This was a tough watch. Not because it was horrifying, adrenaline-fueled or gory (not a drop of blood was spilled in creating this low budget film) but because I’m not entirely sure if murder was the narrative of this would-be true crime film. Completely fictionalized but easily adaptable to becoming a primetime “movie of the week”, A Murder in Oakland begins with an abrupt strangulation in a daylit park but then proceeds to take us into several internalizing relationships, therapist sessions and character self-realizations which to be honest…did not fit the premise.  

Detective Williams (a promising Marcus Spencer who also co-wrote and directed this film) is assigned a new partner and a new case, while grappling with unresolved issues related to his previous duties. As he eases back into this new work set up, Williams and his new associate Detective Adams, are tasked with a“cold case” – the Seaside Killer. My immediate dilemma with this introduction stemmed from the fact that the Seaside Killer, Hunter had been caught and imprisoned already. The query is now, did he commit the recent park murder of a young model in broad daylight before he was captured?

Cold Case: refers to a criminal investigation that has not been solved and is no longer the subject of active investigation but remains open to the possibility of new evidence or information emerging. These cases are typically unsolved for a long period of time and may be revisited by law enforcement when new leads, technology, or resources become available.  

So, how exactly is this murder in Oakland (Seaside? Who knows…) a cold case? Maybe I’m missing something?  

Getting back on track with that remedied point affecting my rating, I proceeded to ascertain various scenes that clearly do not move the needle forward, let alone the character development, which seemed to be the central hub of the story over this “whodunnit” mystery.

Case in point (yes, pun!) – we first meet Detective Adams as he sits alone in a restaurant and his server takes a warm liking for him. She senses his loneliness and offers him a safe place to share his feelings. You would think this would broaden the scope of building a relationship further down the road but nope! We never see that waitress again. Nor do we climb into the mind of Adams, as his role is back peddled behind the central lead, Williams. So much for a potential Mindhunters schematic! Damn.  

As Williams proceeds to interview various connections between the crime victim and her daily interactions, he displays an uncomfortable lack of confidence and authority in every engagement delivered. From the modeling agency’s owner to friends of the deceased, the awkward tension between the detectives and the lenient manner in which the conversations are conducted become implausible and unbelievable.

Melding together with impromptu therapy sessions for each detective, another extraneous storyline becomes the focal point several times over which I’m still trying to untangle: the psychologist and her husband. Without getting into that detail as it certainly plays no part in solving this “allegedly horrible” murder which seems to have vanished from the viewers’ peripheral vision, I’m asking myself this entire time…what’s the point of any of this?  

The confusion is still lingering.