MovieChat Forums > Prohibition (2011) Discussion > 6.5??

6.5??

posted 13 years ago by Samurai_Joe_Marshall
4 replies | jump to latest

What's so wrong with this mini-series for it to get a rating that low? I'm not saying it's perfect, but it was definitely fascinating and informative.

[–] PhoenixPhuck 13 years ago

I was thinking the same thing

Even the most primitive society has an innate respect for the insane.

[–] joystar5879 13 years ago

I think it's because the demographic that is most catered to, considers any history before 1980 to be irrelevant.

"....those who IGNORE history, are condemned to REPEAT it...."

[–] zephyr-123 13 years ago

^^Seriously? I don't understand that kind of attitude. Why would anyone watch it in the first place if they aren't interested in something historical and before 1980? I also don't understand why the rating is low.

GG's-Sophia: ". . .my dear husband Sal, may he rest in peace until I get there. . ."

[–] cvalance 13 years ago

Ken Burns co-creator, Lynn Novick, who did most of the heavy lifting on the project, admitted she knew nothing about Prohibition beforehand. Although the narration, the most important element of the production, was fine, it would have been even stronger had Novick had a background in the subject. The weakest part was the talking heads, very uneven from good (witnesses to events) to awful (the self-serving comments of that gasbag Pete Hamill).