Stolen: Heist of the Century

This show feels like it's just telling you a story , no drama, no gimmicks, no "wait till the next twist" nonsense. It's rare to see something on Netflix in 2025 that's this subtle and still holds your attention without even trying.

The plot isn't stretched thin, and nothing feels forced. It moves at a pace that's natural, slow enough to feel real but never boring. You just... keep watching. Not because you're desperate to know "what happens next," but because it's simply good storytelling.

If you need non-stop suspense or a jaw-drop every 10 minutes, this isn't for you. But if you like stories that feel real, characters you believe in, and an overall vibe that's calm but still magnetic, this is such a refreshing watch. Sometimes the best shows don't scream for your attention - they just stay with you.

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.

As a huge fan of documentaries, I can say that this is my favorite of 2025 and probably in my top ten overall. The story of how these men pulled off a diamond heist from the diamond capital of the world-- in a building that could be described as Belgium's fort Knox-- kept me intrigued from start to finish. I'll spare the details, but suffice to say that this team had to think of everything and took their time doing it. It really kept me on the edge of my seat, as if I was watching a Mission Impossible movie the entire time.

I can't recommend this documentary enough.

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.

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??)