Stolen: Heist of the Century

From the outset, it's unclear whether we're watching a faithful reconstruction of real events or a Blair Witch-style fiction. That ambiguity seems deliberate, and while it unsettles, it also piques curiosity.

The restrained tone in presenting the events is appreciated-it enhances their plausibility. I understand that stories like this require certain narrative and stylistic liberties, and overall, the staging works.

However, as the film progresses, inconsistencies begin to emerge, creating narrative dissonance. By the end, the viewer is likely left with basic, even crucial questions that the director appears to have deliberately avoided. That omission not only weakens the story but leaves the audience with a lingering sense of emptiness.

What initially promised to be a compelling documentary ultimately dissolves into a narrative that doesn't dare to close its own doors. In the end, you're left with a "well... I guess that's it," when you were hoping for something far more impactful.

I don't think I have ever written a review of a documentary. Having seen many good documentaries, I was interested in watching this one. What a disappointment! It is just a continuous natterring of a cop's voice with some background assumed happening of the heist. Watching this was a total bore and no facts were laid bare other than assumptions. Eventually it comes to a conclusion after 1 and a half hours, but by then I was totally fed-up and sorry I watched it to conclusion.

No pun intended - no promises either? Well if a movie (or documentary in this case) promises so much (see title) ... well most of the time it will not really be able to hold up to anything close to that. And I would argue the same is true for this one too.

Don't get me twisted, it is a good documentary, nice interviews ... very well constructed ... but is it as big as it promises? Well I'd say no - also some people who are not fluent in every language spoken on planet earth (ok I am exaggerating, but you get my point) might feel left out here - not everyone likes subtitles as much as I do .. and some others. True crime addicts will never get bored of course ...

1. The heist was carried out in 2003, so one week after that incident, the main culprit comes back to diamond building and the detective gets a call to his android mobile phone while he driving his bike to home. I mean seriously!! The android phone in 2003!.

2. The day of heist is Feb 15th and 16th of 2003. They showed us that cctv the video cassettes were missing for those 2 days that's fine. But they revealed that after performing that heist in 15th night, the robbers take out the cassettes of 11th Feb from the rack and at that time there were no cassettes of 15th and 16th and the cassettes of 17, 18, ,19, and 20th of Feb are there in that row ( this happens in 15tg night).

I mean how the hell are those cassettes got missed on the same date? And how the hell the cassettes of next 4 days were kept there ( you can't have cctv footage of tomorrow and day after tomorrow on today right??)

The story of the 2003 diamond theft in Antwerp.

The film consists of interviews with the main convict and the police officers investigating the case. Each tells their own version of the story, and each has a different one. Although it is a documentary, it is very reminiscent of outstanding feature films such as Kurosawa's "Rashomon" from 1950 or Singer's "The Usual Suspects" from 1995.

A very well-made film (though at times overdramatized) about the fact that we will likely never know exactly what happened during the Antwerp robbery.