kevinis40 This documentary set out to expose areas of conflict that while still smoldering with conflict have lost their appeal to the mainstream journalist yet still hold the appeal for war photographers. While watching it I was educated on how guerrilla tactics can be used even if some of the parts seem scripted. The balance between (scripted) and (pure unadulterated capture) are seldom done when western media personnel venture into war zones such as those covered herein. I was impressed with the Libya segment that created a narrative structure. The only other time I saw this was in both the book and documentary on Gordon Parks where he went back to Brazil to find the boy of his Life Magazine story. That technique was well used here. I found the technique to be an updated one using news footage alongside the video. The areas picked were on point. They support the fact that the stories of conflicts still rage on after the stories are no long featured in the American Press. Most educational was the fact (in both the Libya and South Sudan segments) that revolutions are confusing shortly after they are successful. Too many guns in the hands of too many factions lead toward more skirmishes among varying ethic enclaves. These points would spell danger for most investigative journalist yet these photographers plunged themselves head first (lens first) into such volatile situations.The above reviews seem void of familiarity with the points raised in the segments. One needs to watch them all in order to comment on any. Common thread were touched upon in each. Such threads as where one draws the line. What determines ones level of involvement. I listened to those knowing of the death of the photographer who took the picture of the child with a vulture in the background. I want to say, STEVEN CURRY. But I may be wrong Curry is/was a photographer but I am not sure he is the one who took that pictured and later committed suicide. This documentary helped to shed light on what motivates photographers like these. The photographers share their personal looses as well. This negated my concern that they might be insensitive to the deaths around them. On the contrary, they seem to challenge their demons by plunging deep into the darkness of conflict where reason seems lost.

trickstar_trippy Contrary to the other two user reviews, I found the series rather entertaining, albeit admittedly not as intense as I would have liked. They shed more light than, say, Ros Kemp's factual series on gangs, yet fall short of being hard hitting docos (La Vida Loca by Poveda, being one of the most insightful portray of gang culture, violence, and redemption).It is not my intention to debate whether or not the blurred narrators were actual gangsters, by the same manner I don't question whether the sicario in El Sicario was indeed a hit man. Real criminals don't jeopardize their lives by letting themselves filmed in broad daylight, so am fine with concealed identities. In addition, I would say the series is about war photographers, the way they witness the facts, which is not always the way they happen. they call it the world through their lenses for a reason. In the end, I think HBO opted for a more emotional approach rather than a factual one, yet offering first hand access into mostly uncharted territory. And contrary to what a user wrote, the South Sudan episode does show tribal scarring (7 minutes in). So much for accuracy.

sorinp1961 I admit I didn't see all the series, only the South Sudan part. But it was more than enough. Being there for one year I have a pretty good grasp of the things in the country. And while the video seems to have been taken in South Sudan, there are a lot of inconsistencies during the documentary. For one, I NEVER saw one single tribal scar. It is virtually impossible to film so many people in South Sudan and NEVER encounter one that has the head scars revealing the belonging to a tribe. People speaking in French. Not likely. Maybe they were refugees from Centrafrican Republic, but that kind of information is not given.A succession of images that lead you to think that a UN helicopter was transporting South Sudanese military WITH weapons and ammunition. UN regulations specifically forbid this. The military shown in the documentary don't wear the SPLA (Sudan's People Liberation Army) flags, instead they wear the Ugandan flag. Furthermore, they seemingly engage in operations in the neighboring countries, without any concern for being out of their country. Frankly, as the documentary moved on I became gradually less and less attentive, since it was so lame. So there might be a lot more things that don't add up. My opinion? The director had no idea what he was going to make the documentary about, so he just grabbed videos from wherever he could go, put them together and couldn't care less if anybody figured that nothing made sense.Avoid the documentary (at least the "South Sudan" part). I gave it 2 stars for reminding me about that country, but that is all it did.

ghigau There was a lot of conjecture and innuendo in the film, but very little to support it. Rio de Janeiro probably is a hell hole, and difficult to document. This HBO special did very little to penetrate that difficulty. Conspiracy fans will like it, but others will leave wondering about facts vs. fantasy. Interviews with anonymous taxi drivers. Voice over by persons who have an issue but no facts. Comments from the crowd, "don't drag her body," when the film shows a standard body removal in a body bag. Police interviews that are subtly challenged when a later appointment by a colonel is not kept. Suggestions about raids that did not occur, as if there was something suspicious about schedule changes. Allegations about mass murder without any evidence. Assertions that bodies disappear when the burned body is very much in evidence on film. Yes, identification will be problematical, but it hardly was a disappeared body. Brasil deserves a more factual film and analysis.