فيلم Intent to Destroy

Intent to Destroy

Intent to Destroy is a movie starring Shohreh Aghdashloo, Taner Akçam, and Hagop Asadourian. Filmmaker Joe Berlinger meets with historians and scholars to discuss the Armenian Genocide and the continuing denial by the Turkish...

Other Titles
Det armenske folkedrab, Intent to Destroy: Death, Denial & Depiction
Running Time
1 hours 55 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
History, Documentary
Joe Berlinger
Cy Christiansen, Joe Berlinger
Peter Balakian, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Hagop Asadourian, Taner Akçam
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

After several failed attempts, Academy Award-winning filmmaker Terry George finally directs The Promise (2016), the first mainstream fiction feature about the 1915 Armenian Genocide in which 1.5 million people were killed by Ottoman Turks. Recognizing the highly politicized nature of shooting a sweeping First World War - era epic about one of the most contested events in contemporary history, documentary legend Joe Berlinger embeds with the production. Combining emotional behind-the-scenes experiences of its cast with rarely seen archival materials of the atrocities being dramatized, Berlinger restores the human dimension of a dark history. As he digs deeper into the genocide's suppression, he turns up an astonishing campaign by the Turkish government to control the narrative of the massacre, one that reaches directly to Toronto's own film community. This thoroughly original film-within-a-film lays bare the plight of a people, both past and present, still seeking acknowledgement.

Comments about history «Intent to Destroy» (21)

Ralph B. photo
Ralph B.

You know, I've always wondered what the reaction would be when the truth was finally revealed to the public regarding the Ten Commandments monument. Did the general public not agree with the idea of removing the monument? You know, that is one of the questions this film tries to answer. You'll have to watch it to find out. There are quite a few scenes in this film that involve the monument and it's origins. It gives you a good idea of the monument as a landmark, which is always good. There are a few scenes that show you how the monument has impacted the lives of a number of people. It does show you the roots of the Ten Commandments monument, the people who built it and the context that it has had on the lives of those who worked on it. There are also scenes where you see the monument in its current state and the ruins of what the monument was like. These are good scenes because you get a good sense of what the monument would have looked like today, if it had not been removed. Overall, the film is very good. The footage is quite good and the film does a great job of capturing the essence of the monument and the people who worked on it. It is a pretty decent film and it is a good film to show your friends.

Russell Andrews photo
Russell Andrews

A great movie, made very interesting because it shows a "dirty" process that has been going on in Mexico and is still going on. We are told how huge, incredibly expensive, and a very wasteful process is for the oil companies. That doesn't mean that the process is bad or bad, it's just the way it is, and it's happening. There are a lot of things in the movie, you need to watch it and understand them and there are some scenes that are a little unbelievable. I guess I can say that the movie does not leave much room for interpretation, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad movie, and that's what makes it so enjoyable. I don't want to go into the whole details about what happens, but in order to really appreciate the movie, you need to see the process first hand and understand it. If you do that, you will get the general idea. To me, that's what the movie is about. Just to remind the viewer of how some of the chemicals are used and how it works, and how the companies hide their true profits.

Kathryn B. photo
Kathryn B.

An American expat watches the government's effort to fight a man with a Canadian connection for the crime of exporting drugs from Canada to the US. It's interesting to note that the FBI seems to have paid off Canadian police in a previous raid on the Canadian drug cartel in the States and never arrested them. A private investigator believes that he knows who the expat is and follows the story to find him. It's also interesting to note that the Canadian government may have been involved in the decision to oppose the enforcement of the drug laws in the States. Canada's position may have been influenced by its own experience with similar matters. The two main characters who appear in the film are Canadian; the expat from Canada is played by David Cote, who has a Canadian accent; the private investigator is played by "Tommy O'Connor", a Canadian actor. It's important to note that Canadian law enforcement is rarely portrayed as law abiding citizens in film, and in this case, that's not the case. The movie is based on the fact that the Canadian police and the FBI have an interest in getting a Canadian expat extradited to the US. So a Canadian film about this matter makes for interesting viewing.

