Avis des utilisateurs

A very good crime documentary, and a story that holds you from start to finish. From Olympia, Washington, home of Nirvana and grunge music, the bank robber dubbed "Hollywood" was born.

After reading Ann Rule's book "The End of the Dream, The Golden Boy Who Never Grew Up" I was fascinated with the story of Scott Scurlock and his band of merry cohorts. You can learn how his friends grew to love him and were prepared to be a part of his plans. Much more in depth, especially his early years in college. I don't condone what he did by any stretch of the imagination, but his story is a very compelling one.

True crime doc based on a string of bank robberies in 90s Seattle, this is a decent show coming in at 86 mins. Anything more would have been too drawn out, glad they decided not to go the three episode route with this story.

There's not much to watch visually; while there are some old clips and photos used, the doc mainly uses old audio and interviews from the present time. Several motion posters have also been used. So, you can either play it in the background or if you'd rather 'watch this as a podcast', that'll work too. If you have 1.5 hrs to spare and aren't sure what watch as a true crime content enthusiast, this should be on your list.

I wonder if Netflix true crime docs are all beginning to look and sound the same.

A deep look into a bandit's life who lived in a time ahead of his actual era. Whole mission was to paint this notorious criminal in a different shade that's not seen by many. In any reality theft is severely damaging but looking at Scott's behavior, his approach and his giving back signs us towards a rebellious side of the character. He engaged in a chaotic, unbeatable battle with a behemoth that most people can't even look at, much less yell at. So this reunion of both sides to narrate explicitly how Hollywood's story went down is greatly entertaining. Excellent visuals and footage. Makes this documentary well worth the time.

It was an interesting and well done documentary, but the major flaw was that it tended to make a hero out of the villain.

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.

HOW TO ROB A BANK presents the story of Scott Scurlock (aka "Hollywood") with the sleek polish of a Hollywood production, and with it, all the ideological sleight of hand and worship of the status quo that such egregeious gloss often entails. What could have been a radical examination of an individual who chose creativity over conformity, rebellion over resignation, and of a system that has and continues to feed economic disparity instead becomes another tool of state narrative management: criminal genius reduced to cautionary tale, and the asinine police and fumbling FBI cast (predictably) as heroic.

Scurlock was no ordinary thief. With a keen intellect and flair for prosthetics, he transformed himself into a modern trickster, robbing banks with planning, style, and without resorting to violence. And yet, the documentary, like the institutions it seems loath to question, goes out of its way to paint him as dangerous, invoking TV news propaganda, inflated threat assessments, and vague trauma testimonies, just in case the audience forgets who they're supposed to root for.

The police, despite their historical penchant for surveillance over substance, are made to look competent through the sheer luck of circumstance. Scurlock wasn't caught by any masterful sleuthing; the house of cards simply collapsed. HOW TO ROB A BANK frames this as inevitability, as if daring to challenge capitalism was always doomed to fail.

This doc wants the thrill of outlaw glamour without the political discomfort of its implications. Scurlock's story, had it been told honestly, could have stood as a critique of a society that leaves no space for brilliance outside sanctioned pathways. Instead, the system wins again, on screen and off.

The story has so many layers to it. I was completely locked in from the moment it started. The world of Scott Scurlock was so fascinating. Definitely a movie worth watching. The hippie meth dealer turned bank robber lived in this insane treehouse he built himself but then got addicted to the adrenaline high of robbing banks. Nicknamed Hollywood he took notes out of movies like Heat and Point Break. I loved all the different perspectives throughout the movie- from the accomplices to former friends, FBI agents and local law enforcement. This story is rich with content and super entertaining. Music was great and they incorporated drawings/sketches which added to the value and 90's era vibe. This movie was SO good!!!

Just finished watching this doc and have been really struck by the way that these filmmakers have seamlessly interwoven archival footage, dramatic recreation, and truly wonderful animation to make us feel like we really had a complete insight into how these unlikely events could have transpired. Some excellent food for thought about the true nature of some people who claim to be Robin Hood or "sticking it to the man." Contrary to some other reviews that claim glorification, I found I was left with a sense of feeling like his crimes weren't worth the cost he and his family paid. Really enjoyed it and would love to watch again.

