Atentado en Londres: La cacería tras las bombas del 7/7

It seems today's storytellers really have a difficult time conveying time frame and accepting that time changes. What is acceptable today will not be acceptable sometime in the very near future. Whilst it does use a lot of real footage and photos, and talks with a few survivors, it does not go far enough. It is disjointed at times and doesn't speak to enough survivors. When a very specific demographic succeeds in blowing up a lot of places in the biggest International city on the planet, you do not go around looking for people that are opposite of said demographic; and we don't want to be preached to about it since we lived through it. If a 5'11 140 lb male 20 - 30 yr old is the perp/suspect, you don't target a 4' 200 lb 70 year old female. To find fault with investigators 20 years after the fact is Asinine. To even bring it up just goes to show that in 2025 people care more about optics than actually saving people's lives; and to preach about how awful it was that police targeted a specific demographic now is a slap in the face to the survivors and victim's family members; and severely minimises the true fear of a population of over 8 million AT THE TIME. I would love to see how these hypocrites would react if they actually lived through an attack on their family member, or themselves. Is it absolutely tragic that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed - yes- AND it's really easy to armchair quarterback that in 2025. The jacka$$e$ that did this were a very specific demographic. That is a fact. You cannot go searching for the opposite and expect to get the criminals. Plus the makers of this series completely forget that Londoners live with bomb attacks - for decades and generations. There was WWI, the Troubles started in 1920, WWII, the Troubles continuing until 2008, and terror attacks in recent years. This series was somehow uploaded out of sequence, so episode three is actually episode four, and episode 4 is actually episode three, so I had to watch it twice. It is appalling and quite astounding that these four idiots only received a minimum 40. What's even more disturbing is that you cannot find any information at all about them. Just like the idiots that attacked NYC. It tells me that England, like the US, has used these idiots to catch bigger fish. Abu Hamza, which radicalised these idiots at least got a life sentence in NY. These four should have been displayed at Traitor's Gate in 2005.

The capital city of our fair land has become the scene of a devastating and cowardly series of terrorist attacks.

Personally, I was at the scene of the attack just two days before it happened; it changed the way I viewed life. Something so very ordinary and mundane became something so uncertain and uncomfortable.

Episode one explores the events, the fallout, and the buildup. From the end of episode two onward, it focuses very heavily on blaming the police; for me, the anger was aimed at the wrong people. It's a fair series; I thought the first episode was particularly good, but the rest of it is average at best.

A lot of time is spent on the tragic death of Jean Charles; his death was heartbreaking and wrong, but more vitriol was placed on the police than on the bombers.

I had a feeling The Guardian would give this a five-star review. It savages the police but not the perpetrators; it ignores legitimate fears people had. It's a good documentary, but it's flawed.

6/10.

Pros:

It focuses on the title "Hunting the bombers" and just that.

Topic is vastly researched and no bias at all.

Cons:

Can do more. It had a lot of potential and did not cover Samatha Lewthwaite at all except in a 3 second photograph.

Post arrest story is missing. How the govt tackled the terrorism groups and after math of it.

As I started the documentary i was pretty excited in anticipation of how the terror group went down. But as I ended the documentary i left with a feeling of dissapointment since the makers have covered only the bombers not people behind them. I believe the victims would want to know how the evil has been tackled by their government.

I didn't know much about 7/7 as I was relatively young when it happened and I didn't care much about the world beyond my neighborhood. Also 9/11 takes most of the attention when it comes to stories about terrorism for obvious reasons, so other terrible events like the London, Boston and Madrid attacks get a distant second spot. So it's good to hear the story of the 7/7 victims and survivors as well as the first responders. I wish the documentary didn't resort to so many production cliches that are so predictable and distracting like interviewing amputees with a closed up shot to later give you a wide shot of his missing legs, the digital clocks counting down and the Minority Report style geo locators with their silly "computer sound". With so much access to material and stories the director could have done something much more interesting and powerful, instead of just copy and paste all the same tricks and artifacts we have seen hundreds of times.

The documentary was fine, not super compelling but generally interesting if not bland.

It is pitiful to watch the relative of the man who was shot by the police. She says the police lied lied lied lied lied, but the story that the suspect jumped over the turnstiles was perpetrated by the public, not by the police. So perhaps you are the liar ma'am.

It is so easy to criticize the police in any situation. In fact the police can almost never win. If you don't do enough, citizens are dying due to terrorist attacks. If you do too much, an innocent life may be taken by accident. You must execute your job with absolute perfection, and then perhaps 25% of the people will think that you did it correctly.

This documentary highlights that people are unbelievably unrealistic and ignorant. In the vast majority of cases, the police are trying their best to do the job and you couldn't do any better.

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. Hi.