Change Your Image
sublimineyes
Reviews
Ludwig (2024)
A puzzle why they didn't start from a better place
I'm not aware of any whodunnit show using a puzzle setter as the lead character before so this could have been interesting, had a unique take. Unfortunately the puzzle setter here is simply used as a hook to hang an ill selected pick n mix of familiarities on.
The end result is yet more comfy cardigan fare, I guess designed to lure in viewers who liked a certain performer, or certain interior decor or clothes, or certain types of music. At least I hope so, rather than this all being at the whim of the show's creator.
The big problems are:
1) apart from a period in episode 1 (and slightly in 2 and 3), David Mitchell is David Mitchell. You've seen him before and he definitely isn't the character introduced at the beginning of episode 1. Where did that character go? Why cast Mitchell if the directors (especially the director of eps 4-6) are just going to have Mitchell act his normal stuff, which isn't the character introduced at the start of Ep1 or the character needed to produce actual tension, intrigue, interest?
2) there is no chemistry. If this is supposed to be a 2020s Jonathan Creek go back and watch and you'll find chemistry between Davies and Quentin. There is none between Mitchell and Martin.
3) while Mitchell feels undirected, Martin feels simply miscast. A sort of, "ooh, she's a bit quirky, we'll go with her".
4) the support cast (including the sets, look, music, colour palette) are paper thin cliches or jarring "comedic" fillers
5) apart from 1 episode it fails at being either a whodunnit or a howdunnit. Instead it feels like the audience is supposed to bask in the warm, cardigan covered glow of Mitchell's reveal
6) but surely the pleasure of a howdunnit is to learn something, or test yourself. And the pleasure of having a puzzle setter as lead should be to experience multiple types of puzzles, which each episode clearly built around a type of puzzle introduced early in that episode and with a framework the audience can get involved in. Or something along these lines. But none of this happens.
This really is a hugely underachieving show. But with a comfy cardigan.
A Perfect Spy (1987)
Passable but let down by casting, script and atmosphere
My take on this seems to be backward to the consensus, as I found the early episodes to be clearly he best, instead of the other way around.
The main problem I found was a general lack of atmosphere, both of how this should have changed with time and location (given as the story unfolds over multiple countries and decades), and simply in general. Watch the BBC/Guinness Tinker Tailor for how to do Le Carre atmosphere.
This isn't helped by having Peter Egan from ep 3 onward. He is a likeable actor but lightweight, without the range or spookiness the character deserved. And it made no sense at all to me for him to be cast, when his younger version, Benedict Taylor, could surely have played older versions simply with prosthetics. It isn't as if the BBC didn't have money to go location shooting, so why not prosthetics too.
All of which is disappointing as I found Taylor really excellent, in a Malcolm McDowell way. Would have loved to see him take the character to the end.
His chemistry with the stand out performer, Ray McAnally was also much better.
Beyond this, the script simply didn't build sufficient insight into Taylor/Egan's motivations so that there was no character tension, no sense of where paths could come together or go apart. So it eventually needed exposition where none should have been required. After all, motivations are what a non-action spy story is all about.
Beyond this, I liked Cuthbertson, Howard, Ashcroft and, especially, Weigang. They all deserved better.
Overall, a letdown after a solid start.
Colin from Accounts (2022)
Ho hum, switch brain off 6/10 fare until really bad Ep6
Had heard so many positive reviews of this so gave it a go. I really can't understand what people see in it though.
For me, up until episode 6 it was a straightforward, lightweight, derivative show of the sort that doesn't take any concentration, doesn't make you laugh out loud, just sort of mellows things if you want to switch off and not think.
Brammall is likeable enough but too often goes Gervais. Only he isn't anywhere as good as Gervais at being Gervais. Should simply have stuck at being the Brammall he was at other times, which was likeable and more honest feeling.
Dyer brings more depth to her character and to me didn't feel like she was trying to be someone else. But it was only "more depth", not a lot of depth or originality.
Where things are interesting is Dyer's interaction with her screen mother, Thomson. This does get played throughout but it should have been played much, much more. It is what the show should principally have been about, not a Brammall/Dyer romcom.
The rest of the cast are paper thin and both they and the plot loaded with stereotypes. Yawn.
Eventually I got to Ep 6 and the dislikeability of the new supporting characters in this episode, the script and tone so jarred with Ep 1-5 that I gave up half way though. On it and the show.