This documentary annoyingly glorifies this common criminal far too much. Especially from his sister and his college friends. He supposedly wasn't into consumerism, yet he produced meth for consumers to get buckets of cash for himself while living in a tree house like some naked drum wielding, granola eating hippie? What was the purpose of the cash then? He didn't help anybody he didn't know. Just spent it as freely as anyone would. Sure he found out how to rob banks like every poor desperate person dreams of. But he's still just a criminal loser at the end of the day, being praised far too much.

Really compelling crime doc with a thoughtful and sensitive character study at its center. What a strange and enigmatic man Scott was... the home video footage is so beautiful and used to great effect here. Engaging, thought provoking, and morally complex stuff! I could rob a bank no problem though.

I see there are some reviewers on here wringing their hands about the ethics of the film and 'true crime' in general. While I think this is a valuable conversation to have, I don't believe this film is part of the problem. I think How to Rob a Bank does a very good job of holding Scott and his accomplices accountable; bank robbery is not a victimless crime and this is told to us directly through interviews with the victims themselves. Additionally, Scott's accomplices express deep regret at the path their lives took, the crimes they committed, and the people they hurt. The film and filmmakers seem well aware of the complicated subject matter. This is a true crime film but it is far from exploitative.

From the guy doing the robberies to the people hunting him, all this documentary does is give you an insight into incredible egos of the wannabe criminal mastermind, his clearly easily influenced friends and the FBI agents hunting them.

It goes out of its way to paint a picture of Hollywood as some free spirit who used the money from bank robberies to live a carefree life in his tree house, hanging with friends and writing down his pretentious thoughts in a diary. Just read between the lines when people that knew him talk about him and you'll see a manipulator, not a happy go lucky guy.

The FBI are no better. One of the agents oozes ego that I nearly quite watching over the arrogance. I did this, I did that, I, I, I... Everyone keeps talking about "something horrible was bound to happen" and yet there was not a single hint throughout all the robberies that the pattern was evolving in that way. He intimidated people, tazed someone, but to make a leap that he'd go all out... that's just being generals after the battle.

It would be an interesting documentary if the people it talks about weren't so annoying.

I really enjoyed this documentary. It's not often a documentary directly recruits the perpetrators to explain their side of the story, and it's even rarer where you end up routing for the bad guys. What's unique about this doc is that it really explains how these group of bank robbers were not hardened criminals but rather an eclectic group of educated misfits, and used their smarts to, well, outsmart the banks and the cops and eventually FBI for so long.

What's also nice is that this doc is very honest. The cops made mistakes. They aren't perfect and they aren't exactly Americas brightest (only need a high school degree and a few weeks of training to be a cop). They also got very trigger happy in the end. These robbers were yes, robbers. But they never hurt anyone. They never shot anyone. Never hit them, never took hostages etc. However the police and by extension the feds really wanted to scare the banks/public into thinking Hollywood was this violent unhinged monster just waiting to snap in the hopes they would get tips coming in as to who these guys were, when all evidence contradicted this notion. They end up having a shoot out against guys with jammed guns, lying that they shot first. You can't fire an unloaded or jammed weapon... so how could they "shoot first". Then the story changed to, "we saw them carrying a rifle in the van's rear window" despite them clearly stating numerous times the windows we blacked out and you could not look through any of the windows except the front windshield...

Then when one of the robbers offs themselves, the police then fire 76 freaking rounds into the corpse. Absolutely disgusting. What isn't stated in this documentary (but stated in other videos, look it up) is that a by standard got hit from the police reckless, excessive rounds.

Great documentary. Definitely very cool to learn how these guys planned their heists and strategized to evade the police for long.

Netflix's production value is that of a burnt coffee, which is burnt all over again. Absolutely disgusting, abysmal, and annoying.

How to rob a bank is that 101 lesson a 2024 wanna be bank robber might find really intriguing you follows Antifa, has peace tattoo all over, and believes money is free - just what the bank robber pictured in this crapshow thought from 1980s standpoint.

The documentary, or garbagementry if you will, showcases how fun and cool robbing banks is. It shows how a hippie was so intelligent that he figured out how to launder money, like as if it was his own idea. It ensures this criminal's home videos walking and showering naked is shown across the globe, to ensure, the next criminal gets the superhero inspiration.

