Leonardo da Vinci

I basically agree with Jezlang's comments on the use of subtitles in this presentation. This is a film about ART; the subtitles are just annoying and distracting. This would have been more effective if there had been a translated voiceover of the non-English speakers. That way I would not have had to split my attention between what was being said, and the art that was being discussed. And yes, somebody should have noticed that small yellow subtitles don't work well on a sepia background!

Ken Burns should know better. Imagine the great Civil War series with subtitles instead of narrations.

These subtitles are almost as annoying as the IMDB character count!

This is not a review of the series, because I think it is compelling and interesting.

My review is of the idiocy of the reviews. The main complaint seems to be that there are subtitles and people don't want to read, which to me is pure laziness. Italians speak italian. Get over it. If you need things narrated for you and hate hearing non-English speakers, you are the problem. Not this documentary.

And the other complaint is there is not enough focus on the Mona Lisa, which has been discussed ad nauseum by others. I loved learning about his sketches and writings and smaller works. This is not a Mona Lisa doc. There are plenty of others out there for you to watch.

Reviewers, do better.

Somehow Ken managed to do this. And it is due to a combination of factors. The narrative is clunky. The art is presented frustratingly. The closeups of the hand writing is monotonous. Important parts of the story are lost in subtitles that are almost impossible to read at times or when your eyes shift to the art being simultaneously shown. Many times we don't even know if the art we are looking at is even his.

But honestly I think all of that could have been forgiven if not for it just having no soul. Da Vinci the man in the soul, but it feels like he's missing the entire time. This should have been our chance to get to know the genius so his work he left behind has a whole new dimension and life to it. But instead of we are just given what feels like a reading of a dry Wikipedia article.

I found this documentary to be captivating and insightful. The degree of Da Vinci's scope, talents, creativity, and inquisitive nature are on full display. This doc shows how important and ahead of his time Leonardo's drawings, paintings, designs and scientific inquiries were.

Some of the bad reviews I've seen are almost laughable. It's boring or...it has some subtitles. Really? That speaks volumes of the mindset of some of the negative reviews. Dullards who seem to need popcorn mainstream fare, instead of a thoughtful, poetic, insight into one of the most magnificent minds this world has ever known.

Watch this documentary and be captivated by an inquisitive and supremely talented man and the amazing world he lives in.

Two strange production choices make this turgid four hours a bigger slog to get through than it might have been and should have been: Talking heads, no doubt knowledgeable, but not necessarily pleasing to listen to, not just for the non-English speakers but others as well. So the choice was to use their (sometimes grating) voices and put the translations in script at the bottom of the screen. But if I wanted to READ about DaVinci, I'd crack a book. The problem with superimposed text is that the viewer eye track is on the text and not on the always-compelling visuals. This would matter less with many topics but we're here to appreciate DaVinci so what on Earth were you thinking? Bad choice two is the text itself: Small size, strange font and worse, rendered in mellow yellow/key lime green that vanishes into illegibility depending on the visual/artwork that's on the screen. Dear lord. So you make the viewer read (not absorb visuals) but even THAT mission is a failure. It needs to actually be readable -- ALL of it. Perhaps I'm a minority and most viewers won't be bothered by any of the presentation. I spent 25 years in TV production (news, documentaries) so I perhaps look at things with a different eye. But even the content isn't compelling enough to compensate for the ...suboptimal...visual production.