely should have been half as long. I don't understand how it was never considered that this kid was just a straight up sociopath, they kept looking for a "rational" motive or explanation, but didn't posit psychopathy? His lawyer playing games with the filmmakers was sickening. Not worth the watch.

One of the worst docu-series I ever seen.

[luka-escu · 2/10 · 31 October 2021]

A boy is killing his family, OK, I got that. I don't even care about the reason, the motive, but they say nothing about family, the sisters, the mother, they say a bit about the father and that's all. It's all about this person who did a terrible crime. A psychopath, most probably. I even found the Police investigation, crash, bang, boom.

Nothing on Google about it which is very strange, like it never existed.

2 stars.

Ah, and that music is annoying, not saying about playing same images over and over again, they could do this documentary in one hour.

You don't need a motive when you are a psychopath

[dan_c_ro · 10/10 · 28 October 2021]

I just saw this documentary. It is very well made with a lot of real footage from the crimes.

The story is simple. A 14 years old boy kills his parents and his 2 sisters. He confesses the crime but not the motive.

In my opinion, after having seen dozens of documentaries with killers, he is just a psychopath. My theory is backed up by policemen, doctors, people who knew the boy after the murders and all of them said that he showed no remorse. No tears, nothing.

We are normal human beings and it is in our nature to find motives, reasons behind any action. But for a psychopath you don't necessarily need a reason to kill someone. I really think the boy killed his parents and sisters because he wanted to and could. Just simple as that.

Go see this documentary if you like true crime stories.

Interesting but long

[manonlemieux · 7/10 · 28 October 2021]

Like many other docuseries, they show things over and over, talk to people who aren't really relevant, try to make it a dramatic movie instead of just having it be what it is on its own. Could have been a 90 minute documentary. But still interesting.

Intriguing Story. Hackneyed Storytelling.

[MeadtheMan · 5/10 · 29 October 2021]

The biggest issue I have with this docuseries is the interview process - or at least what's visible to us. The questions are closed-ended or loaded with preconceptions or not provocative enough. It's like just seeking confirmation for whatever the interviewees had planned to say. A good interviewer should be both provocative and able to put people at ease so that interviewees would reveal more of what they're thinking/feeling (there are a few brief moments in which they managed to do that, but the rest of the interview is just a disappointment).

Also, they should always press for something more concrete from the interviewees, especially those considered to be experts or authorities - there's a lot of flowery language and swelling emotions, but not much substance. Like the lawyer who thinks he knew the motive, sure, but maybe wonder why his opinion holds any weight as he's not a psychiatrist? Or how he drew his conclusions? Or the psychiatrist, who admitted we have better understanding of mental states now than before, sure, what are the developments? What are the studies, terminologies, examples, etc? What are the philosophies on children crimes, mental health, family dynamics, military, gun control, Israeli state at that time, etc?

For me, there are two possible reasons why he could've committed such heinous crimes - one influenced by external forces, and the other internal. External forces could be: abuses sustained by him or any of his family members (little evidence of that), delirium caused by rage or any extreme emotion (not found), or brain tumours (for example, see Charles Whitman; even though this is internal of the murderer, it's out of his control, hence can be considered as external, this isn't mentioned in the show).

Then, there are the potential internal forces: narcissism, psychopathy, etc. One might find it hard to imagine, but you're never in the head of a psychopath, the problem isn't that they think about doing evil things all the time, it's that evil deeds don't bother them because they're not emotionally affected by it. And one always seeks for outward traits of devil (as suggested by many authorities in the show), as if there's a stereotypical face caused by psychopathy. What are you looking for, a "666" tattoo? For instance, Chris Watts, who murdered his wife and daughters simply because he wanted to leave them behind and start a new life with another woman, he could also be thought as just a regular Joe. You would think the means are way too extreme for the ends, but that's not how they see it. One of my theories is that the murderer actually felt suffocated by the attention and affection that he's showered with, and could be feeling like everyone's baby, which he despised (the journalist - if she could be trusted - mentioned something along the lines that he felt that he could only be a real grown up without his family).