Frank Stewart photo
Frank Stewart

Many have said that if you don't like a film then it is not good, but I would have to disagree. This documentary was made to counter the negative view that America has of the peoples of Africa and the result is a very good film. I believe that the negative view of America is incorrect and that the people of Africa are the victims of American policy. There are two countries in the world that are viewed as savages: North and South Korea and these are two countries that are being treated very unfairly by the United States. There are two countries that are very bad: The Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. In some cases the UN has failed to stop the slaughter of millions of people. If this film would have been made 10 or 20 years ago I would not have been so concerned about it. I can see why the UN, USA and all of those people who are trying to help the poor nations on the planet will not want this documentary to be made. This film shows why some people hate the United States, the planet and mankind itself. It shows the difference between the two people that most people have in their hearts and in their minds. It shows how different the two countries are. It shows why we don't like these two countries, but we do like the American people. It shows that the United States is the enemy of the planet and mankind itself. And it shows how the United States has set up the money to make a killing in Africa and put those people on the pill. It shows why the UN is failing to save millions of people and why the most evil man in the world is the president of the United States. It shows why the poorest people of Africa want to live in freedom and dignity and why they have to fight against the most powerful country on earth.

Victoria M. photo
Victoria M.

This documentary, which I saw at the Toronto International Film Festival, is on the subject of the disaster that befell the BP oil well on the French Caribbean island of the same name. It is a very well-done film, and a necessary one. For starters, I did not like the way the oil well was portrayed. I thought it was the wrong way around, and I would never in a million years want the oil companies to get their way in dealing with an accident. On the other hand, I have to say that, as the voice over said in the beginning, "It could happen again, and it could happen to anyone". The people that lived around the well knew about the disaster, and lived with the fear that they would never see their loved ones again. It is a film, and the only one I've seen where the oil well was not the main topic, and was the most important part of the film. The oil company knew that, but it didn't want to know, and they continued to do business with the oil company. I thought that the film did a good job of showing how well the oil company was doing, but, because the oil well was not the main focus, and I thought it was the wrong way around, I did not enjoy it as much. The film is still very important, and still very well made, and I can't wait to see it again when it is released. I also liked the actors, especially David Zatz, who portrayed a very convincing and believable middle-aged oil worker. The producers did a good job of creating an atmosphere of disbelief in the film, as we follow the lives of the people who lived around the well. I would recommend it to anyone who would like to learn more about what happened, and to have a better understanding of what happened to the people around the well.

Rose photo

What would you do if you were the inventor of a revolutionary new contraceptive device that actually lowered your risk of a pregnancy? Would you take it to your doctor and tell him he's wrong, and go about your life while you have a chance to work out your predicament? The CEO of the drug manufacturer that developed the contraceptive, who wanted his name not to be mentioned, wouldn't. He could face a lawsuit if the device ever went on sale, and would keep the company from being able to take the $100 million profit. That's because he was a male. In this documentary, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", the average working-class white male living in one of the poorest parts of the U.S.A., has an opportunity to educate himself and others about the consequences of high-income society. It's quite rare that people do that nowadays, and rarely, if ever, does the news have a reporter interview the CEO of a drug company who makes a killing from the sales of his drug. At the time this film was made, this was not the case. The drug companies were making millions, but the public was more interested in celebrity gossip and gossip show talk radio. However, this was the case in the late 1960's. But, as the film shows, people did indeed get to hear about the rise of the contraceptive pill. It was a time of hysteria and threats of lawsuits, but the public was curious, and the potential to end up in the wrong hands was more fascinating than anything else. What was the reaction of these guys to the revelation that the pill was, in fact, about to save millions of women from pregnancy, and to know they were willing to stop making a profit? The fact that the CEO, who put profits before human life, didn't want to face the consequences, is certainly a testament to the fact that he was more concerned with his own success and his own position, than the fate of the rest of the people he worked for.

Janice Lawson photo
Janice Lawson

This film is a wonderful example of documentary filmmaking and the ability to tell a story that isn't completely superficial. The narrative flow is something that I don't see often in documentaries, and it is beautifully expressed through a combination of visually astounding, carefully chosen quotes and the compelling performance of the director and his team. I had to watch this film twice before I fully understood its message and I still don't understand it all, but it's a beautiful film that I wish I could have seen again.