I wouldn't recommend, unless there isn't anything better to watch. Which there is.
Love for Lydia (1977)
Starts as a 10 but cast and crew can't keep it up
It feels like the budget was there, the intention was there, and in the first 3 or so episodes it all comes together as a 10/10. But for me the series feels cast with this first part in mind, for which the leads are very well suited and brought out by script and director to give energy, belief, believability and interest.
The trouble is that the leads/script/direction trend downwards from there. Most importantly, for me Christopher Blake simply doesn't have near enough range to do justice to the role, and the script/direction don't help him out. Yet his depiction in episodes 1-3 feels excellent.
Mel Martin is better and I get a nagging feeling she could have done more if she was asked to play episodes 1-3 to a narrower range so that she could better show character development.
Similar issues come up with other actors, where portrayals in different episodes don't seem to come from the same heart. For me, especially with. Ralph Arliss.
The best acting? Jeremy Irons top. Michael Aldridge in a character part. David Ryall. Sherrie Hewson. And the them tune, which wonderfully sets tone.
Just had a brief look at other reviews and wonder whether the background isn't clear to all. For instance "write from a rather poor and humble family" is wrong. The family is clearly middle class. Very poor compared with he Aspens yes, but it is essential to understand that there are very clear differences in wealth and background between the male leads. Perhaps not so easy to spot depending on age and where you are from, but essential.
Overall, enjoyable but disappointing to miss the initial promise.
Only Murders in the Building (2021)
Short excels, show very good when all 3 together, meh when not
For me by far the highlight of this is Martin Short. In series 1 and 2 he's simply dazzling, series 3 still decently good.
Steve Martin has good chemistry with him but he feels either a bit flat or a bit 2D. Just a dash of 1970s/1980s Martin to pep things up would have made such a difference.
Everyone else has their moment(s) but they really feel like glue connecting Short and Martin.
When the glue is strong, as it is in season 1, the show is excellent. There are clunky sections (especially episode 1) but the show just zings along frothily. Very enjoyable.
Season 2 the glue isn't quite as strong and it feels to me like too many hands wee involved, muddying things and so detracting from that central pair.
Season 3 was really disappointing, the joint screen time not enough to make the show more than "interesting, should have been better", and the side stars simply distracting. Short also seems flatter, less energetic.
I hope they don't make a season 4 and dilute things yet more.
If they want to do anything, please make it one off specials or movies, kept nice and tight and really, really focus on keeping the 3 on screen together.
Justified (2010)
AKA Mr Cliche goes to Stereotypesville
I sat through only the first episode plus 10 minutes of the second (just to see if ep 2 was any better than ep 1. It wasn't).
I guess maybe lots of people find the characters likeable or reassuring or something. Can' think of any other reason people would want to watch tired old cliches and stereotypes trotted out yet again, let alone with the skill of a plank of wood.
At the very least the writers and producers could have tried to cast interestingly, or pick a surprising location, or throw in some genuine local feature or anything at all. It is all just so vacuous. Depressing to think this gets funded. And liked so much.
The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)
Wonderful first half. Self indulgent, far too Irish, mess of a second half.
This started so well. Refreshingly different, visuals and sounds top notch, acting solid (Farrell as usual rather lightweight and 2D but for large parts gets the job done).
It built nicely, paced well, got its hook planted and drew me in.
And Barry Keoghan's performance is world class, with Kerry Condon's very strong.
I was thinking at least an 8 star, maybe a 9.
But those in charge got too full of themselves, became self indulgent, partook of the myth of Irish uniqueness, and opted for entirely predictable plot lines, turning it into both a dull and tedious affair. At least the visuals and sounds stay the course.
Such a shame.
Would also have been better to go with the stronger actor by making Gleeson the more talkative, Farrell the quieter. Farrell could then have used his eyebrows to better effect.
Anyway, I've gone down the middle. Sort of. 8 or 9 for the first half plus, 2 for the last half.
Prometheus (2012)
Flabby, absurd, characterless, and flat.
This feels like the incompetent regurgitation of someone who has watched a bit of Alien, a bit of various Star Trek, probably something else but failed to understand what makes any of these sources tick.
It is so hackneyed in the situations and dialogue it is embarrassing.
