Modern documentaries have perfected the art of turning a one-hour show into four 50+ minute parts. Other than excessive length and fluff, the show was interesting and entertaining.
71 Reviews
Packing 60 Minutes into 210
bt698nhj10 April 2021
Fantastic Robbery...No Hard Evidence...Stretched To A Ridiculous Length
AudioFileZ4 May 2021
The most fantastic art heist of modern time deserves a hard look. Somehow, however, with so little factual evidence to go on this look goes overtime. A much tighter and better told series of events is here. Even though there is no hard evidence to charge any particular person this documentary manages to go over 4 episodes and 200 minutes plus. Though you already know beforehand this crime is unsolved and the whereabouts of any of the stolen paintings is unknown the producers have decided to draw everything out to a painfully long story. I kept watching for that nugget that never came that somehow pointed in one direction. It never comes and one feels wrung-out for the slog. It's a good mystery told in such a dragging back and forth style that it screams for a good editing job. It's just as likely that none of the possible suspects here ever touched or even knew who actually stole the paintings at the end of all of this. If any are ever recovered that is the story you'll want to watch, unless this same team produces it.
Stretched
shanayneigh19 April 2021
One episode of facts, three episodes of speculation and conjecture. This didn't need to be four episodes long. Might have been a decent 60-90 minute documentary. But we live in an age of streaming where *everything* has to be stretched into a series.
Interesting topic told in a boring way
DLochner28 April 2021
Interesting topic told in a boring way A very interesting topic that was unfortunately told in a boring way. To date, a reward of 10 million US dollars has been offered for apprehending the perpetrators. In "The Greatest Art Theft in History", Netflix takes us into a particularly exciting case that is still puzzling. All in all, however, it falls short of expectations and goes in circles very interesting topic that was unfortunately told in a boring way. To date, a reward of 10 million US dollars has been offered for apprehending the perpetrators. In "The Greatest Art Theft in History", Netflix takes us into a particularly exciting case that is still puzzling. All in all, however, it falls short of expectations and goes in circles.
It's an interesting story.
Sleepin_Dragon13 April 2021
This documentary series tells the story of the famous Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, and what happened there one night back in March 1990, the most infamous art theft in history.
The case itself is a fascinating one, one I studied years ago, you will be shocked, you'll be surprised, you may also get a tiny bit bored.
This four part documentary series, was too long, the first two episodes are very good, they should have made this a two part series, the last two parts drag a bit, and unfortunately lack any real content.
It's of course very well made, contains some very interesting details, you will see the ripple effect of the crime, it took its toll on so many people associated with The Museum.
Lots of old rogues and criminals, it really is a good old fashioned rogues gallery, interesting to learn the fate of those suspected.
After a good start it just becomes a little too slow and conjecture based. 6/10.
The case itself is a fascinating one, one I studied years ago, you will be shocked, you'll be surprised, you may also get a tiny bit bored.
This four part documentary series, was too long, the first two episodes are very good, they should have made this a two part series, the last two parts drag a bit, and unfortunately lack any real content.
It's of course very well made, contains some very interesting details, you will see the ripple effect of the crime, it took its toll on so many people associated with The Museum.
Lots of old rogues and criminals, it really is a good old fashioned rogues gallery, interesting to learn the fate of those suspected.
After a good start it just becomes a little too slow and conjecture based. 6/10.
It's not bad
SpacemanBob9 April 2021
Admittedly, nothing earth shattering is revealed or solved, but having no prior knowledge, I found the case quite interesting. There's some humor and quite a cast of characters involved. The interviewees are credible, in most cases it's those who were there as it happened.
This has got to be an embarrassing case for the FBI, who put a lot of resources to no result in all this time. I'm now interested and would love to know who really took these pieces and where they've been for all these years.
This has got to be an embarrassing case for the FBI, who put a lot of resources to no result in all this time. I'm now interested and would love to know who really took these pieces and where they've been for all these years.
The Security Guard was involved, no doubt
teachinglegend8 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've been interested in this heist for a long time, but I agree with many that it could have been one of two episodes less. I have seen several news segments and have read much about this.
Ric, the security guard, is definitely involved, but they don't have the direct evidence to charge him. What points to Ric?
1. Ric lets them in violating policy.
2. They are buzzed in at an exact time when the other security guard is doing rounds, and Ric is alone with controls to the door.
3. He had buzzed someone in the night before, they have it on VHS tape, and Ric doesn't seem to recall that he did that or who the person was. Really?
4. Just a bit earlier, Ric had opened a door to outside for no apparent reason. Ric said he did it all the time although there is no evidence of this on other tapes.
