User Reviews

I don't know who these types are that are calling this show 'Inaccurate'. They certainly don't work with software!

I'm just bowled over by the accuracy. The whole setup, and the tech, is completely believable and obviously researched. Simon Pegg's influence? (Probably not, he's not a producer on this.)

The physical metaphors with corridors and walls and doors are essential, and I'm quite enjoying them - laypeople have NO idea what it looks like going through dense code. Especially slogging through code that's written by somebody else, let alone an adversary. This visual storytelling mechanism greatly eases things.

Also the portrayals of high-functioning Autism are, finally, actually right on the money.

But I'm only two or three episodes in, and I fear it is going to dissolve into mush. None of the characters are very likeable, but perhaps that's deliberate. The mains all ooze upper-class UK elitism, and the lead character trots out her religion whenever it suits her.

We'll see.

On the day that work experience student, Saara, joins GCHQ, The Russians launch a cyber attack on The UK.

Every so often Channel 4 releases a drama that makes you pause and think, a few years ago that happened with Blackout, the same happened here, a what if scenario that leaves you feeling a little unnerved, the idea that events could actually happen.

Well produced, well acted, it moves along nicely, it's a deep story with several stands, all of which tied together neatly. The variety is great too, episode three in particular is so unique.

I thought the acting in general was excellent, the standout for me had to be Mark Rylance, he wasn't in it a great deal, but he was outstanding. Nice to see Simon Pegg in a serious role, he did a good job. Adrian Lester felt underused.

There are a few flaws, Saara's on work experience, she has a very political boyfriend, and yet roams freely around GCHQ, as if she has top level clearance, that did feel a little too far fetched.

Overall, a truly interesting and thought provoking watch, bravo Channel 4, 8/10.

I thoroughly enjoyed this series, 8/10.

The elephant in the room is that the subject matter of this series is very relevant and real. For those people who don't understand how the world works, this has probably flown over their collective heads. Yes, it's a drama series, but it's done very well. This is tight, clever, thought provoking writing. In today's ever changing world, it's refreshing to see something that takes chances and delivers. This definitely deserves your attention. Highly recommended.

THE UNDECLARED WAR 10 reasons to watch this bingeable series by armen pandola

The title of this British TV 6-episode series, streaming on Peacock, refers to the cyberwar being waged by Russia against the West, and, in particular, Great Britain. But this is no polemic drama in which the good guys are always Americans or their nearest relatives, the Brits, and the bad guys are always Putin or, at least, Russian.

The Undeclared War follows a team of top analysts with GCHQ (the United Kingdom's version of the USA's National Security Agency) who are trying to prevent Russian social media tweets and news stories from destabilizing the country just before the 2024 elections.

Here are ten reasons to give it a watch:

10. Seamlessly woven into the drama is the method used by Russia to create fake social media accounts and use them to create chaos in Great Britain. It's really not that hard to do. If you know what you are doing and what you want to accomplish.

9. While the framework of the drama is this BIG story, the stories of the people who are the footsoldiers and generals of this war provide the emotional base upon which all good dramas - and comedies for that matter - are based.

8. Simon Peeg. Peeg is at the center of two of the biggest modern movie franchises - Star Trek and Mission Impossible. Amidst all those warp speed treks and almost impossible to accomplish feats of fantastic actions, you may have missed what a fine actor Peeg is. Here, he plays the lead analyst who is under pressure to stop the attacks and, also, retaliate.

7. It's British. I don't know how or why but the Brits just know how to do shows like this - political but not polemical, dramatic but not morose, topical but not typical. From Yes, Minister to A House of Cards (remember this is the British original, 1000x better than the American show of the same name) to A Very British Coup, the Brits know how to do contemporary political drama.

6. Hannah Khalique-Brown. Yes, you never heard of her, but you will. She plays Saara Parvin who wins an internship at GCHQ, but is conflicted on taking this job with the UK's prime spy agency since they do a lot of spying on Saara and her fellow Muslims. Her personal life ends up being almost as complicated as her professional one.

