فيلم RBG


RBG is a movie starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ann Kittner, and Harryette Helsel. The exceptional life and career of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has developed a breathtaking legal legacy while becoming an...

Other Titles
RBG - Ein Leben für die Gerechtigkeit, Nv Da Fa Guan Jin Si Bo Ge, RBG:不恐龍大法官, Alla corte di Ruth - RBG, A Juíza, RBG. Μια Ζωή για τη Δικαιοσύνη, RBG: Hero. Icon. Dissenter., RBG. Jueza icono, Tiao Ji Fa Guan RBG, RBG - õigluse esileedi, La jueza, RBG 最強の85才
Running Time
1 hours 38 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Biography, Documentary
Betsy West, Julie Cohen
Ann Kittner, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Wiesenfeld, Harryette Helsel
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

The exceptional life and career of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has developed a breathtaking legal legacy while becoming an unexpected pop culture icon.

Comments about biography «RBG» (22)

Stephen photo

This is one of those documentaries that have an impact on you. This is an important documentary about the deterioration of a country. It shows the incompetence of the government, of the people and the media. It shows how the government and the people should be running the country, but they do not. And it shows how the people are totally dependent on the government. This is a powerful documentary that has to be seen to be believed. It shows the disaster that is happening in our country and how it is leading to the collapse of the country.

Ashley H. photo
Ashley H.

This is an excellent film, and although the topic is foreign, it is easy to see that the same arguments can be applied to any religion. In fact, I believe this film could be considered a "road guide" for anyone who has a religious affiliation. It is a must-see for all who are interested in life, freedom and the human spirit.

Rebecca photo

This is a great documentary on a subject that is sadly not a topic of much discussion. In its way, it is a particularly intimate view of the religious world of the left in the 80s. The filmmakers do not set out to be any more than a documentary, but they certainly succeed in putting a face on a world not often seen. It is not only the documentary of an unusual subject, it is also a personal portrait of two people who happen to be good friends. Their shared sense of moral outrage is such that they often seem to be acting on their own moral sense. When the interview is done, the question is usually left open, and we will never know if their original views were wrong, or whether they did the right thing at the time. The film is a bit like a profile of Bill Maher, in the way that both share a common culture, but have very different outlooks on religion. This is not a very subtle film, and its force comes from its ability to bring to light so many things that are not so often brought to light, even by people of our generation.

Emma H. photo
Emma H.

I have recently re-watched "Roots" and "Bloody Sunday". And after "Roots" I found that "Bloody Sunday" was just as good. Both films were about the horrors that these little towns were enduring. Both films were very true to life and were an excellent tribute to those brave men who stood against oppression and terror. "Bloody Sunday" is also a beautiful and moving tribute to the freedom and honor of these men who took a stand against oppression and found the courage to stand up for the right to freedom and honor. "Roots" has the same kind of great atmosphere, acting and story. The only thing that is missing is the courage of these brave men who stand up for freedom and honor.

Kelly photo

In the most ridiculous way possible. The most important historical event in the history of our time is made into a movie. Absolutely pathetic. Lame. It is a tragedy. People have been duped into believing this. This is a documentary that should have been titled "A Matter of Fact". There is no argument for this movie. It is 100% propaganda and very damaging to the credibility of any historian, including myself. It's time we start hearing from people on the ground and not from a history professor that only knows how to pontificate on it. This is a case of "go find a dead guy and p* off him." It's the least that I could do to try to prevent further damage to my reputation and the credibility of history and even to the reputation of the government, which just got caught in a scandal with a documentary that had absolutely nothing to do with the government. Anybody who gives this movie a chance should be ashamed of themselves. This movie is only for people who are convinced of the American Government's involvement in 9/11 and the lack of investigative journalism. This documentary is a political tract designed to support the case for the government being behind 9/11. Anyone with a shred of respect for the history of our country and any intelligence should be appalled that this movie was made. There is nothing in this movie that supports the 9/11 truth movement. It's just a political campaign to tell us that it was "an inside job". The fact that this movie is being made is a travesty. The people behind this movie are probably not the only ones who should be ashamed. Those of us who actually know the history of 9/11 and its perpetrators should be ashamed of having made this movie. If I were an American history professor, I would be ashamed of making this movie. Anyone who wants to get even with those responsible for 9/11 should see this movie. The bottom line is that this movie has nothing to do with the truth, but is a cynical effort to cover up the fact that there is no evidence that the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. It is a way for the government to create a smokescreen to explain away the lies that it has been telling us for years. It is the only way to cover up the crimes of the government, and it's a very effective way. We will never know the truth about 9/11 unless the government does its best to cover it up. History has been made, and that is why people hate this movie. They hate that it's a propaganda film that is designed to cover up a crime that should never have been committed. The fact that it is based on false information is more important than the fact that it is based on false information.