No wonder then that it s impossible to get any performances of merit out, despite some good actors (Fassbender, Pearce). Elba, for my money the most overrated current actor, is well suited because of his hammy predictability but even then can't pull anything off.
Plus the most essential performance of all in Alien, the environment, is simply taken out of the cupboard with nothing new but all of the old atmosphere missing. Maybe modern higher resolution just doesn't work for it. More likely it is the cinematographer getting things wrong. But I'm not sure.
The story itself doesn't even seem to offer any answers. It leaves more questions than before but not in a good way, not in an "I want to know" way. Simply in a "huh?", yawn way.
Such a disappointing film.
The Morning Show (2019)
9/10 for the first 5 character driven episodes but then it falls apart
The first 5 episodes are excellent. The writing is almost all top notch, the balance of storylines feels good, and it felt like a debate, an eye opener was being allowed to form. Would have been 10 with some better casting, but really, a top show.
Then came episode 6 and it felt at first like really clumsy, unsubtle, political mid season filler. Really poor.
Episode 7 wasn't as clumsy but simply ill considered. The tension given by the internal spaces of 1-5 was lost, replaced with poor quality CGI, open spaces that felt like they were there for posing and, yet again, a filler feel.
Episode 8 got things back on track but together with 9 and 10 had firmly switched to event driven writing with the vents feeling forced and designed to reach a setup. So the intrigue, the sense that these could be real people, and the essential need for the stories to feel that they came from the characters was lost Well, almost. There was some of the good stuff but it was a small amount, drowned by the "let's now show this chess move, then that chess move", and characters acting the way Eps 1-5 hadn't set up at all.
I persevered because 1-5 had been so good but overall 5-10 dragged this down to a 6 for me. And I stopped there after seeing the reviews for season 2.
Stand out. Carrell. He gets written poorly more in 6-10 but when he got the material, 10/10. Weakest lead, Witherspoon because she wasn't right for the part. Should have been someone in their 30s at oldest, better still late 20s, someone who actually felt and looked different to Aniston. Best support, Harden by a mile. Weakest (unfortunately for the show) Mbatha-Raw.
Home Before Dark (2020)
A very good chidren's show that could also have been a very good adult's show
This show gets a lot right, it gets most right. And for children, my gut feel is it gets almost everything right. But it's frustrating that with some tweaks it could have done the same for adults.
First off, the central character, spot on. She's been written and she's acted with intelligence, interest, personality, whatever you want. And to me she is highly improbable but not impossible. I guess the person she is based on would strike me similar.
The surroundings are rather predictable (somewhere less photogenic would have been better), as is the pick n mix support. But for kids, I reckon probably spot on also.
The main weakness though is the 1 dimensional unbelievable father. He just doesn't seem to have any depth or development. The way he is written is simply far too weak for the show. Weak enough that I gave up part way through.
Feels like maybe too much focus group involvement or maybe too many chefs behind the scenes.
But as far as I got, for kids and adults combined, a solid 7.
CODA (2021)
Formulaic and forgettable except for parents during 1st half or so
I've seen so many variations of the basic story, so many variations of the basic characters, so many... you get the idea.
It would be switch off almost immediately for me if it weren't for the portrayal of the parents in the early scenes, maybe half the run time? Each on their own would be a slight positive but not a whole lot. What worked was the interaction between them. Probably the son adds needed oil to make this work but his character lacks any interesting writing. Anyway, they are worth 3 stars on top of the 1 star I would otherwise rate.
As for the rest of the cast, characterizations, set design, music, everything, yawn, yawn, yawn.
If CODA benefits anyone deaf then I'm happy it is widely seen.
And if the deaf actors genuinely are deaf then I'm happy they got to show off their chemistry.
That aside, nope, not for me.
Bad Sisters (2022)
Sum of the parts couldn't be lower
Likeable characters: 0
Character I can care about at all: 0
Believability that the sisters genuinely are from the same family: 0
Score out of 10 for the male characters being rounded: 0
Score out of 10 for feeling that the characters were developed because of the story rather than being simple cast by numbers: 0
Score for making use of interesting locations, sets etc rather than make it feel like window shopping: 0
I don't know whether the issue is Sharon Horgan (who really can act) bein limited in ability behind the scenes, or instead if it was the studio etc imposing all of the above, but the end result is a dislikeable montonous yawn.
