Waco: The Aftermath (2023) User Reviews

Pretty entertaining.

[lucas_mrz · 8/10 · 19 May 2023]

As with other films/shows regarding sensible topics, I would like to start by saying that I'm not from the U. S., just so you know this review has no bias whatsoever. I also want to point out that I had no knowledge of what happened in Waco before watching the first part of this series (Waco - 2018), and that this is now all the "knowledge" I have about it. So I can't speak for the historical accuracy.

What I can speak about is the entertainment value of this series, which in my opinion is the whole point. I mean, if you are looking for accuracy, you better watch a documentary. And as an entertainment product this was very good. It felt gripping from start to finish, the same way the first part was. Good performances all around, good dialogues, nice pacing, and even courtroom drama.

If you enjoyed the first part you will surely enjoy this.

Great acting. But very one sided

[gregisroark · 7/10 · 9 May 2023]

Overall the acting and the storytelling is great. But I've read a good deal about Waco and the writing is very one sided. While the writers are painting the FBI/ATF and the authorities in general in an accurate negative light, they certainly are making the Branch Davidians look like innocent anti-heros. They are glossing over a great deal of the insanity that was taking place there.

I will be honest, if it wasn't for the actors I would have stopped watching by now. But they really do a great job. And the writing style and storytelling is very intriguing and keeps you interested. I just wish they were taking a more equal stance.

A bit unnecessary but enjoyable

[Jimmycakes · 6/10 · 11 July 2023]

Overall I feel like the show missed a big opportunity to build on a lot of the conspiracy aspects of the Waco incident (think Waco: Rules of Engagement documentary meets The People v. O. J. Simpson,) and turned this into a incredible court room focused drama with some flashbacks. Ultimately this is 3 stories crammed into 5 episodes. The the trial of the Branch Davidians; Gary Noesner and his uncovering of para military groups; and David Koresh's origin story.

Each story feels quite thin and vague, either not enough time to properly flesh out the characters and backstory or there just really isn't much material to explore. The Gary Noesner plotline especially feels like filler and a quick way to try and bring tension and action.

Many one dimensional characters and stories throughout and the series is rapidly switching back and forth between them. Compared to season 1 which keeps us at Mount Carmel with our characters and only slight deviations, this is why I believe only focusing on the trial would have been more entertaining and engaging. There are some shining stand out moments though.

Right off the bat I have to mention Giovanni Ribisi as the lawyer representing the Branch Davidians, in every scene he's such an interesting actor to watch but we don't spend enough time with him and to appreciate his relationship with the Branch Davidians and see it grow.

The actor playing Branch Davidian Clive Doyle is totally believable and creates a sympathetic and human character, but again, it's a shame the series jumps about so much, we just never get to stay with them.

Not one sided at all.

[carrthedemonhunter · 10/10 · 12 May 2023]

Seeing reviews that this shows the Branch Davidians as "innocent anti-heroes" and that the FBI/ATF and the authorities in general are being shown negatively. Not only is this not true (the show frequently criticizes the surviving Branch Davidians, for one), but even if it were true that would only be testament to how evil the government acted. What this show does not do is what many, including the government, tried to do which is blanket label them all crazy suicidal murderers and unfairly (an unfairness that was proven in court) convict them on this basis.

I highly recommend you give this show a watch only after finishing the first series as it will provide much context that I'm not certain many people have if they never watched it/forgot important details.

Script is better than the production style and Ribisi

[hosenoggin · 6/10 · 2 June 2023]

There's certain things that I like and quite a few that I don't about this production. I've never been a big fan of chronological mayhem, when the timeline is bouncing erratically all over the place just like this was. It is a trick used by many of these miniseries to help stretch a two hour movie story into 20 hours of streaming service boredom.

Although this was actually a good script if it was presented chronologically consistent, the use of Giovanni Ribisi in a main role was the huge mistake. I have commented about his acting... or should I say lack of acting ability on other productions. But this one... he was so miscast it was just annoying. His thin voice and mumbling just makes it too hard to watch.

Once again, thank VLC for the ability to watch this in a player that allows 2.0 times the speed which definitely sped up not only the time to watch it, but the story pace reducing this to what it should've been.... a two hour movie.

One of the best government exposes I've ever seen.

[sbharbison · 10/10 · 17 May 2023]

I knew about Waco but never paid attention to the mind-blowing information that came to light afterward.

I thought this series did a fantastic job of explaining the views of all sides. Waco and Waco: The Aftermath should be mandatory viewing for high schoolers.

As someone else said, the self-serving rules Karesh made re. Sex could have been covered more thoroughly. Karesh made a rule against anyone else having sex, even married couples. But he was allowed to have sex and impregnate even very young girls. That situation did warrant government intervention.

As the series explained, the ATF and the FBI used competing tactics to extract the members. The results were tragic.

I thought the actors were all well cast and they did a great job. There were many facets to this story, but it was all easy to follow.

I think the show is a perfect example of how to shed light on how our government and courts really work.

More historically accurate than season 1, but with worse acting and storytelling

[JurijFedorov · 7/10 · 7 December 2023]

Historical accuracy: 6

Acting: 4 Camera work: 7 Editing: 7 Budget: 7 Story: 6 Theme: 6 Pure entertainment factor: 6 Video quality: 8 Special effects: NA Pacing: 7 Suspension of disbelief: 4 Non-cringe factor: 6 Lack of flashbacks: 4

I loved the acting in season 1. It was so spectacular that I overlooked the extreme propaganda. We all know FBI and ATF messed up big time. It's one of the main government errors of the 20th century USA. But they didn't just mess up by themselves as shown in the season. Not even close. It was an extreme cult where the cult leader openly took lovers who had husbands and even got kids with underage girls. And then instead of making sure to keep the situation and his cult safe he locked them in a room to let the fire take them as he himself knew it was the end for him and therefore didn't care about anyone else. His own wives and children. The whole cult followed him blindly and let their young wives or underage daughters sleep with the cult leader and then claim he only did it because it's God's command. This season loosely mentions this controversial stuff at least, but yet again doesn't explore it which is a shame. In season 1 they didn't even mention the child brides stuff and showed him as uninterested in sex - a laughable depiction.

Who shot first? Again, from all the knowledge we have the cult did shoot first. Not that it matters much as anything can set this stuff off in a stand-off and maybe some evidence is not clear. FBI and ATF may be amateurish, but shooting at women and children is not something they would ever do eagerly. This TV show shows the government shooting first for some reason. And the agents overall are evil and mean. Which is a choice made for season 1 as we follow the cult leader and therefore have to see some good in him. In real life there was more to the story. A deeper theme, more mistakes happening on both sides, basically season 1 dumbed it down for a modern audience with a good and bad side. But how can you possibly depict a real life trial when you just made up a bunch of stuff about the event? You can't. You have written yourself into a corner and have to focus on the flashbacks as those you can be creative with yet again because there were fewer witnesses. One thing I think filmmakers miss is that you can actually make a side look WORSE when showing the true story. Because when you make up stuff viewers pick up on it and your political biases just make you look silly instead of creating powerful propaganda spreading your message. The real story is anti-government anyhow. All agree on this.

The second season follows the trial, a White power terrorist group, and is also a prequel. Which can be extremely fascinating if done right. I adore trial movies and TV shows. Unfortunately the flashbacks make it so that you never really get to follow any storyline or point. We just jump around all over the place also making the acting pointless as we never really deep dive into a scene or setting. Which is what made season 1 amazing.

Here they jump from person to person. Flashbacks are used to show people and what they did, still focusing on a somewhat fictive retelling of the cult avoiding much of the extremely controversial stuff for good reason. But the storytelling becomes disjointed. The story is "there are bad groups and people in the US agencies". Which is fine as a gist, but viewers will require a stronger focus on character arcs. Replacing Taylor Kitsch with an unknown actor shows that the show is indeed not focusing on character arcs or actor focus. Taylor Kitsch agreed to the first season because they built a full compound for him to be the cult leader in and the main focus. Plus they removed all the controversial stuff about the cult leader. So he could live there and act out scenes by himself for a long time before the cameras even arrived. Big actors require this and a cut together storyline is lower quality with actors not really performing. This could still work with perfect filmmaking. Yet the acting is subpar because the script is not that great. So the actors try to make up for the lack of storyline by overacting with emotional outbursts. Which doesn't cover up the story hole. It just makes it more obvious.