5. Maisie Richardson-Sellers. She plays an American analyst with NSA temporarily on loan to the GCHQ. Of course, she's British - yes, if I hadn't read that, I wouldn't have known. Her accent is perfect. More importantly, she acts and speaks with the authority that a NSA spy would have in dealing with the very much less formidable British equivalent. If you have never seen her before in her short career - look out!

4. The writing. Declan Lawn, Adam Patterson and Amelia Spencer have very few writing credits, but this series is going to change that. In one scene, Marina Yeselova (Tinatin Dalakishvili) has been sent to London as a TV journalist for the Russian TV News channel. She is sent to cover a demonstration where a riot breaks out and she suspects that the Russians had planned the riot. She confronts her editor who readily admits that they did. Look, her editor says, we are here to make people doubt the truth of what the other news shows are saying and what the politicians are saying. What good will that do? She asks. Make people think everything they are told is a lie and then - the biggest liar wins.

3. The director. Peter Kosminsky directed White Oleander 30 years ago. Since then, he hasn't worked much - a few TV movies and then there was the Wolf Hall series in 2015 and The State series in 2017 and that's it. He deserves to work more. He is credited with co-writing the first episode, also. One of the most imaginative things that he and the other writers have done is to make the search for the implanted malware a real experience - so we see Saara searching through an eerie landscape for something like a bomb as the visual equivalent of searching through code for the malware that is ready to explode and cause panic.

2. The ensemble. Again, with the Brits, it's all about having fine acting from the leads right down to the 'chorus' - the actors who play the many roles required in a sprawling drama of this kind. Mark Rylance shows up and for once has the perfect part for him - a low-key, long-time employee of GCHQ who doesn't like too many people and the feeling is mutual. Every actor and actress is pitch-perfect in portraying a world where anxiety is the sixth sense.

1. Trump is never mentioned.

One of the best series I've seen! Great storyline about worldwide, government hacking and how easy it is for terrorists to infiltrate government systems. The characters are believable, the plot is fascinating and quite suspenseful. The end of episode six came far too soon and ended with a cliffhanger I sure hope Peacock continues the series with a second season.

Let me start by saying that I admire Peter Kosminsky's work. Wolf Hall garnered much praise and I thought that The Promise was one of the best things I have ever seen on television. So I had very high expectations of this series.

By that benchmark this was a disappointment. Yet the storyline is ingenious, depicting terrifying events that might just be plausible and certainly act as a timely warning in this world of fake news and cyber warfare. So why the disappointment? I have a few quibbles, such as the sudden ending and the self-blame by the main character ringing false. But in reality it is because I wanted to watch a series that merited a score of 10, not a 7!

I will hope for something truely outstanding from Mr Kosminsky with his next venture ....

Seeing all the negative Reviews for the show I thought I would come on here to give my two cents. I found it on the Undeclared war to be gripping thriller so much so that I finished the whole season in one night. Hannah delivers a great performance along with Simon Pegg. One not to be missed!

Mark Rylance is exemplary in this, as always.

I can't help but feel as though it was a little unfinished... Perhaps it's me, I thought the ending needed to be more clear cut.

For me disappointing all round. It didn't quite know what genre it was, a political/spy thriller an action-adventure piece? It couldn't decide.

It took a long time to get going and then kept stepping off the gas to divert into a domestic drama. The UK was supposedly facing a critical attack on the nation's infrastructure but no-one seemed that bothered really, there was no real drama or jeopardy.

Production values were OK but nothing special, dialogue was corny in places and the score was odd. Protagonist Saara felt underdeveloped and couldn't carry the opening episode.

Not terrible TV, but to be honest pretty dull and needed to go up a few gears.

This series divides opinion, but is well worth trying. The stop-start pacing with regular diversions to fill in blocks of background is a common gripe. In that sense if you liked Ozarks (we did) perhaps you will like the pacing, However, it all moves along quite nicely regardless.