5. The Manet painting was stolen from the Blue Room. The motion detector picked up Ric as the last person to enter and leave that room before the robbery occurred. When they later examined the motion detector, it was working perfectly well. The thieves never entered or exited the Blue Room. How could the thieves steal the painting from a room they never entered?
Ric, the security guard, is definitely involved, but they don't have the direct evidence to charge him. What points to Ric?
1. Ric lets them in violating policy.
2. They are buzzed in at an exact time when the other security guard is doing rounds, and Ric is alone with controls to the door.
3. He had buzzed someone in the night before, they have it on VHS tape, and Ric doesn't seem to recall that he did that or who the person was. Really?
4. Just a bit earlier, Ric had opened a door to outside for no apparent reason. Ric said he did it all the time although there is no evidence of this on other tapes.
5. The Manet painting was stolen from the Blue Room. The motion detector picked up Ric as the last person to enter and leave that room before the robbery occurred. When they later examined the motion detector, it was working perfectly well. The thieves never entered or exited the Blue Room. How could the thieves steal the painting from a room they never entered?
A fantastic overview on a very unique case
beatlebass-4095710 April 2021
This series goes over the known details of the crime, the missing pieces from the museum, and the likely suspects and evidence that potentially ties them to the heist. Episode 3 was a real highlight for me, and it seemed that everyone who was allegedly connected to the crime ended up dead. That episode does a great job of showing the connections each mobster had to each other and potentially to the robbery as well.
More than 30 years later and the case is still unsolved, which makes the documentary a little more open ended and speculative than some may like, but overall this is an excellent overview of what is known and how the the authorities came to form their theories.
More than 30 years later and the case is still unsolved, which makes the documentary a little more open ended and speculative than some may like, but overall this is an excellent overview of what is known and how the the authorities came to form their theories.
very informative but left me hanging
rebkg10 April 2021
As long a time Massachusetts/Boston resident I knew very little about the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum robbery. The series certainly brought me up to date.
I agree with the producers that the robbery has not gotten much media attention over the years by the Boston media and the series implies that the Boston Police dept and FBI could have done much better jobs with the investigation. There were two eyewitnesses who directly saw the two robbers prior to entering the museum who were never interviewed by the FBI and Boston Police Dept documentation of their testimonies were inaccurate. The FBI assigned a very junior agent to the case as well.
The final minutes of the series finally introduces the identities of two individuals likely to have been the actual robbers....and then the series abruptly ends!
So I hope there are more episodes!
I agree with the producers that the robbery has not gotten much media attention over the years by the Boston media and the series implies that the Boston Police dept and FBI could have done much better jobs with the investigation. There were two eyewitnesses who directly saw the two robbers prior to entering the museum who were never interviewed by the FBI and Boston Police Dept documentation of their testimonies were inaccurate. The FBI assigned a very junior agent to the case as well.
The final minutes of the series finally introduces the identities of two individuals likely to have been the actual robbers....and then the series abruptly ends!
So I hope there are more episodes!
This is a robbery...of your time
Bobbysoxxx8 April 2021
Holy moly are these Netflix docs really reaching these days. They stretched what should have been a tight 45 min doc into a 4 episode 4hr slog. They veer off in so many directions with pointless interviews and filler.
Its bad when you can tell its filler.
It seems to be a trend lately to make these dime a dozen docs as long as possible instead of making them ya know...good. Look I get ppl are bored but you can't sacrifice quality for an over blown run time. Even if more eyes on the screen means more $$$.
This was a snoozer and gets a heavy pass from me.
Gets a sympathetic 3/10 for buddy who had all that duct tape on his hair.
Its bad when you can tell its filler.
It seems to be a trend lately to make these dime a dozen docs as long as possible instead of making them ya know...good. Look I get ppl are bored but you can't sacrifice quality for an over blown run time. Even if more eyes on the screen means more $$$.
This was a snoozer and gets a heavy pass from me.
Gets a sympathetic 3/10 for buddy who had all that duct tape on his hair.
Fascinating with Minor Issues.
henryshear11 April 2021
I had actually heard about this theft during an episode of Drunk History. When I first heard about it, I was shocked that these paintings were robbed and then never found. So, I was really excited to watch the docuseries, but I found that there were some issues.
The first episode focuses on the theft and those who were directly affected by it (e.g., the director of the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum, security guards and donors). I think that some of the interviews were completely unnecessary. The director had a unique perspective because she was in charge of the museum, its security and the protection of the pieces inside. However, interviewing the guards and a key benefactor did not add anything to the story.
