Leonardo da Vinci

Ken Burns makes solid, comprehensive documentaries about self-counsciously big subjects - not for him small, quirky tales. Leonarda da Vinci is thus perhaps an unsurprising subject, and the result is genuinely educational, but also extremely reverential. The narrative talks about the maestro's sense of fun, but the documentary itself is characterised by awe. In its conclusion, it does mention that a previous view, of Leonardo as a self-contained superman aside from broader renaissance thought, has gone out of fashion; but it might almost be seen as trying to restore it. To its credit, the series isn't all gush, and it does explain what made his art (and thinking) revolutionary. It's certainly worth watching even if it tries a bit too hard.

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.

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.

The greatest painting in the world is by far "La Gioconda", known in the English-speaking world as "The Mona Lisa" by the quintessential renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci. The scholarly art world believes the sitter is Lisa del Gioncondo, the wife of a wealthy silk merchant in Florence, part of the Gherardini family of nobles and merchants.

And yet this documentary spends way too much valuable screen time on the notebooks and uncompleted works and much less time on the Mona Lisa. One unfinished work on a battle scene receive two to three times the screen-time of Mona Lisa! Ultimately it was unfinished!

I think a golden opportunity was missed. I hope it wasn't one of those erroneous beliefs sometimes made by documentary filmmakers that everyone knows about certain things. Not everyone does, especially in an age where people don't read books as much as they used to. Many people don't know about Mona Lisa's origins and history. Yes it is somewhat shrouded in mystery but even that should have been explained.

The documentary doesn't even arrive at the Mona Lisa until near the end. There's lots of earlier set-ups about it, where the narration says that Leonardo's greatest work was to come. When Mona Lisa finally arrives, it is a bit of a disappointment. I wanted to hear about the original commission which was rejected by the Giocondo family. Why it was rejected by the family is nearly as interesting as why it is now considered to be possibly the greatest portrait ever created. There is some analysis by art experts about it's greatness but I also wanted to hear about the history.

The documentary's other shortcoming is the music. They didn't use any music from the time of Leonardo. Lots of music from the late 15th and 16th centuries are extant and there are many recordings of this music. Instead the filmmakers opted from kind of string quartet with lots of violin solos. The violin doesn't appear in Europe until circa 1530, about 10 years after Leonardo's passing. And the kind of virtuoso music used in the doc doesn't begin to be written until the very end of the 17th century, nearly 200 years after Leonardo's lifetime.

The notebooks are essentially the star of the show. I like the notebooks but I think far too much of the doc was spent on them at the price of giving a thorough discussion about Mona Lisa. Mona Lisa is the star artwork of the Renaissance, possibly of all time. In this case she ends up in a supporting role. I found this doc to be less than satisfying.

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.