Foundation (2021)
Superb period original meets ill advised, cut price "same as, same as" new extension
How can a big budget and modern day visual effects possibly go wrong with superb source material like Foundation? Simple really. By adding a "same as, same as" ill advised contemporary extension. The two jar and the extension brings the original down to its level.
It doesn't help if the "same as, same as" approach has been taken to casting and design (clothes, sets, even titles).
I found none of the actors up to the standard required or deserved by the books, the points of the books lost in contemporary politicking, and costume design especially weak. Why do I mention costume design? Well, as the material and acting are weak it leaves audiovisuals to do an unfair share of heavy lifting, but they too often were simply poor run of the mill.
I gave the show until episode 3 due to the reviews that argued for it despite it being Foundation not much past digging the original trench. But to go further would simply waste valuable life. A pity.
Why 3? Well, those original trenches are there and almost nothing is shockingly bad. But that's a poor level to be at.
Severance (2022)
Flabby at times but a worthy character driven The Prisoner for today
Overall an excellent show that gets almost everything right. Congrats.
Especially noteworthy for me is the casting and set design. There are shows that get a sizeable part of the casting spot on but Severance gets it entirely spot on. And the set design acts as an additional character itself and again is spot on.
Really the only reasons I didn't go with 10 stars are flab in the middle that I think would have benefitted from cutting 2 episodes worth, and a rather wooly final episode that was too much breath holding and insufficient thinking.
On top of that there really aren't any surprises, but I'm on the fence about this. As the whole premise is alien why are there no surprises? But against this, the whole show really is character driven and so the fact we can connect the dots before the characters do could be a good thing.
Anyway, really an excellent show and stands head and shoulders above any other Apple+ show I've seen. And the only show I've seen (that I can remember) that has a feel like the great The Prisoner (original of course).
Slow Horses (2022)
Formulaic, flat, rip off, predictable, unashamedly political yawner
Take one high school age, politically correct, no experience of the world writer who reads very narrowly, let them write an MI5 script and this is the sort of formulaic, flat, rip off, predictable, unashamedly political yawner you'd end up with. Not to say the writer actually is at high school, but it feels like it.
Really, why does the world need yet another show that puts so much effort into trying to force a tired, narrow, self serving agenda on viewers that there is no effort left to be any good at all, when an MI5 show could be written to explore real nuances, conflicting views, get into what is driving society as it is today and simply being honest? It can be done. It has been done before. Just not here. Not even remotely.
As for the directing, production, performances, Oldman has a little depth yet is 100% formulaic. The rest are forgetablly poor but Jack. Lowden deserves special mention for impersonating Simon Pegg much of the time. Why? For what reason? Maybe he does this normally and it is simply news to me because I've not seen much of his work. But whatever the case, why? If you are going to impersonate an actor, why Pegg?
I was going to give up part way through episode 1 but based on certain reviews here decided to stick with it to see for myself up to episode 3.
Lilies of the Field (1963)
Gave it 20-30 minutes but not worth any more
This feels like a "throw unbelievables together on a peanut budget" TV job (from back before big budget TV productions).
The cinematography is technically fine, the score ditto, the location has atmosphere, and Poitier shows clear ability (and is head and shoulders above the rest of the cast) but that's it.
The premise is paper thin, the motivations Poitier is given incomprehensible, the direction of the plot and dialogue banal.
What a disappointment.
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Picard on a soapy pedestal
For me, TNG Picard is by a clear head the best written and acted character from any ST. From that show, Data was the second best written and acted. So, giving Picard more story time and throwing in Data as a bonus ought, OUGHT, to have been a good idea. Go for a singe story series rather than anything episodic, for me should also have been a bonus. Unfortunately....
What it feels like came out was Patrick Stewart, not Picard, and not any semblance to TNG. I'm no Trekkie so if all this has been discussed and I'm missing something that's why, but it really does feel as though Stewart has called far too many shots and been pandered to, leading to a very strong patronising whiff. Enough that I made it only to episode 2 (or was it 3? Not god enough for me to recall).
I've read very negative reviews of Picard here that seem to put the TOS/TNG etc Federation on a different pedestal, seeing it as altogether wonderful. Maybe this was Rodenberry's aim. But to me it too came across as patronising, being a very flimsily disguised "USA is wonderful and everyone else will come around to our way". The difference is that the TOS/TNG pedestal/patronising tone was also naive and at least had some potential and shared interest, unlike the Stewart pedestal, which is very narrow, with o chance of being shared/universal.