Several interviews felt pointless and felt like the writers wanted to lengthen the story when it did not need to. There are several theories about where the paintings are today and This is a Robbery goes down all of these rabbit holes by even talking to experts and those with criminal backgrounds in the UK. One of them even asks why they are asking him these questions and seems very angry. It's somewhat of the same emotion I felt because I knew this interview was only a waste of time.
The main issue is that this series needed to be two episodes that detailed the theft and its aftermath. I still found it quite interesting, but it needed to be shorter. Murder Among the Mormons (another amazing Netflix docuseries) was a perfect length and this was just too long. The writers and directors clearly felt a need to talk about a seven year gap after the theft, but I am a little unsure why. All of the information regarding what happened March 18, 1990 did not occur until the late 90s-early 2000s. It's this block of time in the early 90s that the show focuses on that is really damaging.
So, I loved when some answers were finally delivered in the third and fourth episodes. This is a Robbery is very entertaining, but expect the story to move slowly. It is only four episodes and I finished it quickly, so it is easy to get through. Thank you for reading my review.
The first episode focuses on the theft and those who were directly affected by it (e.g., the director of the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum, security guards and donors). I think that some of the interviews were completely unnecessary. The director had a unique perspective because she was in charge of the museum, its security and the protection of the pieces inside. However, interviewing the guards and a key benefactor did not add anything to the story.
Several interviews felt pointless and felt like the writers wanted to lengthen the story when it did not need to. There are several theories about where the paintings are today and This is a Robbery goes down all of these rabbit holes by even talking to experts and those with criminal backgrounds in the UK. One of them even asks why they are asking him these questions and seems very angry. It's somewhat of the same emotion I felt because I knew this interview was only a waste of time.
The main issue is that this series needed to be two episodes that detailed the theft and its aftermath. I still found it quite interesting, but it needed to be shorter. Murder Among the Mormons (another amazing Netflix docuseries) was a perfect length and this was just too long. The writers and directors clearly felt a need to talk about a seven year gap after the theft, but I am a little unsure why. All of the information regarding what happened March 18, 1990 did not occur until the late 90s-early 2000s. It's this block of time in the early 90s that the show focuses on that is really damaging.
So, I loved when some answers were finally delivered in the third and fourth episodes. This is a Robbery is very entertaining, but expect the story to move slowly. It is only four episodes and I finished it quickly, so it is easy to get through. Thank you for reading my review.
Good docu , terrible music
NicolaTesla10 April 2021
Robbery of your time
jcpete-3441413 April 2021
Horribly put together documentary that was undeserving of being on Netflix. So bad. Please don't waste your time watching this series, just Google the case. You'll learn more in 5 minutes doing that than you do watching this sorry excuse for a professionally made documentary.
Allison Wood
basel917112 April 2021
I won't claim to know what you were trying to accomplish, but you certainly got my recognition. The soundtrack is the audio equivalent of eating ghost peppers right after having all your teeth pulled. I'm just some dude on the toilet, but please show mercy on your next project.
Decent documentary
Calicodreamin8 April 2021
A short and concise documentary on the art theft at the Boston Gardener Museum, following the investigations and suspected thiefs. The interviews were relevant and the doc had a good flow. A lot of the museum shots were reused often and story sometimes went a bit off topic.
It didn't need to be this long
leadersteph1 August 2021
based on a real art theft
ksf-217 July 2021
March 18 1990. The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, in Boston Massachusetts. It's a four part documentary. It's stated that Saint Paddy's day in boston is always on sunday, so march 18. Two robbers show up pretending to be cops, responding to a call at 25 Evans Way. But they are really thieves, and take thirteen works of art. Former employee security guard Karen Sangregory narrates the tale of how she arrived at work, and found the scene, the next morning. Anne Hawley, who had been a director of the museum, describes the various paintings that had been roughly cut out of the frames and taken. It's certainly interesting. And sad. One shortcoming is that they use white captions on white backgrounds, which is a no-no. Directed by Colin Barnicle. Won awards for his film on Billy Joel. This is ok... it really should have been a one hour doc. Lots of repetition. It's also odd that one of the security guards that was tied up is included in the film (richard abath), but as of today, is not listed in the credits. Was it a job by one of the local mafia families?
Very enjoyable if you're unfamiliar with the case.
tonytangney11 August 2021
I'm not American so the whole case was new to me. Don't google it before watching it. It goes off on numerous tangents, very entertaining tangents involving the Irish mob, the Italian mob, the IRA and numerous art experts, lawyers, fbi guys, cops and journalists. I developed an appreciation for the main work stolen "Storm on the Sea of Gallilee" by Rembrandt. Its truly a beautiful painting even on TV. Imagine what it like in real life. It's all fun and non violent apart from a few mobsters who get clipped. Negative reviews from art barbarians and mob people. Lol.
