Treasures from the Wreck of the Unbelievable

I'll give kudos to the actual film crew for a cinematically beautiful piece of fiction, but anyone promoting this as a documentary should be sued for false advertising. While I'll admit that most of the actual sculptures are lovely pieces of art, the artist failed miserably to capture historical accuracy in the styles he attempted to replicate. The medusa head genuinely gave me the impression Harry Hamlin had just dropped it. If you like mockumentaries with good production quality, you might enjoy giving up an hour and twenty minutes of your life to this flick. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

OK first calm down here those who yell fraud. I watched this and totally bought into the premise that this was a real documentary. When I found out it wasn't I still enjoyed the fact that I was duped and want to watch again to pick up on the clues I missed. I love me a good mockumentary!

I totally believed it! I'm so gullible. I followed the whole thing to the end thinking that I'd one day go to Italy and see this exhibit. I'm such a dork!!

I clicked on it in Netflix assuming it was a documentary - and of course that is my assumption. It's clearly listed as a drama.

I kept thinking it smelt suspect... everything was too good to be true. The shots too good. I'd not heard anyone talk about it. The notion that you'd have all this film crew for something that hadn't even been confirmed yet etc. But I carried on with it assuming it was me being cynical and they were using artistic licence.

It was at the 40 minute mark that I couldn't take it any longer and knew it must be fake and I hopped to IMDb and found out its true nature.

I kinda admire that. This is art transgressing boundaries. Cutting through the realms of dross that Netflix almost force feeds to us. To inspire a bit of magic.

All the people outraged, what else would you be doing? Watching American Celebrities Making Cakes With Clowns?

I admire its brazenness - he did say it was the ship of the Unbelievable. It was there to see, in plain sight.

My main complaint is I like to learn, particularly about the Roman era - and is any of it true? That's my one concern. Were any of the stories true? If we're creating fictional Roman history when there's so much that can be learnt in a great Mary Beard book that's a bit of a shame.

But all too often we have so much wonder in our lives, outside our doors... but we're not interested unless it's magic or a blog is telling us we must Instagram it. This is a little reminder that there is wonder out there being made every day.

Like others, I assumed this was a factual documentary up to the end. (However, I follow a lot of science and history news, and was confused how I had never heard about this before). Not only that, but there were several instances where I was convinced (during the first half) that this was a docu-drama. There are a few things Hirst mentions about history which gives the film some support. History is highly subjective and "written by the winners," as the phrase goes. I do not view this film as a test of gullibility, but rather, as a way for people to consider that the truths of history, in the end, are almost always skewed due to subjectivity. Some of the artwork is stunning, but it gets out of hand. Although, knowing this is not real, I will have a hard time recommending it to others, especially people who are not familiar with Hirst's work. I barely knew about him from a previous documentary I saw covering his artwork.