अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThis two-part, four-hour documentary delves into the world of a 15th-century art titan and unravels his journey while shedding light on his lasting impact on future generations.This two-part, four-hour documentary delves into the world of a 15th-century art titan and unravels his journey while shedding light on his lasting impact on future generations.This two-part, four-hour documentary delves into the world of a 15th-century art titan and unravels his journey while shedding light on his lasting impact on future generations.
- रचनाकार
- स्टार
- रचनाकार
- स्टार
- 1 प्राइमटाइम एमी के लिए नामांकित
- 2 कुल नामांकन
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ोटो
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
The problems with this documentary is a lack of structure.
It is presented in a chronological order. But it lacked cohesiveness. There was no over arching theme. A plot if you will.
It develops character, but lacked real substance. Why did he do something? It goes from vignette to vignette without any regard for the audience. I never felt like I was part of anything that was presented. It never drew me in.
Focus on one aspect of his life, rather than presenting a shot gun approach. Segmentation instead of fragmentation.
The way it was presented... Well the kindest thing I can say was: there cert was no lack of slowness.
It is presented in a chronological order. But it lacked cohesiveness. There was no over arching theme. A plot if you will.
It develops character, but lacked real substance. Why did he do something? It goes from vignette to vignette without any regard for the audience. I never felt like I was part of anything that was presented. It never drew me in.
Focus on one aspect of his life, rather than presenting a shot gun approach. Segmentation instead of fragmentation.
The way it was presented... Well the kindest thing I can say was: there cert was no lack of slowness.
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!
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!
Okay. So. Two 2-hour episodes make up this documentary on da Vinci on PBS. It has the Burns name attached to it, and is about a fascinating subject, so what could you possibly not like about it?
It turns out it is boring to the point where I was unable to stay awake. I am so disappointed in this. It had nothing new to add to the wonderful Isaacson biography and frankly, I'm not sure why they made it... unless it was because they needed something for their membership drive.
It would have been okay if there was nothing new AND if what was presented was done so elegantly -- beautifully -- and gracefully. But it lacked those things. It was tedious. I felt like I SHOULD like it because it was Ken Burns and on PBS. But I did not like it.
Trying to watch it, I felt it wandered aimlessly and totally missed a sense of cohesion.
If you watched it and enjoyed it I am so glad for you. I did watch the whole thing but felt it was a waste of time.
It made me want t go back to rewatch da Vinci's Demons. It was crazy but it was fun crazy. This was simply... tedious.
It turns out it is boring to the point where I was unable to stay awake. I am so disappointed in this. It had nothing new to add to the wonderful Isaacson biography and frankly, I'm not sure why they made it... unless it was because they needed something for their membership drive.
It would have been okay if there was nothing new AND if what was presented was done so elegantly -- beautifully -- and gracefully. But it lacked those things. It was tedious. I felt like I SHOULD like it because it was Ken Burns and on PBS. But I did not like it.
Trying to watch it, I felt it wandered aimlessly and totally missed a sense of cohesion.
If you watched it and enjoyed it I am so glad for you. I did watch the whole thing but felt it was a waste of time.
It made me want t go back to rewatch da Vinci's Demons. It was crazy but it was fun crazy. This was simply... tedious.
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.
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.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Leonardo Da Vinci
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि3 घंटे 40 मिनट
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें