فيلم L'Opéra

L'Opéra

L'Opéra is a movie starring Stéphane Lissner and Benjamin Millepied. A behind-the-scenes look at the Paris Opera, under the direction of Stephane Lissner.

Other Titles
OPER. L'opéra de Paris, Oper, A Ópera de Paris, 新世紀、パリ・オペラ座, The Paris Opera, L'Opera, Opera paryska
Running Time
1 hours 50 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Jean-Stéphane Bron
Actors
Stéphane Lissner, Benjamin Millepied
Country
Switzerland, France
Year
2017
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A behind-the-scenes look at the Paris Opera, under the direction of Stephane Lissner.

Comments about documentary «L'Opéra» (22)

David Crawford photo
David Crawford

I loved this film. A lot. It's so great to see how French culture was influenced by the US. I'm not a student of French history, but I'm interested in American history. This film is fascinating and provocative. I thought the interviewee was very charismatic. I would love to see this film in English!

Louis F. photo
Louis F.

I'm going to start off by saying that I'm not exactly a fan of the French language. I'm a former Fulbright scholar, and it has taken me two years to get around to watching this film. First, I was skeptical that I would find this movie entertaining. After watching this film, I decided that it is a film that needs to be seen by the general public. It is an important movie that will help people to better understand the French language. And the very best part of the movie is the video commentary that is included in the disc. It is really quite interesting to learn about the French culture and its people. It is funny, it is enlightening, and it is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a long time. And it is a film that I will want to watch again and again.

Betty photo
Betty

The only way to see this movie is to be an amateur. However, the way it was presented was really really good. Really smart and very good editing.

Alan Flores photo
Alan Flores

Gerald Furrows(played by director Robert Hill) is a pilot who is having problems with his job. His wife and children leave him for this one pilot. He's a loving husband, father, and husband to his wife Jessica(played by Carole Cantet) and his three children. In a town where everyone is like a fish out of water and he has to deal with that, he becomes a victim of that too. He's trying to find a way to make his job better, but it's hard because he has no experience, no career, and is just a pilot. This is a great movie, I enjoyed it a lot. The documentary is kind of boring, but I really enjoyed the things that he said and the people that he talked to. Also, the way the movie is structured is a great idea. It shows how everyone around him is losing their money, his family is going to go broke, and his children are going to be thrown out. He's trying to make it better, but he doesn't know what he's doing. You can tell he's trying to make it better, but I think he's not being very careful. His wife Jessica is also very patient with him. He gets very frustrated when he can't make it better. Gerald thinks that the pilots should have been flying the planes because they can save a lot of money. He wants to save up enough money to start a new business. The documentary is about all that goes on in his life, how he's making his job better, but the problem is he doesn't know how to. It's pretty interesting. I like this movie because it's different from other documentaries that I've seen. It's like a short film that has more stories than just about the documentary itself. It's a little more than the 30 minutes of this movie. It's like a feature length documentary. Overall, this is a great documentary and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys documentaries. My rating: 7.8/10

Louis photo
Louis

This film was directed by Henri Philippe, and it was made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Opéra, the French national soccer team, which was only founded in 1964. And it was made on a very low budget, with the idea that every film should start with a clip of the Opéra. The film does a good job of showing the early days of the team, the match with the Spanish giants, the civil war and the rivalry with the English. The film is in French, but I read the subtitles and I think it was English. And for some reason the film does a good job of showing the team's players during the civil war. This film is very interesting and I found it interesting, but I don't think it was really the best film I've ever seen about the Opéra.

Alice Hughes photo
Alice Hughes

It was always difficult to decide which way to take the opening sequence in a French film - "The Hole" or "Nothing", the former a simple shot of some people digging a hole and the latter a couple of people saying 'hello'. The opening sequence of "Nothing" seems to have been added in in the process of bringing the film together. In any case, this is a documentary, and with good reason. The film consists of interviews with the great French actors of the period (from the last ten years) and the students in France who want to become actors (though, this is certainly not the sole aim of the filmmakers). The interviews are of particular interest because they give the impression of someone recording a spontaneous conversation between a group of actors and trying to make sense of it. It's a fascinating experience to watch and hear these people talk about their experience in acting and what they see as the causes of it. If the interviews were not so interesting, it would be easy to forget that the film is about actors, and so it is. The good quality of the film makes it a must-see for those who have not yet seen it. 7/10