Lastly, there are the technical parts... first, why is it cut into 4 short episodes? Is it necessary? Or it makes the blatant repetitions of images and sentiments less egregious? Then the narrative, music... are all quite hackneyed. They aren't bad, just a little pedestrian for such a compelling story. The show seems like just a cool presentation of what people can already guess/know, they should ask more probing questions, shine light on more perspectives (with real studies to back it up). As it stands, it seems more like a he-said-she-said gossip story.

Terrible!

[katmat-67963 · 1/10 · 29 October 2021]

The worst crime doc I've ever seen.

Looks like it was a student film. No point to this clunker, you learn nothing about "The Motive".

It should have been called "No Motive"

Did I Watch the Same Thing...

[setgetsiin · 7/10 · 18 April 2023]

...as the rest of the people complaining that they never revealed the motive...?

It's the same motive that goes back to the dawn of civilization: GREEEEEEED...!!! The kid wanted nothing in the way of his inheritance. They talk about it through most of E3, I think they touched on it at the end of E2. And of course the Defense Attorney picked up on it--and supported it; he's a pig, he flat out said he'd had murderers acquitted before, so he's a piece of trash--how ELSE is he going to get paid unless he got with the program?

The kid needed it to be a manslaughter because murderers do not inherit.

How can so so SO many of you MISS THAT??? I only read about 30 reviews and not ONE of them actually paid enough attention, evidently. It's not like it was a hidden innuendo comment or a blink and you miss it moment, either. I mean, someone murders the family--blathers on about a green creature--then asks about seeking manslaughter because they want to still be able to inherit: Really? We need more than that? This isn't even a Murdaugh situation, and it reeks of greed.

Onto E4: Oh, NOW he wants to talk about killing people because his father beat the family and NOT him? Just stop, really. The Greed was enough of a motive. Greed causes about 98% of all crime, let alone murdering the entire family.

Now, this is not the best documentary I've ever seen but good GRIEF people...try to pay a teensy bit of attention from time to time.

What was the motive for making this docuseries?

[tomtpcarpe · 1/10 · 7 January 2022]

A poorly conceived, shot, edited, and presented piece about a teenager who kills his family without apparent motive. As many reviewers here opined, the kid is a remorseless psychopath protected by a sleazy defense lawyer. There is no mystery here. Move on...there's nothing to see here.

I thought it was good

[taddykstone · 7/10 · 31 October 2021]

I don't know if enjoyed is the right phrase. But I watched all episodes pretty quickly. It's just a sad sad story. But if the gun wasn't there the crime probably wouldn't have happened. We should all learn that sad fact. Why would you show a 13 year old boy a gun let alone a AK! What were those people thinking? That should be the bigger ask?

Kept My Interest-Barely

[lornak-18008 · 4/10 · 1 November 2021]

Not the best crime series I've ever watched. And really when I was done, I wondered why I sat and watched it all in one sitting. No, actually I know. I wanted to know what the motive was and we get nothing. Some speculation that's not based on anything, the killer of 4 family members only spends 6 years in jail, and the defense attorney says he knows, but will never tell. It also spotlighted how stupid the police were in their investigation. Pretty ridiculous to make a 4 episode documentary about so little. One would have been enough.

no direction and too long and just bad

[rasketeer · 3/10 · 24 November 2021]

The case seems to be very interesting, this documentary isn't. Nothing missed if skipped.

There is one minute of interview and one minute of old photos and filmed scenes. Some of these scenes are not even real but staged. This alternation between information and footage continues for 4 ours. And even some of the interviews could be skipped completely and it wouldn't change the documentary to the bad.

'Investigative' journalists who don't know how to ask questions. A teenager could do better. Some of the interviews are like this (seriously like this): Interviewee: 'I know some details' Journalist: 'but you want tell me?' Interviewee: 'no' ... 5 seconds slience Journalist: 'if you tell me, would i understand more?' Interviewee: 'yes' ... 10 seconds silence Journalist: 'wow' ... cut WTF was this?!?!

Potemkin Psycho???

[liamascorcaigh · 10/10 · 31 October 2021]

I have a very strong feeling that this a giant leg-pull, i.e. It's a fiction dressed up as a true crime documentary. It really had me going until I began thinking about it. Hence the 10 stars. It's up there with Orson Wells' Martian invasion. Give it another look and see if it doesn't fit together far more plausibly.

