I think that the image of Klimt on the cover was a warning enough what kind of production this is: So many things dropped into one basket and called a heist, and yet any events around museum heist or forgery do not compare to conquest and confiscation. Hold that thought.
Worse is the camera work: The makers of the series want to generate "tension" by hysterically shaking the camera, cutting short snippets of 0.2 seconds into a visual goulash of kinds. I saw my wife covering her face and telling "I am becoming dizzy, I cannot watch it." In addition to that comes the rather simplistic dialog. An example please: In episode one (heist on the Museum in Stockholm) the narrator "surprises" us with this stunning statement: The police had to discover how the heist was performed, and "where the pictures are." Of course camera shakes all the time, short snippets of parts of police cars, streets, museum floor and whatnot appear as a background. Ah... I would not have guessed, we have to find out where the pictures are. How stunning. No. Not really.
And now lets mention the mix of "heist", "forgery" and confiscation. And there of course in the best Hollywood manner the Nazis come to rescue. This is not right. The dramatic events of WWII were not "a heist," this was an orchestrated action sanctioned by law, which was inhumane and criminal. This is a totally different aspect, with enduring consequences. The actions of the Nazis were by its nature limited to maybe 10 years, whereas the robbery of art and valuables in the time of conquest and in the colonial times endured for centuries. The number of peaces stolen and shipped to museums in Europe is in millions. Governments of Egypt, Greece, Italy, Turkey and many others protest for decades and demand a return of pieces from most respectable museums on the planet. Even the Getty Foundation in the US was apparently in possession of numerous stolen pieces, and were defending the return claims in courts with all means. In some cases they had to return stolen art. So you see, this where the Nazi stolen art belongs to, its a different kind of a problem. Should Venice return artwork to Constantinople/Istanbul? Should Russia return several tens of thousands of artwork stolen by the "trophy brigades" of the red army and rotting in Moscow catacombs be returned, as the Germans demand for decades?
And to make the things even worse, this production makes a very one sided report of the story about Cornelius Gurlitt, a son of an art dealer living in Nazi times. Yet another abuse of the term "heist." Apparently Gurlitt's collection was scrutinized by Americans after the war and deemed legal. Why this blank assumption that all artwork was Jewish? Should the number of pieces in possession not be proportional to the ethnic proportions? I am sure it is. Thus by its nature maybe every 100th piece in his collection was if you so want of Jewish ownership.
If it comes to "heist" in Gurlitt's case I would rather apply the term to the German prosecutor: They had no right to take the pictures from his home, without a warrant, when investigating tax issues. This was a blatant violation of law, and caused a level of indignation in Germany. Thus Mr. Gurlitt's will bequeathing every piece to a Museum in Bern, Switzerland. As it comes to the pictures itself: These were in most cases pictures which he tried to trade, but nobody was interested in for decades. No every picture ever made has an artistic value, that is in the "eye of the beholder."
This is a very hypocritical production, with a very selective set of topics, atop of the cinematic weaknesses. Shame on you.