Jeremy Barrett photo
Jeremy Barrett

Many of the players interviewed for this documentary have gone on to greater things in their careers, such as legendary jazz pianist Gary Numan, who was looking to move to New York for a career change. Numan also interviewed four other composers who had already lost their composers to the next generation of composers. These composers (some of whom are still active in music, and who were asked to "talk about their legacy" in this film) include the late great Arthur Mime Jr. (Breathe of Air, also known as "The Fat Man's Lament"), the legendary Sergei Rachmaninoff (Ai-Ni-Na-Ka-Mee-Di-O-T-T, also known as "Elena"), the legendary Daniel Barenboim (Mandy Lenz), and the late great jazz pianist Albert Ayler (Dance, the Concert, the Concert). The documentary also includes the late great cellist Albert Ayers (aka "Lemmy") who is also interviewed. The most interesting aspect of the film is the perspective of the composer. It's not clear how much of what the composers are discussing is actual biography, how much is from their own recollections, and how much is from other sources. Most of the interviews seem to be about their experiences, and the most poignant moments are the memories of the composers who didn't make it in the music business. I've only seen the film once, and it seems to be more for me to hear from the composers than to see the actual work. I was surprised at how few performances of some of the older pieces were shown, and that the pieces tend to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum, with the piano pieces being the more traditional and melodic. (There were also some really interesting interviews with the musicians on the development of these pieces, particularly about the development of the first piano piece, "The Ballad of a Little Bird.") I found the film to be more a historical document than anything else. I was glad to see that I was not alone in feeling that this was a very worthwhile film. It is not a documentary about all that much, but it does try to tell the story of the people involved with the music. It does a pretty good job at that. I was curious about the composer's view of his musical family, which I believe is generally a positive view. I think the composers had plenty of support, from the family of the pianist who played on his piano (in fact, he is interviewed in the film) to the family of the composer's wife, who has been a real influence on his compositional views. It is worth mentioning that the woman, Elinor Ottenheimer (who also was interviewed), also spoke on camera about her relationship with her husband. It is also worth noting that the man who played the cello for her husband died soon after the movie was completed. This is something that really didn't come up a lot during the documentary. I would also like to know what he thought of the very public feud with fellow pianist Frank Sinatra (who was also interviewed). Overall, this is an excellent film. I do not know why it has a very low rating on IMDb, but I think it has to do with the fact that it is not quite as emotionally compelling as I had hoped it would be. I liked it, and I am definitely interested in hearing more of the composers' stories, especially those that may relate to what I had seen in this film. I did, however, wish that the film had been a little longer, as it would have been nice to hear from the composers' children, to see how they thought the films affected their lives. I would say that the film is worth seeing. It does have a few gaps (the interviews with the composers' families, the discussions about why the film is made), but I don't think it is worth giving a low rating, because the filmmakers had done an excellent job of getting the interviews and the stories from the composers and their families. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in music and who is willing to pay for it. It is a must-see.

Juan Wilson photo
Juan Wilson

I'd have to say this documentary about a little known French film company is excellent. Sure, it's not the most original or a particularly groundbreaking piece of work, but the way in which the company was made and the people involved in making it is excellent. The thing I liked most about the film was the way it was done. It was done completely in black and white and was meant to be. With a little bit of color in the form of the camera shots and some music the whole thing was a great way to go about telling the story of the company. And as for the music. Yes, it was good, but it was more or less just what you would expect from a French film and what you would expect from an indie film. There was nothing out of the ordinary in it, I guess. It was well done but not as original or as groundbreaking as I expected it to be. The story of the film company itself is one that I could really relate to and was as I've heard people describe it: not original, not groundbreaking but very good. Overall, I would recommend this film to anyone who likes to get into a little history or if you are a movie fan. It's a good film.

Ethan D. photo
Ethan D.