This documentary is called "The Motive"...

[Lilith_i · 3/10 · 5 November 2021]

We are starting chapter 4 and still there is no motive on sight! No idea why he did it... All about how good the boy was, how intelligent, super intelligent, the best, the most bright, he was almost a genius, he was so articulated, so good at everything... where is the motive!

This could have been a 2 parter.

No one even mentioned psychopathy.

[papirna_vila · 2/10 · 31 October 2021]

Starting to watch this, I thought the motive will be explained, but soon became clear it won't.

Society is a peculiar thing, as we see here. People can't even begin to comprehend that this boy is a psychopath, and are amazed by how he reacts, because it's not normal. Of course it's not normal, but still he is judged as normal, as innocent boy, because child cannot be like that, right? So he served only 9 years and released into society where he can continue to manipulate and do as he please. Hopefully he doesn't become dissatisfied with his new family one day and the green monster returns. No doubt he would manage to get himself out of trouble soon again, but it would be sad to see innocent people die. Does his new family know they are gambling with their lives every day?

Documentary gave us nothing, only good thing is to know that occurrences like this happen everywhere. Not every psychopath is a murderer, but a majority of family annihilators are psychopats.

Some YouTubers with budgets a lot smaller, made and make better and more insightful documentaries as this one is made .

By far the worst docuseries on Netflix.

[Joomie0208 · 1/10 · 29 October 2021]

A psychopath killing his whole family is being idealized just because he's brilliant. He is presented as the victim and a hero. Not a single respect is paid to those who lost their life. Point is there is no motive cause boy is just a psychopath who had urges to killed. And to the producers, please do anything else but stop making docuseries please. It was very bad.

Youtube Called, .. . It's Missing One of Its Poorly Made Crime Docs

[WmBronk · 1/10 · 28 October 2021]

Utter tosh.

This "documentary" could have been completed in one 17 minute youtube video without losing a beat. I realized early on that the audience was never going to learn "the motive" to the actual crime, which would be fine (albeit disappointing) IF they had chosen to actually leave us feeling like it was a mystery we wanted to solve at the end. They failed in amazing ways to do that.

Instead, we are subjected to exhaustive footage of the killer's lawyer continually saying "If you knew the reason you would understand... " and "If you had the whole story you would feel empathy.. . ". Throughout these tales he spins, his body language screams "I'm just another smarmy lawyer giving you random theories so you don't know just how awful my client truly is."

With shades of the Menendez defense painted into his narrative, he tries to suggest that there perhaps was abuse in the home by saying "no comment" to questions about it. From all that is presented throughout, there was not a single whisper of evidence of abuse in this case. (At least with Lyle and Erik Menendez, there were friends & family members who testified that there actually WAS abuse going on in the home. With this case however, .. . Nada.)

The killer went to great lengths from the outset to have his murders be declared "manslaughter" so that all the monetary spoils- the family house, the inheritance money, the car/s- would belong to him. That right there is motive enough. Do we really need secondary or tertiary "motives"? And when I say "motives", I actually mean "soft-scrambled theories". Also, why does a country's laws not prevent someone who slaughters their entire family from inheriting everything!? Amazing.

And finally, the murderer has been out in the world for years, (without having his name be known to the public), and having served time in the psych ward and jail that was so short that he was out in time to attend college? What?

If all this isn't "The Motive" enough for you to not bother watching this rubbish, there's not much more I can say to change your mind.

You can't even Google the case

[LittlePenguin2 · 1/10 · 28 October 2021]

Why this was called 'Motive', I have no idea. Motive was never explained. It was if everyone interviewed, idolized him (you never know anyone in the family's name) and only had good things to say about him. His lawyer dangles the 'why did he do it' carrot in front of the interviewers' faces the whole movie and never lets them have even a nibble. His psychiatrist also does the same. My guess is he was either gay or raping his sisters, the parents found out, so he murdered all four of them so the truth about him wouldn't get out. I wouldn't put it past the filmmakers that this is actually poorly done fiction.