To call this abomination a documentary is in itself a felony.

The comparisons to Robin Hood were odd. He was a meth dealer that got a rush out of robbing banks. He didn't help out the random poor he just made himself look generous to his friends and family.

The show goes on at great length about how impressive of a person he was. Few if any 'documentaries' just tell the facts; it is just natural for the writer/filmmaker to tell a story and include more footage and information that fits their view of it. This one seems to be completely in love with Scurlock.

One of his accomplices actually laughs when he recalls the first robbery and how frightened an old man was when he took his car keys. That goes beyond zero remorse, to the point of fondly remembering terrorizing someone.

It was interesting to see how ordinary people can get sucked into things. But didn't do it because they needed to or were being blackmailed. But chose to do it..it is very respectful of Scott, pretty celebratory, too celebratory I personally think. It makes all the agency about him, not his accomplices. It feels uncomfortable the way it seems to celebrate what they all did because they are white, from 'good families ', attractive. It was still bank robberies. People were traumatised and in danger. That gets mentioned briefly towards the end but most of it ignores that. It is very interesting how a narrative can tell a story and influence your views of someone. In this he is almost a hero, being free, living his life. But also Robbing people of their's with the trauma. I'm not perfect, I don't know what I'd do in any situation..I know what is hope I'd do. And I work with people who have done things seen as worse or not as bad. I work with ex prisoners, current prisoners and vulnerable people and it's interesting that with a lot of those people I get the privilege and joy of seeing them as a human being, their strengths and hopes, resilience and circumstances. And the role of trauma and circumstances in the situations we find ourselves in. We are given that here. But we are not given the view of the victims who I also should remember in my work. And in this documentary. We are however given the view of his family. Who were respectfully represented here. But I wonder how this could have been presented had Scott been a black male, maybe an asylum seeker. The drug dealing is almost skipped over, his mental health is presented in a very different way to how it would be if it was someone else. The nudity. The weapons. This would have been very different had he been poor, ethnic minority, a refugee. And quite probably in what would be considered more dire circumstances.

A bunch of random people try to create mystique and suspense about a bankrobber.....total fail.

If there was a story to be told...netflix made one hell of a job making it zero interesting.

In the background there's some cheap music trying to bild up suspense....this is pathetic.

Most documentaties need a narrator to tie loose ends together....this junk failed to provide with some kind of overview of the events.

Huge amounts of dropping of names of people no one has ever heard a word about.

Netflix..please stop making documentaries...you're taking a non-story turning it to an unwatchable piece of junk.

So I thought it would be a "who done it" story and we would go on a detective journey to see banks being robbed and then trying to find out who did it. But no, they reveal who did it within 8 minutes of the documentary after a bunch of superfluous meandering, like immaterial detective interpersonal quarrels and Nivarna's grunge influence. Even if these side stories would somehow fit in this movie, it was done poorly and jarringly.

There is a story in there somewhere, but these filmmakers didn't figure out what it was or how to tell it. I honestly don't know what the point of this film was. Somewhat of a story didn't start until 25 min into. In fact some of the story at around 34 min into should have been used in the beginning of the film to build the character of Scott.

The whole story should have been re-edited to start with all the robberies, then figuring out who did it, then learn about his lifestyle, background etc.. Not everything works like a Tarantino film.

The music didn't help either.

Potential but no go for me.

I decided to watch another ture crime story that is not broken down into a series but into a 90min show that tells us a surprising story of a young man and his friend and how they went from a care free loving hippy type of person and transform into the image that the news turned it into a Hollywood crime movie that is actually a true story.

The sad thing about this story is the fact that such a bright person went down such a dark path and had some great luck in the early years but from getting away with it early on the rush did not leave them as they kept on coming back for more and this in the end was what brought the whole thing down to the fact that from 92 to 96 Hollywood and his friend tried this and run out of luck in the end.

True crime documentaries like this really make you think crime in the end does not pay. What you see is the hurt you leave behind afte the actions you take.

The True question is at What cost? Is it really worth it in the end to take the shortcuts.

A overall interesting tale!