Maybe it doesn't have every detail as to why things went so terribly wrong but it seems to have a lot of the information. Great show and a real eye opener to what could possibly happen.
4 Reviews
Great show!
murphaa19 November 2021
A complete joke
alcyone-1736716 November 2021
This is one of the absolute worst shows I've seen on Natgeo. For starters, it's packed full of commercial breaks which are tedious to skip. It lacks critical and important details surrounding the events that it covers, in favor of repeat shock scenes and idiotic commentary from the stars. Some of the personality starts they have are unqualified and have nothing worthwhile to contribute besides obvious comments and fed lines that they wouldn't be able to come up with themselves (i.e. Sian proctor). Do yourself a favor and skip this one. It's sad how bad TV has deteriorated these days. I remember when Natgeo used to have good shows like Taboo, not jokes like this.
Coffer-filler for the makers, low quality fodder for the masses
qwerqwerqwerqwer-4131921 February 2022
Since google fails us by not providing user review function for this programme, it was necessary to go through the tedium of installing IMDB app, registration with their annoying verification bs, just to review it. That's how powerful the compulsion to let the makers know how insulting is their treatment of the viewer here.
Like a fatigue crack in a component, the well-worn formula of disaster footage, commentator soundbite, flashbacks, more disaster footage, commentary, rinse/ repeat with the solution provided within 5 minutes approx, of the end of the show, is bound to fail. Catastrophically.
The explanations are pitched at 5-year-olds. 3 people are edited in consecutively saying the same thing in only slightly different ways. Commentary is fatuous 'bringing it closer to catastrophic collapse' (just 'closer to collapse' would suffice thanks-OF COURSE IT'S CATASTROPHIC!)(I agree with the reviewer who singles out Sian Proctor, geophysical(?) consultant who thinks her remit includes aerospace engineering- but she's not the only one guilty of this, only the easiest to pick on account of her irritatingly sharp voice).
Strangely, the most informative things on the show, the 3D animated schematics, are overly brief and cursory and quick.
At every turn there are frustrations as questions arise that are never addressed; 'how did those cars come to rest there?', 'What were those ripples that were mentioned?', 'How did she break out of the car, and at what point?'. Questions the answers to which could even save lives.
All interesting info has been stripped away/ not included. Only the barest info remains and is presented with absolute parsimony.
Too many talking heads saying far too little to satisfy curiosity. I don't want to watch the sickening disaster moments for a tenth time, it see/ hear 3 people say the same obvious thing.
The soundtrack music is stressful AND boring, the worst possible combination.
In treating their audience as idiots hungry for cheap sensationalism they have introduced that fatal crack in the edifice that is their production company. While they fill their pockets they are breaking its reputation.
One final note: STOP SAYING 'CATASTROPHIC'. You've flogged the word, flayed it, killed it, burned it and stomped all over the cold dead ashes.
Like a fatigue crack in a component, the well-worn formula of disaster footage, commentator soundbite, flashbacks, more disaster footage, commentary, rinse/ repeat with the solution provided within 5 minutes approx, of the end of the show, is bound to fail. Catastrophically.
The explanations are pitched at 5-year-olds. 3 people are edited in consecutively saying the same thing in only slightly different ways. Commentary is fatuous 'bringing it closer to catastrophic collapse' (just 'closer to collapse' would suffice thanks-OF COURSE IT'S CATASTROPHIC!)(I agree with the reviewer who singles out Sian Proctor, geophysical(?) consultant who thinks her remit includes aerospace engineering- but she's not the only one guilty of this, only the easiest to pick on account of her irritatingly sharp voice).
Strangely, the most informative things on the show, the 3D animated schematics, are overly brief and cursory and quick.
At every turn there are frustrations as questions arise that are never addressed; 'how did those cars come to rest there?', 'What were those ripples that were mentioned?', 'How did she break out of the car, and at what point?'. Questions the answers to which could even save lives.
All interesting info has been stripped away/ not included. Only the barest info remains and is presented with absolute parsimony.
Too many talking heads saying far too little to satisfy curiosity. I don't want to watch the sickening disaster moments for a tenth time, it see/ hear 3 people say the same obvious thing.
The soundtrack music is stressful AND boring, the worst possible combination.
In treating their audience as idiots hungry for cheap sensationalism they have introduced that fatal crack in the edifice that is their production company. While they fill their pockets they are breaking its reputation.
One final note: STOP SAYING 'CATASTROPHIC'. You've flogged the word, flayed it, killed it, burned it and stomped all over the cold dead ashes.
Padded by interminable scripted gushing from documentary "experts"
global_dan28 October 2022
The experts include the serial documentary "expert" Rob Bell, exaggeratedly overemphasising every word on his autocue.
Combined with the over the top background music, exaggerated wording laden with cliches, repetition of scenarios (do we really need the eyewitness to explain their experience at the start, and then again in even more detail later), and lots of padded stock footage, this is everything I loathe about documentaries woefully covering.
Each interesting subject could have been covered in about a third of the time. This would have allowed for a lot more unique, insightful content to be covered without being a vanity project for all the presenters, including Rob Bell.
Combined with the over the top background music, exaggerated wording laden with cliches, repetition of scenarios (do we really need the eyewitness to explain their experience at the start, and then again in even more detail later), and lots of padded stock footage, this is everything I loathe about documentaries woefully covering.
Each interesting subject could have been covered in about a third of the time. This would have allowed for a lot more unique, insightful content to be covered without being a vanity project for all the presenters, including Rob Bell.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
