I have read some grumbling about Bud Greenspan's method of making Olympics documentaries. This is the first one of his movies I have seen, and while I can understand some people's objections, I cannot really agree with them. I have seen a number of other Olympics documentaries, and while some can be called artistic masterpieces, most fall well short of that. Many of the earlier documentaries show footage of the events but give very little context. The footage may be exciting but there is little human interest. Greenspan (at least in this movie--I can only assume his other movies follow the same template) concentrates on only a dozen or so events, and then singles out an athlete or two from the event and gives their back story. I imagine some people would get frustrated at the sameness of this approach, but it kept my interest throughout the 3 1/2 hour run time. I even got caught up in the suspense of each event even though the outcomes were rarely in doubt. I suppose this approach would seem formulaic after seeing a few of his movies, but if a formula works, why change it?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
