[go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendario de lanzamientosLas 250 mejores películasPelículas más popularesExplorar películas por géneroTaquilla superiorHorarios y ticketsNoticias sobre películasNoticias destacadas sobre películas de la India
    Qué hay en la TV y en streamingLas 250 mejores seriesProgramas de televisión más popularesExplorar series por géneroNoticias de TV
    ¿Qué verÚltimos tráileresOriginales de IMDbSelecciones de IMDbDestacado de IMDbGuía de entretenimiento familiarPodcasts de IMDb
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchPremios STARmeterCentral de premiosCentral de festivalesTodos los eventos
    Personas nacidas hoyCelebridades más popularesNoticias de famosos
    Centro de ayudaZona de colaboradoresEncuestas
Para profesionales de la industria
  • Idioma
  • Totalmente compatible
  • English (United States)
    Parcialmente compatible
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Lista de seguimiento
Iniciar sesión
  • Totalmente compatible
  • English (United States)
    Parcialmente compatible
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Usar la aplicación
Atrás
  • Reparto y equipo
  • Reseñas de usuarios
  • Curiosidades
  • Preguntas frecuentes
IMDbPro
Voyeur (2017)

Revisado por altereggo123

Voyeur

3/10

Not true crime. The only crime here is Talese's reporting.

"Voyeur," a documentary purportedly about an infamous voyeur, should really be titled "Pseudo-Journalist," since what it really demonstrates is what a terrible writer Gay Talese is. It's not "true crime," since so many of the claims in it are debatable or demonstrably false.

Talese correctly notes that it's dangerous to rely on just once source, but never bothers to check on important alleged facts of this story himself. He seems unfamiliar with Google, only learning from his daughter and others about details readily available online. He never checks property records central to the story and does a sloppy job checking on a crime mentioned by the voyeur, Gerald Foos. He unconvincingly brushes aside key discrepancies on dates.

At one point, when Foos claims that his Mickey Mantle baseball card is worth a huge sum, Talese laments, "How am I supposed to know if he is lying?" How about looking it up online? Or asking someone knowledgable? His methods are so shoddy, one has to wonder about the rest of his books.

At another point, explaining why he participated in group sex as part of his research for a book on sex in America, Talese explains that, as a reporter you can't just observe, you have to experience. Really? Did he have to kill anyone as part of his reporting on the mob? Can no one write about war, space exploration, professional sports, medical research, or anything else without being an active participant?

The documentary begins with him talking about his townhouse in Manhattan and his impeccably tailored suits. He should have spent some of his apparent wealth hiring a research assistant to ensure that what he wrote wasn't garbage. "Voyeur" reveals him wearing the emperor's clothes.
  • altereggo123
  • 9 ene 2020

Más de este título

Más por descubrir

Visto recientemente

Habilita las cookies del navegador para usar esta función. Más información.
Obtener la aplicación IMDb
Inicia sesión para tener más accesoInicia sesión para tener más acceso
Sigue a IMDb en las redes sociales
Obtener la aplicación IMDb
Para Android e iOS
Obtener la aplicación IMDb
  • Ayuda
  • Índice del sitio
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • Licencia de datos de IMDb
  • Sala de prensa
  • Anuncios
  • Empleos
  • Condiciones de uso
  • Política de privacidad
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, una empresa de Amazon

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.