The prequel and sequel in one is also a weird choice that they wrote themselves into because season 1 overlooked all the controversial stuff about how the cult started and what it was to instead show the cult as a peaceful hippie gathering. So they obviously had 2 stories left to tell. They were required to depict the cult in a truer way to make sure the trial made any sense. But the prequel stuff should have been done as the first 2-3 episodes of season 1 instead of messing up season 2 with flashbacks. Though I appreciate how they now finally go into the messy stuff of the cult. Yet they still try to make it look more honorable than it really was overlooking some spicy controversial stuff. I liked the concept of adding a right-wing Christian cult to this as they expanded the story into the Oklahoma City Bombing that indeed was caused by the cultural aftershocks from Waco that made the fringe right-wing extra popular in USA. This cult is clearly evil here with members being openly neo-Nazis. It's just a shame the show didn't lean into this theme. Maybe even showing the flashback cult church scenes right before showing a similar right-wing cult in a similar private Christian church. It would show a maturity by the writers in that they finally see why the cult was not just full of great people only and how it could have become more destructive over time. Even though some cult members were largely victims even letting themselves burn alive instead of surrendering to the agents. The TV show acts like season 1 was the truth. That they didn't want to end themselves after their leader died. But this is just not what the evidence shows. I know it sounds like a "pro FBI" point, but I actually think this complexity would reveal more errors because you can see how it's not just evilness causing errors, but illogical fallacies too making them look extra incompetent as you can't just fire people to improve the situation in such a case. You have to work hard on info gathering and education. And this is impossible to do over a few decades. While if you assume a few meanies caused this then firing them indeed would solve the problem fully.

You could watch it without watching season 1 and enjoy it for what it is in a greater way. Overall it's quite decent and worth a watch as it never gets dull and also focuses on part of US history that is quite obscure. Since season 1 was very much ahistorical in many ways I just assume this is too. But I don't know much about this trial so I can't say. I can only judge the cult stuff and that part is iffy here for sure. But vastly improved over season 1 and frankly I would accept this as historically accurate to a larger degree if they showed even more bad stuff done by the cult to make up for season 1. Plus they added more real life characters like the attractive neo-Nazi blonde who was an actual informant.

You MUST watch this!

[rezabarzegar-39617 · 10/10 · 1 July 2023]

Short answer would be, it's a great story. The actors were good, i believe the story was fair, and I can't wait for more shows like this one.

As someone who is neither American nor Christian, and I'm not even white! :p so i can honestly say I have no horse in this race, and yet i watched this series and the prequel twice! That's how good this is

As for the story, it was really deep, and it made me ask myself lots of questions! Questions that I perhaps wouldn't have thought of, had it not been for this show. For example, even though koresh was a false prophet, was it really OK to judge,punish and/or kill his followers, for believing his false prophecies? His prophecies about the events at waco weren't even wrong! It's just that he was lying about being the messiah,I believe. Is it wrong to lie to people about god? Yes, but then again, there were hundreds of religions throughout our history, and many of those religions are proven to be false and/or wrong! Which means there were people who lied to their followers about talking to some god, long before koresh thought of the idea! Do we treat all those believers, some of them still living among us today, and believing in their ancestor's mythologies, as cultist or terrorists? No we don't. How many of today's religions and branches of religions or ideologies, are going to be remembered as BS in tomorrow's history books? Does that mean we should prosecute the people who bought them? I believe not. So with that piece of advice, I invite you to watch/rewatch this mini series,and judge for yourself, who was right? Guns or no guns, the ATF had no rights to invade and kill all those people in their home, without any provocations.

Better than I thought it would be

[noahputt · 7/10 · 20 January 2024]

I didn't realize this series was in connection with 2018's mostly forgettable "Waco". I found "Aftermath" much more intriguing.

Serving as both a prequel and sequel to "Waco", it tells parts of the story that are less known and which might raise more difficult (and sadly relevant) questions than the story of the actual raid and stand-off can, at least for anyone who's already familiar with the story. Unfortunately, the creators don't want to get messy enough to fully wrestle with the bigger questions it almost raises.

The strongest part of the series is the courtroom drama conspiracy trial of surviving Koresh followers. Ribisi, a perennially underappreciated actor, offers the most compelling portrayal in the series as the survivors' defense attorney. As a reported scientologist in real life, it's a little ironic that Ribisi's character is at times both defensive and accusatory of his clients regarding their blind devotion to Koresh as a cult leader.

The prequel portion of the series, the Koresh origin story, is pretty hokey. Brief snippets from "Waco" and Taylor Kitsch's portrayal of Koresh (whose performance was one of that series's strengths) only further expose the weaknesses of Keean Johnson's immature performance. And asking the audience to believe that Johnson somehow physically transformed into Kitsch in only a few short years is a pretty big ask.

