فيلم Back to the Fatherland

Back to the Fatherland

Back to the Fatherland is a movie starring Gil Levanon, Katharina Maschek, and Dan Peled. BACK TO THE FATHERLAND is a documentary film that tells the story of young people leaving their home country to try their luck somewhere else....

Running Time
1 hours 17 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Gil Levanon, Kat Rohrer
Anneliese Rohrer, Susan Korda, Anneliese Rohrer
Gidi Peled, Gil Levanon, Katharina Maschek, Dan Peled
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

BACK TO THE FATHERLAND is a documentary film that tells the story of young people leaving their home country to try their luck somewhere else. A common tale these days if these young women and men weren't from Israel and if they wouldn't be moving to Germany and Austria, where their families were persecuted and killed.

Comments about documentary «Back to the Fatherland» (19)

Donald Carr photo
Donald Carr

I would rate this film a solid 7, but for some reason it just didn't resonate with me. It seems as though the film maker has been compromised by the fact that he is Jewish. The film seems to have been 'forced' into becoming anti-Semitic (not a good sign). I don't think that was the intention of the film maker. He really didn't want to be anti-Semitic and he would have done a much better job of covering his own "personal" bigotry if he hadn't been Jewish. Perhaps he was told that he should be an anti-Semite, so he decided to just change his nationality. I would say that it is an important film to show to any one who has lost faith in the Church, because it really is possible to find a new faith or belief, without being Jewish. The movie is worth seeing, but I think it would be good to watch it with someone else to get a better understanding of what it is that the film makers are trying to do. Maybe I'm not a "good" viewer of film, but I think I can say that I enjoyed this film.

Andrew P. photo
Andrew P.

I'm not a huge fan of RTL, but I really like this documentary. It's mostly about the Russian media, and RTL's work. It has some of the best interviews with the producers and editors of RTL and this documentary has a few interesting facts about the media that the majority of people never know. It's also a lot of fun watching this docu, as it has lots of references to great films like "Brasil Street" and "Dog Day Afternoon" I think that this is a really good documentary, and the filmmakers are talented and they should be able to find better work.

George R. photo
George R.

This is a very well made documentary. The documentary does a good job of giving you a feel for the reality of the situation in Iraq. However, the documentary does a terrible job of convincing you that this is not the case. It is very hard to accept that so many U.S. soldiers who fought for their country would willingly turn around and help others who had a different perspective on the situation. There is no question that some U.S. soldiers may have done this, but I don't see the evidence to prove it. I do believe that this documentary is very close to the truth. It gives you an accurate picture of what happened, but it does not convince me that there is a huge amount of human trafficking going on. The reason I did not like this documentary so much is because of the horrible distortion of facts in the documentary. I do not believe that the truth is at all distorted in this documentary. If the facts were manipulated, the documentary would have been far more informative. If you can take the facts in the documentary and then understand the reality of what is going on in Iraq, this is a very good documentary. I do not recommend this documentary to people who are not interested in the reality of the situation in Iraq.

Gary Burke photo
Gary Burke

Since I had never seen such an entertaining documentary, I decided to give it a chance. I'm glad I did. This film is actually very well made. The photography, the acting, the sound and the editing are all of very high quality. The subject matter is very interesting, and the information that is provided is very relevant to our current world situation. The overall message is that it is possible to remain "pro-American" while simultaneously supporting those who have fallen under the power of the Axis Powers. My hat is off to these two documentary makers, and all of the other Americans who took the time to read and watch this film. You have my appreciation, and my congratulations. I will be looking forward to seeing more from these two very talented individuals. Congratulations again, and good luck.

Gregory photo

Like many of you, I was raised by the USSR. As a child, I remember reading about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the newspapers, and then seeing this movie (which I had never seen before). One thing I didn't like was that the film was too glib and sentimental. It portrayed the Russians as being the saviors of the world, while we were all made to feel like there was no hope for our own survival. The film is beautiful, but it would have been more effective if it had portrayed the Russians in a more realistic way. I would recommend this film to anyone who has read any of our histories and would like to know what it was like to be a Soviet citizen. This is the only film that accurately portrays what life was like in the Soviet Union. In the United States, we hear about the economy, the war in Vietnam, and then we hear about the turmoil in the Soviet Union. You would think that we could all agree on what happened in the Soviet Union, but unfortunately, we have a different viewpoint from the Soviets.