Beverly photo

This documentary is not all that funny but at least I learned something. Most people are not in the business of making documentaries so maybe it wasn't such a bad movie. I think the director should've taken some of the events to see, in hopes that maybe he could make some more documentaries that are not made by the US government, but instead an organization like the F.B.I or the CIA, who is maybe more involved in propaganda or psychological warfare. I can't say that I'll be watching this movie again. I know I'll be making the same decision that I made when I first heard about this movie. But maybe if I hear it again some other time, I'll be able to enjoy it. I think that the main topic was "what is the purpose of secret intelligence agencies". and not "what is the purpose of secret intelligence agencies".

Philip S. photo
Philip S.

This is an excellent documentary about a highly accomplished artist, poet and painter from the 1920s, Arthur Rimbaud, whose work is generally considered to be the modern equivalent of the "dream and nightmare" genre of poetry. This film is wonderfully filmed, with a wonderful cast of some of the greatest British actors of that era. The movie also includes interviews with some of the most important figures in Rimbaud's life, such as his mother, the painter Henriette Lasserre, and his wife, Anais Nin. All these interviews were extremely engaging, and the fact that all of them were done by Rimbaud's biographer made this an excellent film. What really made this a great documentary, however, was the telling of the story from Rimbaud's perspective, which was a good idea. I mean, when you have a painter like him that has so many problems, and is so angry and sad, what else do you need? To me, the film was great because it showed the personal and artistic side of Rimbaud and the problems that he had with the government. It also included a couple of scenes from his own life that were really wonderful. In the end, this film really got me interested in Rimbaud's life, and I would recommend it to anyone that would like to learn more about the man.

Christine photo

Wow! What an incredible movie! I never saw this coming. I have been a film critic for years and I have been impressed by the work of many in this genre. This one is beyond my expectations. The performances are outstanding. Ben Affleck is at the top of his game and his efforts to portray a man who has lost his grip on reality are the best I have seen. The cinematography is breathtaking. The story is compelling and the photography is beautiful. The music is also great. I have to say that this movie is about the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. I am so glad I bought it and I will have it in my collection. I hope this is a franchise for Affleck and will not be disappointed.

Doris Lane photo
Doris Lane

I have to say this is a highly underrated documentary about the late Mayor Richard Riordan. The most fascinating thing about it is the fact that almost everyone has an opinion about the Mayor and about the way he or she behaves. Even the people who have their own opinions, like the people who comment on the film, seem to have a personal bias to their opinions. If you like Mayor Riordan, you will most likely like this documentary. It is a highly underrated film about the Mayor that anyone who loves the Mayor should see.

Billy M. photo
Billy M.

As a documentary of great consequence, this movie is a treasure of sorts, as it does bring together the issues that animate the subject and the hope and concern that was brought to the surface in that moment of the 1980s. What makes it so interesting is that it has, for all its cynicism and biting humor, some of the best moments of cinematic memory that I have ever seen. In addition to the clips of Ronson's work, there are a few notable documentaries about the other aspects of his life, such as the part of his mother, who used to make her children watch her. It's about the period when Ronson was still being published and was running the New York Times, and the way his relationship with his wife was almost certainly a manifestation of that. The work of Diane Arbus and the ones about him being published are the most amusing, and they get quite moving. The problem is that the movie is not very good. If it was meant to be a documentary, I can't see how it would have been more successful. The great, insightful moments don't feel like they are getting them, and they never seem to end, unless it is for one or two seconds at a time. Ronson's life was a long series of events that did not seem to end well. The movie seems to be saying that he was the kind of guy who could be very depressed and not get much from it, but you don't really know, because you don't really know how he got there. It's as if he made his first New York Times article about the whole idea of mail order brides, and then found himself in the middle of the scene with some lunatic who was saying he could do the same thing and you would just be his assistant. He had to go on, and you don't really know why. It was sort of a way of saying, "Hey, if this works out, I can go do this and say that!" The problem is that it's almost like he was a bit of a failure in that respect. I'm not sure why, but he never seems to have succeeded in his particular situation. The first and most interesting parts of his life seem to be the one where he was being more and more prolific as a writer, but these are never explored. The "special feature" on the DVD is very interesting, but it seems to be more about his relationship with his wife. That was the only part of the story that is more interesting, but I don't think it is quite as interesting as the other parts. This is not to say that the other parts of his life are not interesting. His story about the fight to get his New York Times article published is fascinating. I think it's very rare for a movie to cover the final stages of an artist's life, especially when the artist was doing so well, and in some ways they have succeeded in doing that here. It's a beautiful story, the kind of thing that can be told a lot of times, and the movie does a good job of telling it. The real question I have is why he did not take advantage of the opportunity to be a bigger writer, which he got for this film. The short answer is that he was too proud to do it. I don't know if that was because he didn't want to be known as a writer, or because he didn't like to be considered an author. His favorite book is "Alfred," and the story of the movie version is that he was more interested in the idea of that book than in the actual book. I think it's because the book was actually a success. It's very nice that he wanted to see the book as a movie, but I don't think he was able to find the right people to do it with. For example, the director and the co-writer of the film are not very good, and that seems to be