Our main criticism would be a British Prime Minster who is completely unbelievable and GCHQ itself, which I imagine will have actual staff hopping about in frustration at the unflattering portrayal.

Not a classic, a bit wokey, but pretty good and very watchable if you find it works for you. Suggest ignore the somewhat dire comments of some and judge for yourself. You only need to watch one episode to weigh it up, which is pretty handy.

First of all, this series did not strike me as being particularly 'woke', nor did I witness any aspect of the series that remotely resembled 'leftist propaganda'. This is a show that depicts politicians and GCHQ staff who don't all happen to be male and white. Some are, some aren't. That's all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the writers seem to have made a genuine effort to avoid political or ideological bias altogether. At its heart, it is very much a character-driven story that doesn't concern itself with hidden agendas.

Be that as it may, 'The Undeclared War' is a Mini-Series not without it's flaws. A few instances of below par acting and the occasional minor plot hole prevents it from making its ascension into the very top tier of television, but it ultimately succeeds in achieving what it intends to achieve - telling a story as nuanced as it is engaging, whilst borrowing just enough source material from the political reality we all know well to present itself as a compelling and thought-provoking warning call to us all.

Even in light of its flaws, 'The Undeclared War' most certainly achieves what it intends to achieve. It doesn't quite achieve what it promised to achieve, however. It doesn't work quite as hard as say, the BBC's 'Years & Years' did, to hook its audience with the type of emotional depth and innovative dynamism that leaves their tears destined to fall and their jaws destined to drop. Nevertheless, its carefully developed storyline, sharp dialogue, and explosive plot twists ensure that it still achieves just enough to merit a solid 7/10 rating.

This kind of filled a hole left by the tv series 'Spooks' which I rather enjoyed.

A good, exciting and interesting show about the intelligence community would do so well, again.

But this isn't it.

Although I liked the plot and to see this side of the work being done, the show makes a few big mistakes.

There's too much attention for the private lives and relations of some of the agents, frankly I couldn't care less about that.

The country is under attack, people are dying, we must save the world... but first lets talk about our emotions for 20 minutes.

It's also not nice to see the main character turn out to be unfaithful, I know I'm old fashioned but it made me find it harder to be on her side.

But more importantly; it adds nothing.

The story has several plotholes and depicts the work at GCHQ wrongly but they can't be blamed for that.

A bigger mistake is the acting.

There are just a couple of actors in it that are not very good, I'm not going to name them because actors are humans too and they might be proud of their work and maybe their mums and dads read this, so I won't.

But most of the acting is pretty decent so when there are two or three who are really rather bad, it stands out, a lot.

Rather unfortunate.

I was hoping for a new Spooks, but in stead was given something barely average.

Still I hope we get our new TV series with Mr. Pegg (who is of course brilliant as always) running MI5 or 6.

Come on.

Spooks was a hit.

First, don't listen to all these fools complaining the show is "woke". It's not woke in the slightest. It is about a brilliant young woman in the UK who earns a coveted internship at GCHQ and finds something because she is assigned a menial task that her managers do not want to do. Anyone who has worked in the security space will know that this sort of thing happens all the time (though on a smaller scale).

Second, the show reflects well the ways in which Russia is influencing politics in the United Kingdom. It portrays Russian strategy and dogma in a very realistic way and engages directly with contemporary issues in the UK.

I suspect many of the people commenting here are upset because the show has brought up some uncomfortable truths with which they do not want to contend.

Ignore the fools, watch this show.

Not normally one who gets gripped into a series, can generally watch 1 or 2 episodes a time and not carry on again for a few days. This however was different could not bring myself to leave it - got more and more gripping as it went on.

Many of the negative reviews seem to be based on expectations from the trailer, does it take some time to get going in Ep1 yes but its worth the wait.

There are probably lot of inaccurate in this mini series but watch and enjoy it for watch it is, a story of could or might have happened.

I do agree about young girl been aloud in so quickly.

A lot of the negative reviews here seem to stem from the slightly misleading marketing for the show. Channel 4 making this out to be a high action cyber thriller when in reality it's a cleverly written cyber/political drama.

