User Reviews

Watching the 3rd ep. Finding it quite interesting so far, but what's up with the non-stop stupid flashing and broken images???? At first I couldn't believe a documentary like this could have such bad editing I suspected my TV was at fault. Damn I want to continue watching but I can physically tell it wouldn't be good for my eyes to do so.

Except for the insufferable narrator. I've watched the first episode, and am 3 minutes into the second, and have heard him mispronounce three words already. Dude, you're the narrator. Learn the words that are on your script. He pronounced a Terrorists name Zarein (Zah-reen) as Zair-ee-en. I mean dude, the FBI agents are saying it throughout the episode, how could you mess that up? He pronounce triacetone as "Try-Sara-tone". And so far, 3 minutes in, he's pronounced "nuclear" as "nucular".

I had to knock 3 stars off just for that. ( and one for the dumb CSI type graphics) Other than that, it's been interesting how these plots get foiled.

But seriously, bro. A narrator of a show's first priority should be to make sure you can read.

As others have said, the narrator is awful. They also keep using the same shots over and over again in different episodes. (Drilling a hole in a wall to insert a mic - I've seen it 3 times so far). They also mix in the wrong footage - show UK houses, cars etc when UK has no part in the episode and it ruins the flow. Flashing, moving images constantly which just get annoying. It's an interesting topic which has been ruined because it's been made by what feels like a bunch of college kids making a school media project.

There's a lot of unnecessary facts, filler scenes & repetition which drag out a 20 minute story into 45 mins. Which makes it hard to watch, I only got through the 1st episode:

1) Drip fed information. E.g. Instead of saying "we searched this place and found XYZ", they would literally drag this out into 2 minutes with a reconstruction & pointless info on voiceover before eventually saying what was found.

2) There are several interviews that should have been trimmed / removed completely.

3) They keep repeatedly referencing other terror attacks. Whilst they're relevant, they're not directly related to the particular incident being covered, so I would have cut those segments down.

It would have been more engaging if they kept it short & succinct.

Super informative, it was like forensic files for terrorism

I couldn't follow the story the flashing of scenes with pixelated changes got on my last nerve after 5 minutes, did the guy editing find some effect in windows and use it 500 times.

It's an interesting series about terrostic events that have been avoided. I just watched the first episode and found it quite good: you really get a good insight in these failed attacks. The editing is a bit chaotic and also the narrator could have done a better job.

Can not tolerate narrator's voice. It is so ugly - monotone, emphasizes every syllable, makes every statement sound matter of fact, like a hideous drone. How did multiple people OK this person to narrate? It is unimaginable.

Netflix u made a big mistake As a muslims we need an apologies

I really like the idea behind the documentaries: to inform public on close calls when it comes to terrorist attacks. And to highlight the work of police and intelligence.

And the shows are kind of informative. But they lack a certain quality. Like others also mention: i) it is over-dramatized; ii) you see the same footage in different episodes; iii) you see stock footages of bombs, explosions, etc.

It is basically a free PR show for justice and intelligence in the US. Without critical questions on motive, justification of the means the use.

I wish I could like this show, but the writing/narration is SO bad. Episode I'm trying to watch right now: "Spokane is one of the second largest cities in Washington." One of the second largest?? It only gets worse from there. That would fail middle school report writing standards.

I love movies/docs that are related to counter terrorism (Kingdom etc.). This doc is insightfull about the thin line of saving thousands of innocent people from death by terror. Only the flashy images are killing me man, quit the so called cool flashy intro and keep it clean!

Advise: It helps to skip the intro which contains most of the flashing.

Worth watching and informative but not great production. Narrator not so good and, as a Brit, it's quite irritating to here constant uses of England when Britain/the UK should be used, and also hearing Dick Van Dyke like cockney accent for a British Asian terror suspect.

Absurd editing and effects. Rediculous choice of director and producer. Hacks.