Nice documetary with some interesting moments
AvionPrince1610 December 2021
I really liked it. We see all the problems of security of museum and some of people who steal these arts. I really enjoyed it and this is a documentary pretty different than the other documentary offer by netflix and i need to say that the tv show is prety well made. I recommend it.
This can be a 45 minute Documentary
bhttacharjee-saurav8 April 2021
The plot starts off with thrill and surprise, explaining what really happened. Some neat building plans and perspectives. And then it goes down long frustrating rabbit holes of explaining how the mob works, how the mafia works, how small time crooks can be suspect, how art works are smuggled, how guards talk to dead art, how art is love etc.
There is nothing remotely thrilling about the story for large swathes, and it only manages to bore you out. The constant flashforwards become convoluting too. You could leave the show running for 3 episodes and you'd miss nothing.
There is nothing remotely thrilling about the story for large swathes, and it only manages to bore you out. The constant flashforwards become convoluting too. You could leave the show running for 3 episodes and you'd miss nothing.
Absolutely Brilliant Documentary
josepherdman9 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
If you're from the Boston area you've probably heard about this heist. This is incredibly well done. I'm a little surprised about some of the reviews giving it poor scores. It's not a spoiler that this has never been solved as they tell you it is unsolved about a minute into the first episode. It's fascinating all the same. To hear the theories and the listen to the interviews you can formulate your own conclusions and I love that aspect of it.
Really dull documentary
dcreal-759428 April 2021
Best Documentary Yet About the Gardner Museum Art Heist
classicalsteve10 April 2021
The details of the art theft of the Isabella Gardner Museum in 1990 could be the plot of a crime-detective novel. That said, if you're not into art, art theft and the complexities around criminal cases, this might not be the documentary for you. It's not a novel but true crime. And true crime is not often very neat and tidy as in films and novels. They are often messy with many questions left unanswered and different people associated with these cases often having differing opinions.
What everyone agrees on is as follows. In March of 1990 in Boston, two guys posing as policeman around 1:30 am are buzzed into the the Isabella Gardner Museum by a security guard. Less than a minute later, the "policemen" have handcuffed the two museum guards. According to the guards' testimony, the infiltrators admitted they weren't policeman but actually robbers there to steal artwork from the museum. They duct tape the guards and incarcerate them in the museum's basement and embark on a thieving spree for a little over an hour.
For about 80 minutes, they steal several paintings, mostly from the Dutch Room and Blue Room, including two Rembrandt's, two Degas', a Vermeer, a Renoir, and a Manet, collectively worth today probably around $2 billion. The thieves cut the paintings from their frames, suggesting they were not very knowledgeable about fine art, their preservation and potential value. They also steal a Rembrandt etching, some impressionist sketches, a Chinese vase and a worthless French finial. That's basically the sum total of what is agreed upon.
These 80 minutes are quite possibly the most famous (or infamous depending how you look at it) and perplexing time period in the history of art theft, aside from the art plundering enacted by the German Nazis during the Second World War. Why did they choose these particular paintings and not others? One Rembrandt self-portrait appears to have been also a potential victim but was left behind. The oldest item, a Chinese vase from circa 1000 BCE is just about as antique as they come but not worth nearly as much as the paintings, maybe a few thousand dollars. The choices of these paintings and artifacts have puzzled law enforcement and art theft experts and remain an ongoing mystery.
Despite popular misconception, the artworks were probably not the work of a mastermind criminal who hired the thieves to steal the artwork since the thieves mistreated the pieces. A scene in "Dr. No" with Sean Connery as James Bond has popularized this idea. Stolen art is typically used as collateral by the underworld. The current theory as proposed by the documentary is that the stolen Gardner art was intended by organized crime, probably either the Irish Mob or the Italian Cosa Nostra, i.e. The Mafia, as collateral either for illegal transactions or to get reduced prison sentences.
In the first scenario, Mob A is selling illegal drugs to Mob B worth millions. Mob B is wary of giving Mob A money upfront until they receive the goods. So Mob B "lends" Mob A priceless art as collateral until Mob A delivers the goods. Mob B pays Mob A for the goods and retrieves the artwork. In the second scenario, Mobster C is in prison but he knows the whereabouts of stolen priceless fine art being cared for by Mobster D who is not in prison. Mobster D tells authorities he'll reveal the whereabouts of the artwork in exchange for the release of Mobster C and the reward money, in this case around $5 million being offered by the Gardner Museum.
