Cómo robar un banco

It was an interesting and well done documentary, but the major flaw was that it tended to make a hero out of the villain.

ABOUT MY REVIEWS:

I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable.

A deep look into a bandit's life who lived in a time ahead of his actual era. Whole mission was to paint this notorious criminal in a different shade that's not seen by many. In any reality theft is severely damaging but looking at Scott's behavior, his approach and his giving back signs us towards a rebellious side of the character. He engaged in a chaotic, unbeatable battle with a behemoth that most people can't even look at, much less yell at. So this reunion of both sides to narrate explicitly how Hollywood's story went down is greatly entertaining. Excellent visuals and footage. Makes this documentary well worth the time.

A very good crime documentary, and a story that holds you from start to finish. From Olympia, Washington, home of Nirvana and grunge music, the bank robber dubbed "Hollywood" was born.

After reading Ann Rule's book "The End of the Dream, The Golden Boy Who Never Grew Up" I was fascinated with the story of Scott Scurlock and his band of merry cohorts. You can learn how his friends grew to love him and were prepared to be a part of his plans. Much more in depth, especially his early years in college. I don't condone what he did by any stretch of the imagination, but his story is a very compelling one.

HOW TO ROB A BANK presents the story of Scott Scurlock (aka "Hollywood") with the sleek polish of a Hollywood production, and with it, all the ideological sleight of hand and worship of the status quo that such egregeious gloss often entails. What could have been a radical examination of an individual who chose creativity over conformity, rebellion over resignation, and of a system that has and continues to feed economic disparity instead becomes another tool of state narrative management: criminal genius reduced to cautionary tale, and the asinine police and fumbling FBI cast (predictably) as heroic.

Scurlock was no ordinary thief. With a keen intellect and flair for prosthetics, he transformed himself into a modern trickster, robbing banks with planning, style, and without resorting to violence. And yet, the documentary, like the institutions it seems loath to question, goes out of its way to paint him as dangerous, invoking TV news propaganda, inflated threat assessments, and vague trauma testimonies, just in case the audience forgets who they're supposed to root for.

The police, despite their historical penchant for surveillance over substance, are made to look competent through the sheer luck of circumstance. Scurlock wasn't caught by any masterful sleuthing; the house of cards simply collapsed. HOW TO ROB A BANK frames this as inevitability, as if daring to challenge capitalism was always doomed to fail.

This doc wants the thrill of outlaw glamour without the political discomfort of its implications. Scurlock's story, had it been told honestly, could have stood as a critique of a society that leaves no space for brilliance outside sanctioned pathways. Instead, the system wins again, on screen and off.

True crime doc based on a string of bank robberies in 90s Seattle, this is a decent show coming in at 86 mins. Anything more would have been too drawn out, glad they decided not to go the three episode route with this story.

There's not much to watch visually; while there are some old clips and photos used, the doc mainly uses old audio and interviews from the present time. Several motion posters have also been used. So, you can either play it in the background or if you'd rather 'watch this as a podcast', that'll work too. If you have 1.5 hrs to spare and aren't sure what watch as a true crime content enthusiast, this should be on your list.

I wonder if Netflix true crime docs are all beginning to look and sound the same.