Joseph Hughes photo
Joseph Hughes

The only war that the Western Allies should have waged was the one that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We are told how it all began: in 1945 the Soviet Union launched a war of aggression against a small country in Eastern Europe, the Czechoslovakia. By late 1947, it had been reduced to a country of less than 5 million people, which could barely support itself. The Soviet Union declared that it would not allow the return of the Czechs and the Germans who had lived there since World War II. The Soviet Union and its allies invaded Czechoslovakia on August 12, 1948. Between the two wars, 3 million Czechs and more than 5 million Germans had fled the country, and there were fears of a return of the "Jewish problem". In the face of an invasion by Soviet tanks and troops, and a limited, and highly ineffective, resistance, Czechoslovakia declared its independence from the Soviet Union. With the support of Poland, the Czechs managed to take over the Soviet borders. The Polish-led Polish government then declared war on the Soviet Union, and in January 1949, the Soviet Union declared war on Poland. The Red Army attacked the Czechoslovakian capital of Prague on April 30, 1949. After the Red Army was driven from Prague on May Day, the Soviet Union and its allies withdrew from Czechoslovakia. By December 1951, Czechoslovakia was a small country of only 4.4 million people, which could barely support itself. The only war that the Western Allies should have waged was the one that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Cheryl Barnes photo
Cheryl Barnes

I watched this movie with the intention of watching the documentary, but the documentary got a hold of me and I didn't want to miss the movie. This documentary really looks into the history of the World War II era and also the unconfirmed rumors of the sexual abuse of children. I think that all the rumors that have been going around are true and the film shows the hard truths about this event and what was happening in the camps. It also shows the frightening reality that many of the men were involved in the war. It also shows the horrors that they were facing and also how they tried to keep the children out of the camps. I really enjoyed this movie and I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good documentary.

Phillip Martinez photo
Phillip Martinez

It is hard to watch the last hour of this film without hoping the director and writer will get better, but they don't. The film is on the level of a documentary or a documentary on the state of Israel, or on the level of the Olympic Games. The point is that the film is too slow. This is a very long film, and not a very good one. There are no good points or points worth mentioning, only points of confusion. The film is slow and should be seen in the cinema. A documentary or a documentary on the state of Israel. The choice is up to you. 7/10

Julia Marshall photo
Julia Marshall

This documentary is interesting for two reasons: (1) It's the story of an Israeli man who was working with his son in order to bring him up in a Jewish community and bring him up with the knowledge of the Jewish religion. This man was unsympathetic toward the Palestinians and supported Israel, but his son is now a radical anti-Zionist and opposes the State of Israel. (2) This is a film that is very interesting and may make you think about your life and your beliefs. It's certainly an interesting story and very well told, though. I liked the idea of Jewish people living in a society that opposes them and only supporting Israel when they are threatened. In other words, we are actually the good guys in this story. The problems with the documentary are the fact that it is very biased and it is somewhat hard to believe that the young man who was working for his son could actually have been radical. He was a very good Jewish man who wanted to bring his son up in a Jewish community and educate him about the Jewish religion, but in the end he did it through violence and hatred. Overall, it is a very good documentary and a must-see. 8/10.

Ronald Ross photo
Ronald Ross

This movie really opened my eyes. It really touched my heart. It also brought tears to my eyes. If you're looking for a movie to get the word out about the human rights situation in your country, and for the fact that you're watching a documentary, this is it. However, it is not the typical Hollywood type of movie. It is not a movie that you would see on TV or in a movie theatre. This is a movie that you will be able to put on your home network, and you can watch when you get the chance. I recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in politics. It's definitely worth the price of the movie. It also gives you a good idea of what it's like to live in an authoritarian country.

Eugene Mendez photo
Eugene Mendez

I had hoped that the film would be more realistic and with a more accurate portrayal of the events of the Russian Revolution. What we get instead is a movie with a cast of mostly of neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists. This is not only inconsistent with the ideological agenda of the film, but also the message that the film tries to convey. While the movie shows us the historical facts, it fails to cover the social context of the time. The portrayal of the Russian people in the film is somewhat misleading. While it shows us the brutality of the Red Army, it is not entirely accurate. While the Red Army is shown as brutal and inhuman, we are told that the Red Army were basically the same as the Germans during the Second World War. While the Nazis were at the time the most brutal regime in history, they were also the most popular. While the Red Army was completely and utterly dominated by Communists, it was also the most popular regime in history. It is very confusing to try and tell the story of the Russian Revolution. While the movie does show the effect that the revolution had on the lives of the people, it does not show the impact on the everyday lives of the people. The movie shows a small part of the impact of the revolution on the lives of the people, but not the impact on the everyday lives of the people. This makes it very hard to understand the effect that the revolution had on the people. Also, while the film is obviously intended to be educational, it does not portray the Russians as completely evil. It portrays them as victims of the revolution. While this does not seem like a valid portrayal of the Revolution, it does seem very believable. The movie does a very good job at portraying the fact that the Red Army had a long, and at times brutal, relationship with the people of Russia. The film even goes as far as to show the Germans as being partially responsible for the Red Army's actions. While it is true that the Red Army had a very brutal relationship with the people of Russia, it was not a relationship that was a result of the Red Army, but the Communists. In a way, the Communists were the oppressors and the Red Army were the oppressed. The Communists were trying to destroy the Russian Revolution and the people were trying to destroy the Communists. This is a pretty good movie, and it was a very important historical movie. It showed how the Red Army was the first and the most popular regime in history, and the Communists were the second and third, and their relationship was one of a brutal relationship, but a loving relationship. It showed that the Red Army were fighting for the people, and the Communists were fighting for the people. I enjoyed the movie, but it is a very flawed movie. While it shows the history, it doesn't show the revolution.