Evelyn photo

Although the DPRK has had nuclear weapons for many years, it has never used them and was "imported" to the US by the USSR. The first nuclear tests are unannounced, for the people to understand that these weapons are not aimed at the US. The nuclear tests are extremely dangerous and can lead to a nuclear war. The US's objective is to destroy the DPRK and the missiles. The US, therefore, must be the aggressor and is the most hostile towards the DPRK. If you want to know more about the DPRK, see the film, The Hidden Weapons. But if you are looking for a documentary, I think you should consider "Asking Questions."

Billy Meyer photo
Billy Meyer

The American public and the world will come to know that the Bush administration has literally taken over the U.S. Government, and it is up to the American people to bring the crimes of the Bush Administration to an end. The Bush administration is now willing to use torture as a means of interrogation. This documentary examines the extent to which the Bush administration's policies have resulted in the deaths of innocent Americans. The Bush administration's torture and interrogation programs, as well as the policies that led to them, have led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The Bush administration has committed war crimes. It is time for the American people to demand that the Bush administration either resign or be removed from office. A "no" vote at the 2004 Presidential election will help bring about this change.

Rebecca A. photo
Rebecca A.

This documentary on the history of the nuclear weapons industry is more or less the summary of an outline of a book written by Simon Strantzas. Strantzas is a physicist and one of the founding fathers of the nuclear industry. As a high ranking scientist he wrote an open letter to the nuclear industry, and in the process of this letter some of his opinions were confirmed. The fact that nuclear energy is still in the forefront of the scene is due to this fact, and the documentary is an important document of this. It is interesting to see Strantzas as an amateur, a much smaller figure than a prominent figure like M. King Hubbert, who is one of the founders of the Manhattan Project. But as the doc shows, Strantzas is very serious and cares deeply about the power of the weapons industry, and this reflects in his words. This documentary covers a great deal of ground, and it is definitely recommended viewing. The best quote from the film comes at the very end when Strantzas states that the United States is the only country to have ever made the use of nuclear weapons. It is a well expressed sentiment, and shows the world that Strantzas did not make the assessment lightly, as there were many other nations who were more interested in nuclear weapons. This is also the case with the quote that comes before it. Strantzas says that the use of nuclear weapons is a central part of international politics, and for that reason the position of the U.S. is one that is very strong. The fact that this is a documentary shows that Strantzas was not only a respected scientist, but also an important political figure. I think it is very appropriate that this documentary is made and presented in the form of a documentary, because it is very clear that Strantzas was trying to put forward a point of view that is very different from the one of most people, as it comes from a very different background.

Heather photo

This is a good documentary. The showpiece was to see David Archambault and Luke Arnold of Big Tobacco. They're quite credible, really. You can see a lot of humor and irony. The anti-smoking side has been very convincing, with videos and long quotes. You know how most media of this type are pretty much just fabrications? But then you have these guys who basically state the whole truth. The smoke coming out of the chimney. How much of the industry is owned by the company you're in? And then you have the tobacco companies and the public relations people. You see them colluding with each other to prevent the truth from getting out. The really interesting part is how one of the anti-smoking guys manages to sort of redeem himself after he gets burned by the media. Then he spends the rest of the film explaining how he learned that the industry was killing him. A nice documentary for the fans of Big Tobacco.

Jose photo

I went to see this movie because I heard that the actors were all very good. I can't believe I was so wrong. The actors all did a good job, though I do wish they could have done a better job, and it did seem as if a few of them were probably all over the place in some scenes. The story did not seem to flow together very well, and in places I found it difficult to tell what was going on. I also found it difficult to figure out the true significance of some of the events that took place. The director did not use much CGI in this movie, and as a result I was left wondering what happened to the dinosaurs. It is sad that they could not do anything to save the dinosaurs, and had to kill them to do so. I believe that this movie did a very good job of showing us how the dinosaurs were faring and how we were faring, and showing us why people did what they did to them. It also showed us the people who were doing the killing, and the reason for the killing, and how much destruction they caused to their fellow creatures. It was a very sad movie, but I did not see it coming. I guess people just can't believe that the dinosaurs are gone. However, I have to say that I thought the movie was good. I like the fact that the director did not use as much CGI in this movie, and I also like the fact that it showed the destruction and destruction that humans cause. The director should be proud of this movie, because it was an effective movie about a serious subject.

Tammy photo

Just saw this documentary at the Sundance Film Festival. Well acted. Told the story with much factual information. Could have been better. The amount of violence and crimes committed was still overwhelming, but there was plenty of other information that was not covered. Director Janus did a great job of giving it a documentary feel. Thank you Janus.