After seeing the trailer for "The Woman in Red" and then seeing it, I am completely at a loss to understand how this movie was even made. The movie is a documentary about a teenage girl's dreams about becoming an actress. I understand that it was based on her life story, but there are many problems in the movie that it is hard to understand how they made it. I was rather disappointed by the overall movie. For instance, the part about the dreams of becoming an actress is done in the wrong way. It was simply described as a "bad dream" that she tried to shake from her head, and it was not as if she was really excited about it. I cannot believe the director would suggest that a girl who has always been in a group of friends going through the same problems would be the same girl when she is in her twenties, and that she would be interested in acting. It is hard to believe the director would present this movie as an example of how this could happen in real life, and then tell the audience that she had been interested in acting for years. In addition to that, the acting in the movie is so bad that I was unable to believe it. There is one scene in the movie where she does an amazing job on a movie, and then she goes into the world of acting. It is so hard to believe that an actress would be able to do such a great job on such a movie without any prior acting experience. It is just not possible. Then there is the sex scenes, which are not only graphic, but also too unrealistic. For instance, she gets naked in the closet and puts her bra on. Why? It does not seem to make any sense. The director of the movie also used an awkward camera angle when showing her taking her clothes off. I am quite sure that she is no more than 14 years old, and should have been fine with doing a sex scene that is at least 20 years old. I know that sex is not usually that graphic, but there are times when I cannot take the movie seriously anymore. The most touching scenes were when they were talking about their families and friends. One of the friends even calls her mom "unbelievable", and she responds with "That's not what a mother is supposed to be like". I have heard that this movie was based on a true story, but there is no proof of that. For me, it is the biggest problem with this movie. It is not realistic at all, and I find myself laughing in real life when I think about the director who got this movie made.

Frank photo
Frank

I first saw this film in a screening at a Los Angeles arts center. I was surprised to see the caliber of filmic projection, the variety of films, the editing, and the general production. I am not sure if this film was a follow up to "Imitation of Life". In one scene, the camera is focused on a woman who has just had a baby, and one of the best scenes was that of a pre-birth baby crying with a brown stain on its cheek. The mother of the baby says, "it's from the bathroom, honey!" The implication is clear. The mother is getting rid of the baby and what she's doing is "imitation of life". The viewer's response to the baby was negative, although this was also an indication of the film's intent. The movie makes a point that babies are "unnatural", not only being abandoned by their parents, but by the child and its biological mother. The idea that the mother has to deal with the baby in this way is important. This movie is a visual treat, but its clear message is that babies need to be taken out of the womb.

Sandra M. photo
Sandra M.

Noah Baumbach's documentary about the Ebbets Field house is not as good as his previous movie in my opinion. It's one of the reasons I think it's a very good movie. It's very interesting to look at the lives of the people who lived in the house. It is interesting to see how the people of Ebbets Field lived, how they got to be who they were. I think it's a really great movie. Even though it's very short, it does show some important things. I think it's a really good movie.

Bruce photo
Bruce

This film was not as good as others have described, but it is worth seeing. First of all, I am a big fan of Nicolas Sarkozy and many others who are in government and do not want them in office, but I am not a fan of his prime minister. Sarkozy does a lot to get elected and in return he gets plenty of "mis-information" to the general public, and even if you don't agree with him you will see his ads and get the idea he's the best. He does this while simultaneously trying to continue the biggest economic catastrophe in France's history, which is not even the fault of Sarkozy. This movie is about the operation he started that ended in his demise and the government he helped to form. In the end he helps make more jobs, but he will never have the fame or fortune he once had. But this is not the point of the movie, the point is about how we got to where we are and how it has taken years of suffering to get there. The people in the room tell stories of their own lives, the stories are shown from a range of social class backgrounds, and even the background music is typical of a L'Opéra music video. The subjects are typical of all the French governments: the art of politics, the trappings of power, the failure of the economy, and even the failures of families. Sarkozy has never spoken to a journalist, but his actions speak louder than words. Even his family never talk about him, but that's not surprising, because he is quite distant from them. His wife calls him "bossy", but that's not the right word. Sarkozy is also famous for having long and boring diatribes, but they are not anything but meaningless remarks to the media. He doesn't even show up in the movies that much, and that is why this movie is important. It is a few minutes of him that are important. The fact that this movie is not about a one-sided or even one-sided view of the Sarkozy government is the first of many flaws. When one of the interviews with the other members of government talks about the cost of the oil, the topic that would be discussed in the daily newspaper is not discussed at all. When the other member of government is telling how he's not able to say anything on TV because he is the "new president", it's not the answer people want to hear. And the fact that the movie was released in the summer is not a good sign for the fall of Sarkozy. Sarkozy's economic disaster that was created by a series of complex interventions had a very different tone in the summer of 2003 than in the fall of 2006. In 2003 people expected a recovery, but now that the economy is rebounding, the public is also confident about it. They also feel that they can take a break from Sarkozy's government. In the end it is the economy that takes a backseat in the fall of the government, and it is the press that doesn't take a backseat in the spring. The question is: did Sarkozy have a hand in the fall of the French government? While watching this movie, it is interesting to see how everyone that is in government now that the war on drugs has been going on for so long becomes a part of the question of whether or not it was worth it. Some are in favour of the war on drugs, but others say the war has failed. Sarkozy's personal opinion is at odds with the majority of the country and he does not have any good arguments to back up his position. This makes the situation even more difficult for him. Even though he is not responsible for the failure of the economy, he is responsible for the economic failure. Sarkozy had been a politician for fifteen years and he has done nothing to change his attitude to government and to the media. He has tried to change, but he has failed and he has to go back to his own roots. This is a good movie, but I don't think it is the end of Sarkozy's career.