Ralph G. photo
Ralph G.

I was in the army at the time of the invasion of Normandy and I was a kid in school. But it is such a cool film. And it is a shame that it was never released on DVD. I'm a bit of a pacifist so I can't really blame people for not wanting to see it. But I don't think it is a documentary either. They were just going through the details of what was happening at the time. But it is great that they are still able to show how it was and why they were there. It is like a travelogue of all the troops. The movie itself was rather slow and I think it would have been better to have edited it together. It is kind of a long movie, but it was still very good. I give it a 7.

Ruth N. photo
Ruth N.

I haven't seen any of the directors' films, but I did like this film. It's a bit slow in parts, but the film is extremely well-done. I don't think the reviewers on here have seen all the films, and the film is far from perfect. I feel like the film is trying to portray the German people as a homogenous group, and at times I thought it was a bit too close to portraying them as a racist group. There are some racial slurs in the film, but I think that is not what the film was trying to portray. I think the film was very well-done, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to see a good documentary on the German people.

Anthony photo

This is the second documentary to be released by the Peter Liljedahl Foundation which has a purpose to bring to the public a documentary on the Serbian war in the late 90's. The Peter Liljedahl Foundation is a non-profit organization which funds projects that make a difference to people. The work of the foundation is funded by donations and philanthropy. They do not receive funding from the Serbian government, which has been criticized in many of the country's newspapers and in other media. The film was a collaboration between the foundation and the local TV station. The documentary covered all aspects of the war in the city of Prizren in the Serbian province of Southeastern Serbia. The team of journalists involved in the production included Dragan Stanic, director of the Pristina-based institute of archaeology and anthropology and a former military officer, but also editor of the monthly newspaper Miljepi. A number of new information about the Prizren war was presented in the documentary. The documentary also contains information about the war from other sources. For instance, there is information about the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik. He was shot dead in his apartment in Prizren. The documentary was produced in cooperation with the Institute of Culture and Youth of the Republic of Serbia (ICYJ). The majority of the footage was shot in Prizren and Southeastern Serbia. The film contains interviews with many local people. The team worked for two years to get the film made. The most interesting part of the film is the material it uses from the museum and the newspaper Miljepi. A special mention should be given to the archival footage of the book Miljepi that was published in 1995. The story of the newspaper Miljepi was brought to life in the documentary. For instance, there are two scenes that are not used in the film, but were also included in the book. One is when Miljepi reporters are gathered by the police and are informed about the location of the assassination of Prime Minister Dodik. The other is a scene where the newspaper journalists are interviewing the journalist of the prime minister's house. The film also includes interviews with people who survived the war and with the reporters who were in Prizren when the war was underway. The work of the team of journalists was very effective. They interviewed people in the towns that were affected by the war. They also interviewed people who were in Prizren when the war started. The information from this film is very interesting and shows a little more of the effects of the war. The interviews with the reporters were very interesting as well. This film shows a little more of the war than was previously known, and it is an important contribution to history. The film was made for educational purposes. This is a great film for history buffs. This is a must see film for everyone.

Mildred P. photo
Mildred P.

The documentary is really a commentary on the film. The questions that the filmmaker wanted to answer, were not always answered, or at least not at the right time, by the filmmaker himself. It does make the film a little bit long, and a little bit "dull" at times. The editing is not good either. The focus is not always on the information, but more on the interviews and what people were saying about it. The filmmaker tries to answer the question about the film, about the interviewees, and the effect it had on the world. But it never fully answers the questions he wanted to ask. I was impressed by how this film went for an hour and a half, but then it just goes off in a different direction. At times, I was thinking that the filmmaker would never finish it, or at least not to the same extent. It felt like it was never really finished. It also seems to give out a lot of information, and not really let you know enough about what people were saying, to know what the film is really about. Overall, it was an interesting documentary, that did seem to be one that was longer than it needed to be, but it was still good.

