weetuscren

I feel like this show was good until someone in post-production decided to turn it into a time-travel show. Same issue with other shows being put out these days that end up as background watching. I think one of the cardinal rules for film/TV is to not have flashbacks unless you are exposing an essential piece of information. It would have been more entertaining if the information was presented in chronological order. Maybe since this is what seems to work with docuseries they think it will work with other story telling.

The acting is good. The writing is good. Technically it is good. I just feel that it falls apart in the edit. Mind you, the edited scenes by themselves are well-edited. But who wants to see a dramatic scene thrown in at a random point of the timeline where it doesn't belong?... and this whole show ends up feeling like that. So overall, it's just kind of confusing where you're at at any given point, so you tune out.

I saw this at the midnight premier in Cannes. I can't imagine why people dislike it unless they're either puritanical or hate reading subtitles.

I will refrain from spoilers.... but it's the definition of dark comedy. It might make Quentin Tarantino blush.

I would rate it 10 to off-set the terrible ratings, but it's not my job to be the rating equalizer.

The problem with this documentary is the acted out interviews of Claude Shannon, his wife and the interviewer... who all unfortunately come across as amateur actors even though they aren't. The pausing for every thought is tedious to watch. The construct detracts from the actual information contained in the documentary and seems to take up at least a third of the overall running time. It made me think that I was watching some sort of mockumentary at first.