Jordan P. photo
Jordan P.

This documentary is a non-fiction look at what has been described as France's largest racial riot in the country's history, which took place in the town of Besancon on August 17th, 1968. In a city that is very European in its look, the film is about much more than the violence that took place in that area that day. The film begins by providing a chronological look at the history of Besancon, which as the film points out is very similar to the English village of Southend, which is where the riots took place in the movie. Besancon, it turns out, was a very similar village to Southend, with one big difference - the locals were French. Besancon itself had been a French colony from 1803 to 1815, and its population became part of the French nation when France gained independence from Great Britain. After that, it was an integral part of the French national history. The film then gives us a brief history of the events that led up to the riots. The city was founded as a French colony in 1807, and the school students were French (the same as their counterparts in Besancon). And of course there is the confusion that came with French and English education, which caused the majority of the students to remain French even as they began their studies. Over time, the French culture began to make its way to the students, and they did not feel the need to leave their parents and speak English. One of the students in the film says that they were taught to speak French for the first time on their first day in school. But the situation didn't last long. People began to speak English and the culture quickly disappeared. For years, the French and the Americans lived in separate worlds, and the situation of people from both cultures was much more homogeneous than it is today. By the 1960s, when the riots took place, the few French who remained in the city felt alienated from their neighbors. And one of the subjects in the film, the French mayor, who was on the run from his enemies, decided to try to rectify the situation, and he proposed a plan that had the French and the Americans moving to Southend. But people were not happy about the move, and there was unrest in the village. People wanted the violence to stop, and they were willing to take action. The violence was put down, but not completely. The rioters decided to continue, but more were to come. By 1969, there were 3,000 people, mainly young men, living in the borough, and a whole lot of younger people joining the mob. But with the advent of the Vietnam war, this was all but abandoned, and the French community in Besancon was mostly gone. The riots didn't stop in 1968. And in some ways, the film makes a good case for why the rioters wanted to continue. They wanted the white students to leave the area, which they did. But some young people decided to stay and fight back. To their credit, they did. And even though the film doesn't prove that they did it out of malice or for racial revenge, they did, and the film shows how they did it. The film also makes a case for the historical significance of the riot. People that lived in Besancon before the riots were aware of them, but the film takes a look at the events of the 1968 riots, and it is fair to say that they should not have been a surprise. This was not the fault of the police, the teachers, or the soldiers. It was their fault. They did what they could to stop the violence, and there are no excuses for them. But they were largely responsible for the violence that took place, and it was not at all clear to the filmmakers that the rioters would not have continued to use violence if there was no police presence. The French had been fighting the Viet Nam War since the late 1940s, and the French military presence in the area was not as strong as it was during the war. The French had hoped that the United States would not enter the war, but their fears were realized in the form of a small but aggressive American army. The war in Vietnam was the beginning of the end for the French, who went through a hard time as the French colonial population became more and more integrated into the American culture. It was difficult for the French to get to grips with this, and there was still some resistance from the locals. So the French faced their fears, and some of the French residents of Besancon were willing to go back and fight. It was a frightening time for the French. This film is not meant to glorify

George W. photo
George W.