A high-caliber documentary will stand on its own. It does not require obnoxious editing and overly dramatic narration. Both of these are present to such a an exhausting degree that I was quickly convinced that there was unlikely going to be any original or profound reporting here. I was right. To me, shows like 60 minutes, Frontline, Vice are the benchmark. They use straightforward reporting of new, original, and often profound information. The information is so interesting that there is no need for presentational trickery. Unfortunately this series feels closer to something you would see on mtv. I just can not take this series seriously.

It Shows how the fbi avoid bomb attack, But I regret that it never talks about gunshots in US which is terrorism to and how it is easy to get one.

The episode's name "The student bomb maker"

in the detail "as they look him " they Catch him before he's make one bomb

I couldn't watch it. The narrator sounded like he was hyper-ventilating. The producer and special effects folk do not know when to leave some space. Why does each change of image (of which there are far too many) has to have a bass drum and / or an orchestral stab from a cheap piano keyboard.

If you have a good story it will stand by itself. Overall the program looks and sounds like a teenager's first attempt at video editing after being given all the tools. One star because you failed to us watching beyond the first ten minutes.

Spoiler: The bad guys did it!

The narrator appears to be talking louder than the actual interesting people interviewed. I would never use him for voiceover as he is monotonous and irritating as well as too loud. He even sounds bored. On top of this it is badly edited, erratic, and to be quite honest... Boring. Never have I been so underwhelmed. Close call? I was playing a mobile game until I realised I had literally completely shut off. Terrible.

I love this program. Finally, someone is revealing what the real price is... There is lot of people here complaining to narrator's voice. I have to say, that for me is working perfectly.. finally something new!!

I'm 4 minutes 8 seconds into episode 1, and I've turned off the show. The narrator brings up the July 7th, 2005 terror attack on the London Underground system, then the show uses CCTV footage from the Madrid 2004 attack! This is either horrendous researching from the producers, or outright lying, to juice up the footage. Either way I will not watch, or trust this show to ever be 100% factual, terrible program!!!

He was imprisoned without evidence or a trail They portray him as a terrorist but he was only a student who was wrongfully accused of a crime that didn't happen with evidence that proves that he couldn't do it Free him

This is the worst US propaganda series I have ever seen. It is not only filled with blunt lies about so called "terrorist state" but also portray US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel (two of the worst opressors in modern time) as the good guys.

I really really wanted to like this show, as the subject is very interesting to me.

However, the first major problem I noticed was the awful editing. There are so many jump cuts and unnecessary special effect, that it made me uncomfortable keeping my eyes on the screen. It's as if the editor is using the show off all the digital effects he or she can do, rather than focusing on making the show enjoyable. I dealt with this by looking away from the screen every once in awhile, and focusing on the audio.

The second, and almost deal breaker issue, is the structure of the story. The majority of almost every episode is spent talking about the context and potential implications of various successful attacks. They go overboard with context, to the point that they almost forget to talk about the actual close call incident. In the case of the Israeli Honey Pot episode, it's so bad that I can't even recall them ever talking about a failed plot. This might not be so bad if the context was at least explained in a coherent organized way. However, it's not. They try to cram too much in, and the sequencing of each piece of information often doesn't follow from the last. So someone that knows nothing about the context is likely to end up very confused.

The only real reason I'm not giving this lower than 5 stars, is because of my intense interest in the subject. To make the show tolerable, I recommend using the fast forward button liberally, especially in the first quarter of each episode. There are brief sections in some episodes that actually spend a little time talking about the failed attempt in a somewhat coherent way.

I'm so frustrated with this show. They keep talking about the terrorist attack in London in 2005 which killed 56 people but they totally forgot the Madrid attack a year before in 2004 which killed 193 and injured 2057. This is so insulting to the victims of this attack. I can't even believe the level of ignorance. Just because it wasn't an English speaking country that suffered the attack it makes it not painful and doesn't even deserve a mention? It's just disgusting. This show should be cancelled. Please don't watch.