Give it a chance and you won't regret it.

Also people complaining about the apparently wokeness? Think they're getting all riled up over a throwaway line where a manager at GCHQ jokingly/apologetically calls the staff all Male, stale and pale.

The best parts were with Herman Segal! Hannah brown was awful! H Her brooding borderline tantrum throwing acting? I kept thinking how are they going to end it? They've so many sub plots. When they showed the Russian parts it was really good then the Brits were awful and the whole series made them look inept! No security , talking about classified things with other departments. Then they leave it open ended. I guess an ok watch but expected more!

A British spy show? I'm in. Simon Pegg? I'm in. Hackers and the new Cold War? I'm in. Dull dialogue and no action and yet another woman suddenly and unconvincingly becoming lesbian on screen in her time of grief. I'm out.

I have always thought no one can makes spy shows as good as the British and this time again they have excelled in it.

The show's pacing was brilliant, it didn't linger on anything for too long. Also this is the best representation of hacking I have seen on screen. The show either ended on a cliffhanger or it ended how they wanted it to and that's mind boggling. I sure hope there's a second season.

First off, a lot of the acting is awful. The main character just isn't believable and is just wooden. Maybe that's meant to be the point. Who knows.

Many reviews here are saying how technically believable it is (some simply because the character uses w3w).... Seriously??

The idea that a work experience under-grad would be allowed into GCHQ, on day 1, in the middle of one of the biggest cyber attacks in history AND be let loose on the actual malware (sandbox or not), without any induction, without any basic training about safe use of said sandbox. Or even basic security training... come on...

Being technically inaccurate in a drama is hardly new. Medical dramas have had it for years. I can live with it, IF the show is entertaining and has a great script. This is neither.

But it's the reviews and comments that are the most disturbing. I worked 30 years as a software engineer and for a bit of that I worked for a 3 letter agency and unequivocally, unarguably, the tech in this series is gibberish. First off, hacking, coding, whatever is an incredibly esoteric and boring material for most people. "the social network" was also gibberish by the way with re to the tech. Those who disagree, describe to me why facebook succeeded where myspace failed. A well known but not acknowledged fact is that google was successful not because it was a better search engine but that they did a lot better job selling user data, and advertising directly to you than altavista or all the other search engines before google. It was never about gleaning info better. And now, nobody even remembers google wasn't the first search engine any more than they remember netscape (which once sold for 4 billion dollars). It's interesting the way they use dream like scenes to represent code walkthroughs but it's gibberish. Walking thru code is not like that, for anyone except the insane. But, how else can they tell the story? Watching somebody do something boring, is also boring. Also, the hacking capabilities are wildly exaggerated but no drama means no viewers. Isn't my first rodeo. If you like this stuff, then I recommend 'wargames' the 1984 movie where a computer at norad starts world war iii. Um, no. If you actually knew anything about hacking in the 80s and norad operations it was all fantasyland. Or, how about 'enemy of the state' with will smith, a 1998 movie about how every video camera in america has been hacked so the nsa or third state could find and watch your every move. Don't believe me, see interviews with michael hayden former head of the nsa at the time. Many times he's pointed out how fantastical the movie was, and lamented the number of times he's had to explain to congress that, no, the nsa does not have that capability. Nobody does. I wouldn't put this show up against either of those movies but it is entertaining and somewhat believable. But, I sure wish we had all that equipment like that when I worked in gov though the whole bullpen, lets throw everybody in one room without partitions is a silicon valley gimmick, not one in gov. Still, I could be out of date and wrong. I still claim that a hermit kingdom north of seoul can't be as good as the media makes them out to be re hacking. By it's nature, hacking is antithetical to the whole nature of a tightly controlled dictatorship. I strongly believe they are buying the tech from somewhere else, as they have in other areas. But, making a movie about buying hackers from around the world to do their dirty work is not as interesting to hollywood as actually making fat boy sing. Making documentaries doesn't pay as much.