This is a film that, in the end, I found to be a little overrated. I found it to be more about the class struggle than the socialism, although the socialist elements were to be found. Its message is, on one hand, about the exploitation of the poor in the society, and, on the other hand, it tries to draw a distinction between rich and poor, giving the upper-class folks an "undeveloped" attitude. The film can easily be accused of being a rather apolitical piece of propaganda. It is true that, during the last half of the film, the class struggle and socialism are even discussed. However, for the most part, the film is presented in the spirit of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And that's where the message fails to be clearly present. The cast is interesting in that, apart from the usual suspects of French cinema, one can see some real "stars". The names mentioned in this film are very well known in France. But, in general, they are more of the "background" kind of actors, while the main stars of the film - Christophe Deloire, Nicolas Conti and Philippe Sauniere - are well known to the French audience. The direction of the film is good, but I am not really sure that the subject matter is really the best for a documentary, nor the voice-over is convincing enough, especially at times when the viewer feels like a stranger. I was not expecting much from the film, and was disappointed, but I was kind of impressed with the message. Perhaps the message was missing, as the film was not very informative, and did not really focus on the class struggle. But if you are really interested in socialism, and if you have the patience to watch a film for two hours, then I recommend this one.

Kathleen photo
Kathleen

The film has a good flow. Good use of the camera. It's nice to see all the cast in the same movie. At least we see them. It is no spoiler that some characters are dead. The film has a very interesting plot and is done well. It is in France and in Italy. The director did a good job in doing a lot of filming in both locations. The pacing is good. The film is a little long. I understand the time constraints and sometimes that is the case. I would have liked to see more and more of the shoot in the late 70's and the early 80's. It would have been nice to see some of the items that the cast has been working with. There are many good things in the film, but a couple of things were lost in translation. The film was about a fair amount of shooting, but it left out many more details. The director should have done more with the shooting and editing. It could have been more visually powerful and a lot of the filming was more natural. Overall, I thought it was an interesting documentary that was done well. It is definitely worth seeing.

Jerry Sandoval photo
Jerry Sandoval

It's hard to describe the feeling I had while watching this documentary. It's hard to explain exactly why the feeling I felt was so strong. In fact, to explain it is very difficult. I simply had to watch it. In the end, I found myself at a loss for words. It is a good thing that the director chose to stick to the facts, instead of adhering to the legends. A great film.

Katherine R. photo
Katherine R.

After the moment that we see on screen of the amazing paint-by-numbers cinematography of Existenz, this movie reminded me of the scenery of the movie of the same title. I think that "Existenz" is a good film, but I think that it can be only appreciated by people who know and love Existenz. As for the movie of the same title, it can be appreciated only by people who can appreciate the excellent cinematography, the good music and the great acting. Both of these movies are well directed, but they differ from each other. It's like comparing the cinematography of "Gone with the Wind" and "Falling Down", or "Hamlet" and "King Lear". You can't compare a movie to a book, you can only compare to a genre. They are completely different.

Gloria S. photo
Gloria S.

An edited version of a documentary about the state of cinema in France. The documentary starts off as a discussion between two film lovers, Bruno and Pascal. Bruno says that he likes some movies that he sees during the night, while Pascal thinks that he is nothing but a "repetitive recluse". Bruno likes some movies more, while Pascal likes the ones he sees during the day, when he goes to work. The conversation leads to a discussion about which of the two is the best, and who deserves to be the "ultimate cinema lover". This is the basic format of this documentary, which has many funny bits, and some interesting moments. There are many stories of people who have made documentaries about various topics. Among them, there is one about cinema being in danger, which is about the French film industry. Bruno, Pascal and Olivier Gans (A French critic) are among the panelists, and they discuss the most discussed subject. The only problem is that it doesn't have much to do with cinema, and it ends up being a conversation about the world of film. I guess there is a lot more to say about film-making, and the French cinema, than this brief conversation. The first half of the documentary is just great fun, because the guests all seem to be having a great time. The second half is the problem. The question "who is the ultimate cinema lover" is never answered, the discussions get rather boring, and some of the stories are not interesting enough to be part of a documentary. That is the problem I had with the documentary. If you want to talk about the French cinema, it is best to do it at the film festivals. If you want to talk about cinema and cinema fans, there are better places than the chat shows and podcasts. So if you want to know about the French cinema, check out the French Festival, and the French Film Festival, or the Movie Maker's House in France.

Patrick G. photo
Patrick G.