Robert photo

This is a documentary that is mostly from the point of view of the war veterans, but it is important to point out that the same horrors and the same experiences are happening to the other generations. In every generation there is something that you don't think will happen to them, and then you are faced with a day like this, that is terrifying, and in many ways it would be a death sentence. Even though I am not from the US and I am not a combat veteran, I feel like I have been living in the same world with the vets I've spoken to. The documentary starts out with a lot of shots of the bombed out areas and shows what it was like when the war ended. After a while, we get to hear from the veterans who are now their children. The men and women who survived the war with nothing, only their love for their family. The film is very moving, very well done and you feel for the people who have been traumatized by the war. I can't say enough good things about it. It's not perfect, but it's a good start, and hopefully we can see more of these types of documentaries in the future. The soldiers in the film are not portrayed as being well trained and there is some really horrible stories. I think if it weren't for the war, and the PTSD, the ones who would be showing up on the streets would have been able to overcome their PTSD, and they would have been fine. Overall, this documentary is a good start to the reality of the war. If you are interested in the history of the war, and the men and women who fought, it's a must see.

Nicholas F. photo
Nicholas F.

This film is a tribute to the great Ukrainian people who sacrificed their lives in the war for independence. When the war began, the Soviet Union's army arrived in Ukraine. The Ukrainian communists sided with the Nazis and the communists were forced to flee to the West. Some people fled to Germany and others to the USA. Many of the leaders fled to Canada and the US. The film is a documentary on how the Ukrainian people came to the realization of their independence and how the people were involved in fighting the Nazis. The Soviet Union had several reasons to lose the war: first, the Germans were strong and they were able to hold the ground, which meant that the Soviet Union lost many battles. Secondly, the Soviet Union was not ready for the final defeat of the German army and it needed the aid of the German army in the Ukraine. Third, the Soviet Union was not ready to let the Germans leave the Ukraine. As a result, the Ukrainian people suffered greatly. The film is an overview of the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The film shows how the Ukrainian communists worked with the Nazis and how the Ukrainians were concerned about the lives of the people. The Soviet Union's last days were not easy. In some places, they were able to defeat the German army and the Ukrainian people were not happy. The film is not an attack on the Ukrainian people or their government, but an overview of the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Daniel photo

This film is about a veteran of the Warsaw Ghetto, who fought in World War II. He has difficulty speaking, and his speech is often garbled. A woman is interviewing him about his life. This is a pretty standard and typical WWII documentary. It is also a little bit sad. But, as far as I'm concerned, it is not a bad film. It has some good footage, and some funny scenes. Some of the actors are not great, but they are not the worst. The film is quite professional, and the language is appropriate. It is not just a propaganda film about the Warsaw Ghetto, but it is also a documentary about the Warsaw Ghetto. I think it is good and worthy of viewing.

Jack photo

After watching "Rise of the Socialists" I thought this would be a better movie than "What Now?" but it is really not. I think they did make the movie more powerful by focusing more on the German crisis and less on the economic problems. There is only one crisis in the whole movie and I think it is the one that is really important. The economic crisis in Germany is mainly a German problem and this is also shown by the movie. It is not really a German problem. I think the movie could have been better by focusing on the economic crisis more. Instead we are just told what happened to the German economy. I think the idea of focusing on the economic crisis was an interesting one. It is possible that the film would have been better if they had focused on the economic crisis more. It might have helped to understand why the Germans were so angry with the economic situation. I think the only positive thing in the movie is that it was made in English and it is not a horrible movie. The cinematography and the editing are great and the soundtrack is also great. I think the problem with the movie is that it is too long. I think this is also a problem of the German movie. I think the Germans have to do a better job in the making of their movies. I think the problem with the German movies is that they are not made in Germany. There is no small local cinema in Germany so they have to shoot the movie in a very large German town or city. This is usually not a problem but for me it was a problem in this movie because it was in a German city. The Germans should not have to spend more time in Germany then making their movies in Germany. It was not a problem in "What Now?" because it was shot in Austria. In the German movie "The Big Short" we were in New York and in "What Now?" we were in Seattle. So I think they could have done better if they were in Germany. In the American movie "Moneyball" they were in Los Angeles, in "What Now?" they were in Seattle. They are not really necessary in a German movie. They were great in "Moneyball" and they were also great in "What Now?". Overall I think this is a good movie. It is about the German economy and it is about the economic crisis in Germany. It is a good movie and I would give it a 7 out of 10.