But Michael Shannon, reprising his role as FBI agent Gary Noesner, is surprisingly one of the weakest links of the series. He seems to be mostly sleepwalking through this one. Maybe his character is tired from all the sleepless nights after his involvement at Waco? Whatever the case, it doesn't really work here and his scenes tend to drag the story down.

As for the McVeigh/Nichols interjections, they're thematically and historically important as far as the fallout of Waco is concerned, but they often feel like afterthoughts instead of aftermath.

The series tries its hardest to humanize everyone involved-perhaps even those who arguably don't deserve to be humanized-in order to show that labeling enemies as "evil" only leads to more violence and destruction. Fair enough. But it's a little too neat to reduce the lessons of Waco to "can't we all just get along?"

Very good. A fairly accurate depiction of events

[alec_fisher · 10/10 · 9 June 2023]

Well written, well acted and addictive viewing. Binge watched this over 2 days.

What I found most interesting was my pre conceived ideas about the branch Davidian's were ill informed (by incessant negative media coverage). They were a lot more sane, rational and human than I had previously thought.

A good pointo worth making is that it showed both sides of the story. It did show the deficiencies in the FBI and ATF tactics and the davidian members who were not entirely innocent themselves.

Michael Shannon (who would make a very good Frankenstein) and Giovanni Ribisi put in a good shift here. Acting is top notch.

Sends the Wrong Message at a Dangerous Time.

[jburtonprod-802-759029 · 4/10 · 14 May 2023]

I'm very confused about what the point was for this mini-series. In it's attempts to bend over backward to be fair they cast the government, once again, as the bad guy.

The trial isn't historically accurate. It had more defendants and it ended far more favorably for the majority of them. The Tim McVeigh/Neo-Nazi story-line is presented as if the U. S. government was begging for Oklahoma City to happen. It was not.

What happened in Mt. Carmel was a tragic series of accidents with David Koresh's self-fulfilling martyr complex dooming the Branch Davidians. What McVeigh did was a unconscionable act of terrorism and mass murder.

The U. S. government is presented as weak, petty, mean spirited and clueless. I could easily see this series being played in Proud Boys and other fascist militia functions as a recruiting film.

The first mini-series did a far better job of pointing out the faults on both sides. Waco was a tragic accident. It was never justification for domestic terrorism or the rise of neo-Nazism.

There can never be 'middle ground' between a democracy and fascism. This series was poorly conceived and executed and sends the totally wrong message at a very dangerous time.

Cue the Tinfoil Hat Crowd

[srussell1234 · 4/10 · 18 May 2023]

OK - yes - this is a terrible series. Inaccurate and fodder for the fire that burns in all who see a government conspiracy behind every bush. So - if that is your thing - then definitely watch this series - it will work hard to confirm that your ethos is indeed valid.

If you are a relatively normal person who watches network news and reads occasionally and does not rely on Reddit for your "secret" news than you will not have an enjoyable time.

Huge gaps of logic abound and you might get dizzy from shaking your head so often. On the positive side - the acting and writing is top notch - the flow and pacing is good - this is an idea that could have been so much more than it turned out to be.

A bit of a disaster, but not compared to Waco itself

[bojlhdiafkhdq · 4/10 · 18 August 2023]

I recommend seeing even just the 45 minute short film "Waco: Clive Doyle: In Defense Of" over this mess. Some annoying characters are in Waco: The Aftermath including a wacky judge who was basically nothing like the actual judge in the trial. As the trial goes on it starts to feel a little more realistic but it definitely takes a corny start. I should say something positive first, after all I am giving a few stars here. The actor who played Doyle was spot-on and I felt it was well done. Not so much for David Koresh. The good things kind of end there if I'm being honest. Giovanni Ribisi portraying Dan Cogdell was terrible and he was definitely the most annoying character, even just his voice is like nails on a chalkboard, although he did became more likeable once the trial was deeper. One of my biggest problems was the whole thing with the female informant and this idea that Michael Shannon knew what was coming and tried to stop it, when really they had no idea. Additionally it was proven that Timothy McVeigh acted alone and any sort of "help" was a conspiracy. Did he learn things from militia groups? Sure, but he acted alone and interpreted the Turner Diaries very literally. The likeness with the actor choice for Tim was there, but he looked a little too old and there were just too many inaccuracies for me to appreciate the portrayal. Additionally. Lois Roden was much older, much more of a grandmother and just simply felt wrong the way she was portrayed. Overall this series is messy much like Waco itself and there are better series out there that will save you time.