Beyond Stewart, it all felt rather soapy, overwritten and overacted. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what, if anything, could have been done about this as I find the vast majority of recent shows suffer the same fault. So I suspect any showrunner would have been tied on his, even if they appreciated the issue. And I'm probably an outlier on feeling there is a problem.
So, why 3? Well, I persisted through to at least part way through episode 2 (or 3), so must have seen some potential in the story. Just not enough.
Small Hotel (1957)
Delightfully formed small charmer
A wonderfully balanced trio of Gordon Harker, Marie Lohr and Irene Handl are the heart of this utterly charming, warm and lovely gem of a film. They are simply perfect for each other and Harker in particular is a delight.
Billie Whitelaw provides solid meat, although would have benefited from more nuance/shading.
Really, the only reason I don't give this a 10/10 is I found the others parts either thinly drawn or acted.
What an absolutely delightful find and thanks to those who resurrected it.
Playing in the Road (1947)
Memorably odd
Look at most UK footage of this era showing urban areas and there'll be kids playing in the street and almost no (or no) cars. My guess is for most streets road safety for kids simply wasn't a big issue.
In this film though the single cars that appear, with almost no other people on the street, appear to be driven directly at large groups of kids (or adults) obviously in the middle of the street and brake last minute or too late. In one scene the driver then gets out to patronise them and tell them it is their fault. After he drove at them and braked too late. Huh? The scene also appears to suggest a bombed out site with lots of rubble and debris is a safer place to play.
So, as a (road) safety film, from a 2021 perspective, I'd give it 1 star only.
But as a slice of life document I found it quite memorable. That odd attitude, and the way the kids all follow the one kid with a toy wooden plane, jsut really stick with me.
River of Steel (1951)
Epic whimsical delight
One of the best 1950s British animations I've seen. Shot through with a whimsy that tallies well with having being scripted by Roger MacDougall, it adds the feel of an epic (especially the first few minutes), all drawn and coloured with the same sort of bravado characteristic of the positive, forward looking, "white heat" enthusiasm for the future and technology of the age. The score fits perfectly and the characters are drawn with real warmth, humility and pride.
The production screen states it was produced by "The W. M Larkins Studio in co-operation with The British Iron & Steel Federation" so possibly the latter contributed funding (maybe all the funding) but this is only a possibility. The piece certainly doesn't come across as propaganda, more a sort of honest promotion to put a face to faceless steel mills, letting people know how important steel was to large facets of life. So I think an earlier review here really mischaracterises what it is all about, unfairly.
Really happy to have stumbled across this little gem.
Poor Cow (1967)
Interesting as a documentary, aimless as a story, weak characters
Take a large pinch of salt given Loach's clear political preferences in his work but even so the unstaged elements of this work well as slice of life documentary, giving a wonderfully natural feel overall. Unfortunately at least one of theses sections is many times too long so the editing definitely needed more skill. So, 7 stars from me
On the story and characters side though, it is really weak. The only character with any sort of depth is Terence Stamp's. OK, not necessarily an issue if the plot delivers, but it simply doesn't. Both characters and plot feel like dishonest dressing on the honest documentary, but without the direction to pull the subterfuge off. So, 2 stars from me.
Overall, 5 stars.
No Offence (2015)
First series decent (8 stars) but after that becomes snacking filler
I enjoyed the first series and would give that an 8 but series 2 and 3 are nowhere near as well put together. Overall, it also feels like it is borrowing from Line Of Duty (OK, I don't watch many police shows, so maybe I've missed many other similar productions) but is a long, long way behind.
What really makes the show is Joanna Scanlan. The writing clearly revolves around her and in series 1 it works well. I wouldn't call the show a comedy at all, but her character and performance is maybe irreverant?
Series 1 holds together well because beyond Scanlan the threads of all the characters blend together well and so the script has good balance. Paul Ritter is the strongest performance other than Scanlan but all are at least passable, except for Alexandra Roach's badly written, unbelievable character..
Series 2 suffers dramatically as the show switches from giving the secondary characters and threads breathing space to focusing heavily instead on Scanlan Elaine Cassidy and Roach, with Ritter as the main second string. It also suffers from real implausibility in relationships and an increasing god like, foot never wrong approach to writing Scanlan. The characters are all beginning to show themselves to be rather 1D. Plus Kate O'Flynn's character has become bizarre and the lawyer pair are comic strip style. It has also become political in its choice of bad guys and really seems to throw things in to the script just for the sake.