This last scenario almost came to fruition according to the documentary. A journalist was shown one of the Rembrandt's by a mobster (D) whose colleague languished in prison (Mobster C). Also photos of the other Rembrandt were mailed to authorities. But the FBI wouldn't finalize the deal. Their rationale: there wasn't quite enough evidence that these were the real paintings. I am disappointed as it seems there could have been ways to make the deal happen. They could have made "Mobster D" sign an agreement that if the paintings were fake, both he and Mobster C would be rearrested. The $5 million could have been held in escrow. But sadly, law enforcement was more concerned about possibly setting a "bad" precedent than getting the paintings.
A fascinating but simultaneously infuriating and perplexing case of the greatest art theft in world history which still remains unresolved to this day. However, the documentary reveals the most likely scenarios regarding what probably did happen. So from a criminal standpoint, the case is solved. Authorities pretty much know who did it. However, from an art theft perspective, the artworks remain missing which seems to be the crux of the matter rather than the perpetrators.
What everyone agrees on is as follows. In March of 1990 in Boston, two guys posing as policeman around 1:30 am are buzzed into the the Isabella Gardner Museum by a security guard. Less than a minute later, the "policemen" have handcuffed the two museum guards. According to the guards' testimony, the infiltrators admitted they weren't policeman but actually robbers there to steal artwork from the museum. They duct tape the guards and incarcerate them in the museum's basement and embark on a thieving spree for a little over an hour.
For about 80 minutes, they steal several paintings, mostly from the Dutch Room and Blue Room, including two Rembrandt's, two Degas', a Vermeer, a Renoir, and a Manet, collectively worth today probably around $2 billion. The thieves cut the paintings from their frames, suggesting they were not very knowledgeable about fine art, their preservation and potential value. They also steal a Rembrandt etching, some impressionist sketches, a Chinese vase and a worthless French finial. That's basically the sum total of what is agreed upon.
These 80 minutes are quite possibly the most famous (or infamous depending how you look at it) and perplexing time period in the history of art theft, aside from the art plundering enacted by the German Nazis during the Second World War. Why did they choose these particular paintings and not others? One Rembrandt self-portrait appears to have been also a potential victim but was left behind. The oldest item, a Chinese vase from circa 1000 BCE is just about as antique as they come but not worth nearly as much as the paintings, maybe a few thousand dollars. The choices of these paintings and artifacts have puzzled law enforcement and art theft experts and remain an ongoing mystery.
Despite popular misconception, the artworks were probably not the work of a mastermind criminal who hired the thieves to steal the artwork since the thieves mistreated the pieces. A scene in "Dr. No" with Sean Connery as James Bond has popularized this idea. Stolen art is typically used as collateral by the underworld. The current theory as proposed by the documentary is that the stolen Gardner art was intended by organized crime, probably either the Irish Mob or the Italian Cosa Nostra, i.e. The Mafia, as collateral either for illegal transactions or to get reduced prison sentences.
In the first scenario, Mob A is selling illegal drugs to Mob B worth millions. Mob B is wary of giving Mob A money upfront until they receive the goods. So Mob B "lends" Mob A priceless art as collateral until Mob A delivers the goods. Mob B pays Mob A for the goods and retrieves the artwork. In the second scenario, Mobster C is in prison but he knows the whereabouts of stolen priceless fine art being cared for by Mobster D who is not in prison. Mobster D tells authorities he'll reveal the whereabouts of the artwork in exchange for the release of Mobster C and the reward money, in this case around $5 million being offered by the Gardner Museum.
This last scenario almost came to fruition according to the documentary. A journalist was shown one of the Rembrandt's by a mobster (D) whose colleague languished in prison (Mobster C). Also photos of the other Rembrandt were mailed to authorities. But the FBI wouldn't finalize the deal. Their rationale: there wasn't quite enough evidence that these were the real paintings. I am disappointed as it seems there could have been ways to make the deal happen. They could have made "Mobster D" sign an agreement that if the paintings were fake, both he and Mobster C would be rearrested. The $5 million could have been held in escrow. But sadly, law enforcement was more concerned about possibly setting a "bad" precedent than getting the paintings.
A fascinating but simultaneously infuriating and perplexing case of the greatest art theft in world history which still remains unresolved to this day. However, the documentary reveals the most likely scenarios regarding what probably did happen. So from a criminal standpoint, the case is solved. Authorities pretty much know who did it. However, from an art theft perspective, the artworks remain missing which seems to be the crux of the matter rather than the perpetrators.
Dull times 4
cubelodyte16 April 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
