Depp V Heard Season 1 Review – A biased and superficial analysis of the popular courtroom trial

Season 1



Episode Guide

Truth on Trial
Breaking the Internet
The Viral Verdict

Depp v. Heard, a Netflix documentary series, explores the much-discussed courtroom trial that involved Pirates of the Caribbean actor Johnny Depp and his former wife Amber Heard. Depp sued the Aquaman actress in 2018 over an opinion piece she penned for The Washington Post.

The live television coverage of the six-week defamation trial between an actor who is among the most prominent celebrities on the face of the earth and his wife allowed audiences worldwide to watch chaotic testimonies, including declarations of domestic abuse from both actors.

The three-episode docuseries makes an effort to put together the live-streamed jury trial and contrasts the footage alongside the online discussion that followed, especially on TikTok and other social networking platforms.

Was the dispute in the courtroom unbiased between the parties, or did the internet play a role in swaying the decision of the jury? Was the animosity towards Amber Heard too aggressive and unjustified? These are a few of the primary concerns raised throughout Depp v. Heard.

In their most excellent forms, documentaries strive to shed light on complex topics and give viewers a deep immersion in topics that are frequently beyond the scope of traditional news coverage. Whether they take the form of movies or television shows, these works serve as an essential link between viewers and the facts which define the world we live in.

They offer a rare chance to go beyond the superficial narratives that often appear in media outlets, encouraging us to rethink our presumptions, and improving our understanding of a wide range of topics. However, this painfully shallow documentary is the visual equivalent of awful journalism.

The Netflix-produced documentary series elevates sensationalism while ignoring the fundamental element that gives documentaries their significance. Depp v. Heard’s focus is clearly on profiting from the interest surrounding celebrity controversy as it puts less emphasis on the documentary’s primary goal, which should be to inform viewers. The creators make no effort to present anything but tabloidism.

Additionally, one might assume that only recently discovered evidence, a fresh viewpoint, or possibly a dash of empathy could motivate the re-litigation concerning a public dispute. However, the three-part series only provides an inadequate overview of the whole case, and it does so after adopting a questionable stance on the subject at hand.

Without a doubt, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp are both extremely troubled individuals, who were in an unhealthy marriage. However, the Netflix documentary series makes the argument that the internet was biased towards Amber Heard and in favor of Johnny Depp. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation to convey the facts, the series consists mainly of a commentary examining the way the trial was perceived outside of the courtroom.

Initially though, following Heard’s op-ed’s release, Depp had experienced significant backlash. The #MeToo movement supported the claims against Depp. During the mainstream media’s trial, Heard was portrayed as the victim while Depp was reported as the bad guy. Depp missed out on a role in the sixth Pirates of the Caribbean movie as well as other opportunities in the entertainment industry.

People will inevitably hold opinions that favor one person over the other. Audiences at first supported Amber Heard. Recently, people have been supporting Johnny Depp. The series keeps bringing up instances where Heard was criticized in the media and how that affected the jurors. The assertion made in the docuseries that Amber was despised by the people who affected the jury’s decision is illogical, and there is no evidence to back that up. 

The tricks used by the shows to defend Amber are completely absurd. For instance, during one scene, the creator goes on to justify Amber Heard pledging but not actually donating the money she claimed to donate to ACLU. This particular bit is absolutely hilarious and reveals that the creators of the show support Amber Heard and are attempting to improve her reputation. The show did not actually present the two cases equally as the creator claimed it would. 

To be fair, the documentary does pick up steam when it chooses to transport us back to the moment Johnny Depp and Amber Heard first fell in love. The documentary answers questions like, why Amber fell in love with a man who was two decades older compared to her, the first book and music they discussed, and how they first met.

Realizing that both of them were previously in love and the fact that this isn’t just a lawsuit over defamation but additionally a battle between former lovers is such an amazing point highlighted in the show. However, that is the one good thing among many drawbacks.

Depp V Heard could have been an excellent subject matter if the narrative had been told with more nuance and focused on Johnny and Amber both. The documentary could have gone in depth about the fact that despite the fact that their love was intense when it first ignited, two grey individuals are fighting. What a fascinating story that could have been!

Given the fact that we already know what took place in the events portrayed in this documentary series, the show should have gone a few steps ahead of us rather than far behind.

More than what took place between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, Depp V. Heard revolves around the chaos that ensued. The goal is simply to demonstrate to people what they already know, not to make matters clear. Additionally, the show is incredibly biased and tries to defend Amber’s actions on multiple occasions. Depp V. Heard is a sub-par documentary at best.

Feel Free To Check Out More Of Our TV Show Reviews Here!

  • Verdict - 3.5/10

4 thoughts on “Depp V Heard Season 1 Review – A biased and superficial analysis of the popular courtroom trial”

  1. Amber Turd said and did awful things, and leaving excrement on her husband’s side of the bed doesn’t even come into it. Demonizing her? She wishes. She even invented seeing Death to Amber, Death to the Witch signs starting six blocks away from the courthouse, more concoctions by her to illustrate how unfair it was for people not to believe her. So ironic. People saw and heard the trial and this documentary is just another poor rehash with additions of pro-Amber bias slid in as if we hadn’t had our screens on during the real event.

  2. Hi Anne, I absolutely understand where you’re coming from. However, this was true of Amber Heard too before the defamation trial. After the #metoo movement, Depp was villainized in the media, so much so that he lost work. Both Depp and Heard are troubled people who had an unhealthy marriage, which is quite unfortunate. Having said that, there was substantial evidence against Heard, which is why people supported Depp in my opinion, which is quite fair. Making a documentary pointing out the backlash Heard faced, but not showing the criticism Depp faced before that is quite biased in my view.

  3. Social media influencers made a fortune by demonizing Heard and upholding for Depp. He knew she would be dragged into court when he filed a lawsuit against a newspaper in Great Britain. He lost. He dragged her back into court in the US. If the documentary didn’t prove to you how biased things were against her in the US, just do a Google search on Heard and Depp, and see the thousands of negative articles about her, and the thousands of positive articles about him. There was much money to be made by demonizing her.

Leave a comment