Alan photo

I think the film 'Capturing the Friedmans' has a message to the public that is the following: no matter what else you have, or don't have, there is always a reason that has to give you purpose. This is the film's message. As a result of this film, some people started to believe that it is okay to be poor. Now, there is no reason for it. It is the only way to live in a civilized world. I am not a fan of Mr. Hanks. However, as he plays the role of the father who is fighting against the system of his son's school and the government, I started to be happy. He can be considered the father of the film. I hope to see more of him in the future.

Rebecca photo

Every year, in April, I celebrate the birth of the American independent film movement. This documentary explores that period and its history. It's a fascinating look at the accomplishments of a band of young American filmmakers, a decade before they became the vanguard of independent film. The group's early history is fascinating and the film covers the period from early 1980s to late 1990s, the group's rise and fall, the formation of the independent film industry, the controversy surrounding the film, and how the group's artistic decisions impacted the industry. But the film is not just about the group. It's about their culture, their community, their generation, and their history. It's about a fascinating time in American history, but also about a group of filmmakers who are still relevant and important today. The documentary's scope and subject matter is so broad that it makes for a heavy film to watch. But the film is really about the filmmakers themselves, their passion, their community, and their legacy. It's a good and interesting documentary, but one that should be watched as a whole.

Cynthia Welch photo
Cynthia Welch

This is a very emotional movie and what you do not see is what people's life is like. It is a very important issue and for the victims it is their responsibility to educate the society about what they go through and to take control of their own lives and take care of their families. It is important to show that we all have a responsibility to take care of our children but how we do it is different from what some people would expect. The movie is very well done and I recommend it to all.

Adam Perry photo
Adam Perry

This is an absolutely fascinating documentary about the relationship between Robert F. Kennedy and his friend and mentor J. Edgar Hoover. F.K. had turned against the war in Vietnam and against the government during his presidency and this documentary shows us the lengths that he went to to ensure that his positions were kept in line. Hoover believed that the public hated the war and that Americans would not appreciate an end to the war. The documentary also shows how he was able to get the FBI to stop the Watergate break-in and keep it quiet for almost a year. It's also interesting to hear what he said about the Vietnam War and his concerns that it would turn into a huge problem and how he came to terms with it and came to realize that it was a mistake. I would also recommend watching this documentary about the civil rights movement in the 1960s because it shows how Hoover managed to work with Martin Luther King and how he was able to find the compromise that was needed to get the end of the war. I would recommend this documentary for anybody who wants to know more about the life and work of J. Edgar Hoover.

Nancy photo

A documentary about how a common genetic disorder changed the lives of the two men who were the basis for its discovery. Robert Redford's extraordinary documentary about Robert Redford was originally scheduled for release in 2003, but since then, the current director of the National Institutes of Health's Center for Human Genome Variation has put the film on hold while the NIH is considering a name change to Human Genome Project and Redford is not available to discuss the film. This is the kind of situation that makes this film so compelling. Redford and his wife Celeste are involved in a civil suit against the pharmaceutical company that made the vaccine to prevent polio, and they are determined to correct this error and keep their children healthy. Their fight is both personal and public, and they are both determined to be heard. As they go from one house to another, the documentary doesn't really reveal anything new about this story, but Redford's superb performance makes the film worth seeing. The one thing that Redford, and the film, leaves out is the significant role played by his wife Celeste, and how her unexpected absence from the film is more than compensated for by the wonderful performances of the other players. The two films have a lot in common, but this is a superior documentary. Redford's portrayal of a great man who is a good-hearted philanthropist, an expert in vaccines, and a man who is determined to correct a mistake that he believes has robbed his children of their future is brilliant. Redford is certainly worth watching. He is a great actor who is also a great documentary filmmaker. The film is well worth seeing.

Katherine H. photo
Katherine H.

Director J.C. Chandor does a fantastic job capturing the incredible beauty of the Florida Keys with his documentary "This Is How It Feels". A must see for any nature lover, whether they are a beginner or an expert. It's a true eye opener for all viewers to the real life, environmental impact of the Keys and it's beautiful blue waters.

Diane photo

The average person will see this movie and probably not really understand what it was trying to accomplish. I don't think that's a bad thing, it just means that if you don't really understand the point of it, it will not be understood by you. In fact, it's a shame that the general public is not well-versed in the history of the film industry. So if you are a fan of the studio that produced it, you might want to look into it, or maybe if you are a film buff, you might want to see it for yourself. But if you are just looking for a movie to kill time, you will not be disappointed. Go see it.