Series 3 thankfully eliminates Roach's character and brings some of the characters from series 1 back to life a bit more. But by now Scanlan is well and truly feet never touching the ground always gets things right, Cassidy is simply irritating, the politicisation of who is bad and who isn't has swung way beyond any reasonable balance and the bad guys are simply laughably badly written. I only bothered to stick with it to see if one or more twists appeared at the end (I was expecting Scanlan/Viv and Tom Varey/Stuart to be shown as corrupt. But nothing. Simply stuck to its dull, 1D rails.
So, overall 6 stars. But best bet is to watch series 1 and then spend your time on the vast amount of better stuff available than series 2 and 3.
Green Wing (2004)
Someone found fast forward, rewind and slo-mo and thought they were funny
I guess a majority of people agree.
But for me, they aren't. They aren't even interesting.
A Very British Coup (1988)
Thoughtful, well acted, well directed, only let down by a narrow party political script
This is an excellent example of the sort of quality production that UK television used to be so capable of turning out. It is quiet, directed and acted without any overblown or cliched soapishness, a well chosen length, paced well, all around just really well made as a piece of storytelling.
What lets it down for me is the narrow party political bias with the 5 advisors listed at the end of the credits including 2 former journalists on Communist newspapers, and a certain Alistair Campbell (could this be the man who, as the unelected Alastair Campbell, was so central and powerful in Blair's governments?). I don't recognise the other 2. Unsurprisingly the script comes across wit a heavy dose of extreme left tropes and dreams, sprinkled here and thee with enough honesty, to act as a propaganda piece.
But it is so obviously a propaganda piece (none of the subtle type of fake news propaganda of today) that this can be tuned out or listened to for what it is. Which is interesting in itself.
I do knock 3 stars off for it though (I would have rated 9 stars otherwise) as it wasn't necessary. OK the recent history of the UK Labour Party at the time included people like Michael Foot but imagine how much better the script would have been if it had been based on an only slightly left of centre Labour Party.
It has also weathered the years very well and with obvious writing changes could have been made recently with either pro or anti Brexit politicians/groups in pace of MacAnaly's extreme left Labour as there are clearly establishment figures on both the "left" and "right" who could be portrayed as the scheming, unelected bad guys.
Buster Keaton, the Genius Destroyed by Hollywood (2016)
Feels like it was "researched" by a 10 year old in under 10 minutes.
I love Keaton's 1920s films so seeing lots of great clips from them is always good. There are plenty in this "documentary" so at least my time wasn't wasted.
But the actual "script" is dreadful. I don't know whether it was "researched" extremely quickly or whether the writer or director wanted to paint a particular (and very partial) picture, or both. Either way, a viewer will be misled and come away with a very partial understanding of Keaton. Yes, being at a major studio didn't work for him, but the supporting argument....
The crux of the whole thing is that the writer wants to portray Keaton as caving in and giving away his absolute creative control (ceding to MGM) despite artistic & commercial success because of immense pressure from in-law Joe Schenk, casting Schenk as black & white bad to Keaton as black & white good. Yet Keaton was not fully independent of outside control in he period just before the switch, his commercial draw appeared to be fading and Keaton is quoted (not in this film) as saying about Schenk that he "never steered me wrong in his life until then. I do not think he meant to that time". Important context ignored, presumably by Frêne (the writer).
There are many, many more omissions that completely change the viewer's understanding of Keaton, his environment, who was and wasn't responsible for x, y and z.
On top of that the non-Keaton footage choice is frankly bizarre. Most (almost all?) of it is B&W footage of trains. No problem, ties in with the production's focus on Keaton's love of trains and with The General. But while some of the footage may well be from the USA and of period with The General etc, or even of journeys Keaton made later, a large part (I wasn't counting, but my guess is a significant majority of the time) is actually footage of railways in the UK and largely 1960s. I recognise footage in there that is taken from other documentaries and has no more relevance to Keaton than would footage you could film yourself today if you went to your nearest line in any country in the world. Is this simply sloppy, or is this misleading? I'm not going to judge. But it does feel all of one with the general approach the filmmakers have made to assembling this dreadful "documentary".
Frankly the worst "documentary" I've seen in ages.