I was shocked to find out that the mother of the late band member Jean-Louis Cazes was none other than Paul Bouvier, the man who produced and released the classic 80's hit 'Last Train To Paris' which was played as the theme song for the original Western 'Frontiere des Martyrs' starring Martin Clunes and Denis Lawson in 1969. I'm very glad that I was able to watch this documentary. This doc was based on interviews with his wife Helene and former band member Marie-Christine Cazes. Their son Jean-Louis Cazes (played by Patrick Braham) was one of those people who "lost it". He loved the music of the late 70's and was a good musician. But he became addicted to alcohol and took to using drugs. He ended up getting into more trouble with the law and was sentenced to five years in jail for drug-related offenses. He died in prison after serving only three years of his sentence. Helene Cazes never saw her son again after he died and it was Marie-Christine who kept the record of their lives. Helene told how Paul was very addicted to alcohol and how he was a real problem for her. She said that Paul would get into fights, hit and push people and that she was embarrassed by him and her husband at times. Marie-Christine also said that he was pretty much a maniac. She said that she didn't like him much and that he didn't even have any friends. She also said that he had a very rough life, he was a little boy who was a troublemaker and a drunk. I think that Paul was a good person, but I don't think that he should have gotten so much attention and when his life ended he would just say "goodbye" to his family. It's sad to see that we have to keep telling the story about Paul Bouvier but in the end it's a sad tale. I can't see how this doc was nominated for an Academy Award. I would like to have seen Jean-Louis Cazes in his early years as an artist and to have him tell his story. It's really sad when we have to tell the story about someone like Paul. I would recommend this doc for anyone who has an interest in Paul Bouvier or music in general.

Debra B. photo
Debra B.

I just got out of the cinema and read the very positive reviews of this film on this site. I am very curious to know what the outcome of this film is. I did not like the film very much, but I agree with the critics. It is not a very "serious" film. That may be the case with a lot of the reviews. I really loved this film. I think that the most important thing about this film is the great cinematography of the film. There are so many things to love about this film. In terms of acting, I think that it is very well done. The fact that it is set in New Orleans is a plus, but the acting overall is not very good, except for Jada Pinkett Smith, who is very good. I think that she was a little over the top at times, especially in the "Forrest Gump"-like scene. She was obviously very emotional and that is why the audience is able to relate to her. The acting overall is not very good, except for Jada Pinkett Smith. Overall, I think that this is a great film. I loved it.

Henry photo
Henry

The Elton John concert at the end of this film is a bizarre mixture of past and present. The film was not made in any way that was to make you like the Elton John concert, it was like the whole point was to make the Elton John concert seem like a bizarre or strange experience for the audience and to get them to think about why they were there. This is how we see the concert. The reason it's like this is because the director wanted the audience to think about the concert. It's not a documentary like "The Empire State Building" or a documentary like "The Wall" it's like a weird or weird experience and that is what the director wanted. The director thought that this is the only way the audience would be able to understand what the concert was about. The film did give me a few moments to think about what the concert was about, but there is a lot more than that and if you have nothing else to do, I recommend you take the time to watch this film. It was strange but it was good. I will definitely be watching it again.

Brenda T. photo
Brenda T.

This is a very interesting documentary about a French film company that is behind a few classic films from the '70's. The company has three studios, one in Paris, one in the south of France and one in Marseille, but this one is so different that no one has ever tried to make a film from it. That is why a lot of the films look really bad. One of the directors, Dominique Villeret, is here and he does a good job. The other two directors are Franck Lafont and Philippe Petit, who are just brilliant. Lafont is really passionate about what he does, he never takes a break and is a very meticulous director. He was also involved in the film 'Le Piguet' that also starred Villeret. They're all good directors and are all extremely passionate about their work. They can work in any film. As far as this one is concerned, there is no argument. This is the one that really got us hooked. It was made in 1981 but it is still relevant, it was made with about 30 people and it is very well made. It is funny but it also has a lot of emotion to it. It's very well produced. One of the most interesting things is the fact that this film is made on a cheap budget, which means that it is so much better than the real films of the time. There is no real music in it and it is quite slow, but it is a great film that I think everyone should see. The problem is that it's not really available anywhere. It is hard to find because it is from the 1980's but I think that it's a great film and I would recommend it to anyone.