Why did I give this documentary such a low mark ? Do see this film, which is an overdue expose upon a very deserving and dislikeable, bullying arrogant thief, Lance Armstrong.
The subject matter is intensely interesting.
The reality of Armstrong's perfidious behaviour, particularly against those who were "against" him (basically anyone who didn't worship him)and his disgraceful misuse of the courts, is compelling viewing.
The enormity of the lie and the scam Armstrong was running still does not even appear to have dawned on Armstrong himself.
He appears arrogant and smug, and not the slightest infinitesimally tiny portion of true remorse is visible.
HOWEVER: At just over two hours, the film shows a lack of editing, in several areas.
Many segments are too long, and several appear to ultimately have no point.
I found myself losing interest on numerous occasions, and even though the schadenfreude of watching the train wreck this despicable liar caused himself was an excellent subject; this will turn many non Tour De France fans off, attention wise.
There are long segments in Italian and French (integral members of the scam, officials etc) which the viewer will wait in vain for interpretations, sub-titles, or an English dub-over. If no explanation of the language, and therefore the subject matter, is included, then many of these sequences could have been deleted, giving the watcher a better chance at applying attention and keeping interest.
By far, though, the film's disturbing failure is the sound, and there is no excuse for such a cruddy effort with today's technological wizardry.
There are several questions from the film-maker which are completely inaudible, even at maximum sound level. If you are anything like me, you will be very frustrated at the dropped voice, mumble-speak that passes for dialogue - you will constantly be muttering "what ? What did he say ?" and at the steep prices many cinemas charge, filmgoers deserve to hear what's being said.
ABOVE ALL ELSE, the music is too bloody loud, and will often blast the viewer after straining to hear a few crucial words, to then having "background" music at deafening levels while narrating riding scenes, which are often too long.
Did the maker not look at the post-production tape ? Did he have the sound at astronomical levels in editing ? Was there any sound editing ? Could he not afford subtitles ? Was the film rushed to cash in on a "be first" tell all ?
We could stand another documentary on how this film so irritates the intended audience....
The subject matter is intensely interesting.
The reality of Armstrong's perfidious behaviour, particularly against those who were "against" him (basically anyone who didn't worship him)and his disgraceful misuse of the courts, is compelling viewing.
The enormity of the lie and the scam Armstrong was running still does not even appear to have dawned on Armstrong himself.
He appears arrogant and smug, and not the slightest infinitesimally tiny portion of true remorse is visible.
HOWEVER: At just over two hours, the film shows a lack of editing, in several areas.
Many segments are too long, and several appear to ultimately have no point.
I found myself losing interest on numerous occasions, and even though the schadenfreude of watching the train wreck this despicable liar caused himself was an excellent subject; this will turn many non Tour De France fans off, attention wise.
There are long segments in Italian and French (integral members of the scam, officials etc) which the viewer will wait in vain for interpretations, sub-titles, or an English dub-over. If no explanation of the language, and therefore the subject matter, is included, then many of these sequences could have been deleted, giving the watcher a better chance at applying attention and keeping interest.
By far, though, the film's disturbing failure is the sound, and there is no excuse for such a cruddy effort with today's technological wizardry.
There are several questions from the film-maker which are completely inaudible, even at maximum sound level. If you are anything like me, you will be very frustrated at the dropped voice, mumble-speak that passes for dialogue - you will constantly be muttering "what ? What did he say ?" and at the steep prices many cinemas charge, filmgoers deserve to hear what's being said.
ABOVE ALL ELSE, the music is too bloody loud, and will often blast the viewer after straining to hear a few crucial words, to then having "background" music at deafening levels while narrating riding scenes, which are often too long.
Did the maker not look at the post-production tape ? Did he have the sound at astronomical levels in editing ? Was there any sound editing ? Could he not afford subtitles ? Was the film rushed to cash in on a "be first" tell all ?
We could stand another documentary on how this film so irritates the intended audience....