Robert Andrews photo
Robert Andrews

I am a college student living in the mid-west, and my major is psychology and I was expecting this to be an all-out psycho-babble docudrama about his life, but this is far from it. I find it interesting to see some people who are involved in the movie as being involved in their field of work, but in the real world, they are pretty much on their own. There are a lot of people who are trying to make a difference in the world, and it is great to see that there is a lot of people who are working to make this world a better place. I did notice that there is a lot of commentary on the struggles of different ethnic groups, as well as the differences in how women are treated. I thought that this was a pretty interesting documentary about a guy who wanted to do good in the world, and it's a very interesting point in which you could relate to. This movie has a lot of personal information on Bruce's personal life, and I think that it is a very interesting documentary about how he tried to do good in his own life, but he didn't really succeed. If he had tried harder, he probably would have succeeded. This is a great documentary that I recommend to people who are interested in psychology and psychology studies.

Judy W. photo
Judy W.

Samuel L Jackson, as always, brings a lot to the table in this docu-drama about the making of the hit BBC series "Peaky Blinders". The BBC series is a series of dark, gritty crime dramas from the early 1960s. It's set in the '70s, but it is very true to its time period. You have to have a certain amount of empathy with the characters, because they are all essentially bad people. Some are more despicable than others. You've got the gangster, the loner, the dope dealer, the rapist, the killer, the spy. It's all a bit of a roll call of pretty bad people who make the best out of what they have to work with. This is a very interesting series. But as always with Sam L Jackson, it's very tough to watch. He's such a talented actor, but as this documentary shows, he can't bring the character of Tommy over to his own standard. And it's just as well, because it's hard to see what the point of it all was. The film's main strength is that it doesn't make a lot of concessions to the view that "Peaky Blinders" is just about Tommy. The "F" word is thrown around so much that it becomes ridiculous, and the character of Tommy himself is a bit of a caricature. His character is supposed to be the dirtiest, most despicable criminal of all. But in this film, he's shown to be a decent man who knows how to be a good father, a caring husband, and a good friend. It's not that he's evil, but he's just a good man. He's just a bad man. It's not very deep, and it's not very subtle, but it's very well done. This is a very dark docu-drama, and it's not really a great one. But it's well worth seeing, and it's a must-see for all fans of the BBC series.

Carol Flores photo
Carol Flores

I've heard people say this is the most important documentary they've ever seen, I can only say I agree, the subject matter is so emotionally powerful and compelling, the way that Harvey Weinstein deals with his personal demons and a far more direct, and realistic way of dealing with the issues in his life, the way that journalists, and even some of his enemies, attempt to have their say in his personal life and life in general. I think people need to see this film, not because of the subject matter, but because it is absolutely riveting. Harvey Weinstein had many of the greatest talents, he was an incredibly intelligent, and charismatic individual, but he also had the ability to manipulate people, and the ability to lie without consequence, he lied his way to the top, he did things that have come back to haunt him, and that in itself is an example of the ethics of the person who is doing the lying, and the ethical issues when the people he is deceiving, lie to themselves, and the things that can go wrong when a person is told the truth, without doing the same. Harvey Weinstein was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, but his bad actions hurt his business, and the harm that his actions had done, I feel like he was just a parasite on the rest of the industry, and it's still happening today. I think people need to see this film, as it is one of the most important documentaries about the man who has made himself the most powerful man in Hollywood, and I do think that it needs to be seen by people, especially if they are in a position of power, they need to see it, and it needs to be shared with people, because it has the power to do some good, and it has the power to make some people question the ethics of the way they deal with people.

Nicole McCoy photo
Nicole McCoy

Roger Ebert calls this movie "the ultimate rebuke to the creative-types-who-think-about-how-to-make-a-movie-and-think-about-how-to-sell-a-movie" as "two TV interviews that weren't in the same movie, but still were two interviews". The three men discussed movie making, the art of filmmaking and the machinations of the studios. When you watch this movie, you will hear them discussing the very different ways that directors make movies, the effects that film making has on the people who make movies, the art of the movie making process and how the people who make movies feel about their work. This is a documentary that has the power to stick with you, even if you are a filmmaker. It has two great interviews. The first is by the late, great Pauline Kael and the second is by Oliver Stone. They discuss how a certain type of movie makes a certain type of film and how the movie business has gotten so big that it has become a matter of prestige, not necessarily of quality. The other great interview is by the late great Howard Hawks. He talks about the influence of the big studio system on Hollywood and how it was hijacked by the film industry to be very very big. This is a great movie. It's a great documentary that will help you understand the way that films are made, how they are made and how the people who make films think about their work.

Michelle photo

A very emotional and well made film. Very well done. There is no doubt that we have a case of a great man who is now greatly missed.