Gary Mason photo
Gary Mason

If you're a veteran, you'll probably enjoy this film. Otherwise, there are plenty of things to be dissatisfied about. First of all, there's the understated contempt and distrust the film intends to portray the public towards vets, while simultaneously portraying the veterans as pitiful wretches. This is served up with graphic descriptions of the horrors of war, the soldiers' isolation and loss of face. Second, there's the lack of an investigative body of research, or any accountability for the excesses of the war. The American public is shown to be able to withstand the horrors of war and yet see none of the atrocities that are occurring. It's as if war is always a "game", which requires a high level of psychological trauma. All the same, the movie doesn't come out as a total loss, because at least it doesn't paint the vets in a negative light. If you're a pacifist, it's likely you'll be dissatisfied.

Terry M. photo
Terry M.

This documentary made it through many twists and turns and many of the people in the know were pretty tough, but also had a lot of wit and humor. I would not have paid to see this in the theater, but for my DVD, I think it was worth it.

Daniel L. photo
Daniel L.

Efforts by the United States to separate Serbia from Yugoslavia have been a politically charged issue that has divided the US, Europe and the UN for decades. The policy has been driven by the Soviet Union and its allies in the West and its allies in the Soviet bloc, Serbia was seen as a member of the EU and NATO until its break-up in 1991. Many more countries in the region have adopted similar policies towards Serbia as have countries in Africa and Latin America. The conflict that erupted in the summer of 1992 in Bosnia-Herzegovina was a conflict that had been simmering for over a decade. The war was triggered by the assassination of the leading Serb politician and foreign minister, Andrej Plenkovski, by Bosnian Serb soldier Ratko Mladic, a supporter of the Marxist-Leninist Milosevic. Despite the presence of tens of thousands of Serbs on both sides, and the threat of a long-term humanitarian crisis, the UN Security Council voted to take a UN peacekeeping force into the country to drive the Bosnian Serb forces out of the country. The UN forces, comprising 2,000 soldiers, 1,000 local police and 6,000 para-military forces, began the process of cleansing the country of Serb soldiers and civilians in the summer of 1992. In the autumn, the UN forces were ordered to evacuate all civilians. The United States, which had supported Milosevic throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, opposed the United Nations peacekeepers' entry into Bosnia. It claimed that the peacekeepers had been fighting on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs and had started the conflict. The only UN member state, the Soviet Union, was opposed to the UN peacekeeping force, saying that the UN force had set up in Bosnia should have been based in the UN-protected zone. The Yugoslav leaders, supported by Milosevic and the Yugoslav army, wanted the UN peacekeepers to leave, in order to turn the UN peacekeepers over to the Bosnian Serb army. The Yugoslav leaders wanted to see that the UN peacekeepers were defeated, and in return the Bosnian Serb forces were supported. This led to a war between the Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats. UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, while engaged in combat operations against the Serb army, were facing thousands of Serb soldiers, many of whom were from the local Serb population. The UN peacekeepers were attacked by Serb soldiers in the main training camp in the town of Visegrad in April 1993, the Serbian government were preparing to launch a new offensive to retake the city of Sarajevo, which had been taken by the UN force. The peacekeepers were all opposed to the conflict and kept an extremely low profile, refusing to leave the camp in the city of Visegrad and refusing to carry weapons or weapons support from the UN force. It is estimated that some 500 UN peacekeepers were killed and 3,000 wounded during the fighting, including 1,500 Serb soldiers. The political and diplomatic ramifications of the conflict and its consequences have lasted for over 20 years, and it is estimated that tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions of people have been displaced. There were some UN peacekeepers who were killed in action. Many of them were found to have been involved in, or responsible for, the war crimes that were committed by the Bosnian Serb forces. A UN report on the conflict was published in 2004, and the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1540, imposing an arms embargo against the Bosnian Serb army. It was criticised by the UN, including the United States, which insisted that the sanctions were not being enforced. The US also wanted the UN to withdraw the troops from Bosnia and support the UN peacekeepers. The United States had been concerned about the US-trained Serbian police forces, who were later responsible for committing serious abuses in the Bosnian Serb forces. Many of the United States' allies, including the UK, Canada, Australia and Belgium, opposed the arms embargo and urged the United States to enforce the arms embargo. Despite its attempt to condemn the peacekeeping force, the United States refused to allow the UN troops to leave Bosnia. In June 1996, the US government imposed sanctions on the Bosnian Serb government in an attempt to force it to withdraw its troops from Bosnia. The United States was very reluctant to impose sanctions. The United States believed that the UN force should have been based in UN-protected zones, and that the sanctions should have been imposed on the Bosnian Serb government. The sanctions were designed to force the Bosnian Serb government to withdraw its troops from the territory of Bosnia, but the US government continued to maintain that the UN forces should be located in UN-protected zones. The United

