Before watching something, I often like to see what "normal" movie/TV watchers on IMDb think, rather than just professional critics. However, for this one, I was glad I relied on TV critics, with the majority saying this was worth watching. I have been amazed to see all the negative reviews being written about this, with the primary criticism of these negative reviews being that the documentary was "too pro-government." I have no idea what these people wanted or expected, although it seems like they wanted an extreme anti-government slant, similar to the people who like to see "documentaries" about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton that are just bash-fests.
After watching this, but before reading the IMDb reviews, I thought this documentary was not even remotely pro-government. I even questioned how balanced it was, as it shows the government in a pretty negative light. So I think this comes down to the expectations of the watchers and their own biases on this topic.
The other criticism I've seen of this documentary is that it is more descriptive rather than providing in-depth analysis. I think the reason for this is that it leaves it to the viewer to decide what to think, rather than being told what to think.
I was someone who was aware of the Waco tragedy, but not overly familiar with it. Maybe that's why I liked it so much, and if anything, thought that it showed the government in an unfavorable light.