Nathan Bradley photo
Nathan Bradley

This film is a wonderful look into how a school teacher (Nursing Teacher Instructor) deals with the importance of being a teacher and taking on students who need a lesson. It was great to see the working relationship between teacher and students, and the relationship between the teacher and a high school teacher (Kane). It's refreshing to see a film that is able to take on something as serious as this and still have a light hearted tone. The students and their stories are amazing and one of the best parts of this film. I recommend this film for anyone who wants to see something different than the usual action films.

Mary photo

I just had the opportunity to watch this movie on March 4th, which is about 100 days before the conclusion of the presidential election. As usual, I avoided a "news" story on the front page, and I avoided, to an extent, watching any TV coverage. So I was left with a sort of "left-field" experience. I don't normally like documentaries. I am not particularly religious, but the most recent videos I have seen about what is going on in the Middle East, and especially about Israel, have left me pretty angry, and made me question how long it will be before our own country (the U.S.) becomes a "no-man's land" for the most violent, reactionary, or outright anti-American groups. I think the filmmakers did a very good job of illustrating this "no man's land" situation. They did a very good job of explaining the difference between liberal (ie. pro-war) and conservative (ie. anti-war) ideologies. I think that the director and writer did a good job of presenting the "yes-man" point of view. I was really surprised by the extent to which some people (Jews, Arab-Americans, etc.) could be considered "left-wing" in their attitude towards the Palestinians. I think that the directors were accurate in portraying many (but not all) of the people who could be considered "right-wing". I am not a U.S. citizen, but I was surprised that the director did not show that people of color, in general, were more likely to vote for the Democrats than white people. The current government in the U.S. is not exactly known for being fair to people of color. I think that this was an interesting documentary to watch, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in how our current government treats the U.S. citizens. Hopefully, the election results will not be as chaotic as they seem to be.

Arthur K. photo
Arthur K.

There are a lot of people in this world who have been fighting and dying for this country. They have all deserved to live. They have suffered and died for this country and these men should not be forgotten. That is why they are the heroes that we honor. The other movies about the Viet Nam war have tried to show this other side of the war but this one, a little different. The makers wanted to show that it was not all about politics, it was about all those men that sacrificed their lives. The voices of these men are just as strong and memorable as the voices of the men who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Daniel Schultz photo
Daniel Schultz

This documentary is the story of the people of this village in Myanmar. It shows how they have managed to remain so alive despite the deaths of their relatives in the same villages in the past. Many people live in the same villages and know each other and speak to each other in their native language, but not always. The documentary is well produced, and the footage is very powerful. I especially enjoyed the scenes of funeral ceremonies. I have never been in Myanmar, but I've read the book "Mau Ram" by Het Toey Than, which is a living text about the lives of this village and some of its inhabitants. I have also seen the film "Buttai," a film about the villagers and their ancestors, and that was equally powerful. "Buttai" was produced and directed by the same director. All in all, this is a powerful film. The story of this village and the people it is about are very moving. It is also very powerful that the villagers did not show themselves as nothing but good, and they are very grateful for what happened to them.

Evelyn photo

This is an important documentary for many reasons. Firstly, it brings the problem of global warming and the consequences of it. Secondly, it highlights the fact that we have been doing nothing to stop it. However, I found this film rather depressing. As it shows us the devastation of the effects of global warming, we are forced to contemplate our own involvement in the problem. At first I found it difficult to get over the fact that the human race is creating this hell on earth. But as I watched more and more, I realised that we have a responsibility to try and help the environment. Even in countries with much less energy use, we still have to take action. This film makes a very powerful statement and I highly recommend it. 8/10