فيلم The Public Image is Rotten

The Public Image is Rotten

The Public Image is Rotten is a movie starring John Lydon, Michael Alago, and Martin Atkins. The story of PiL, the groundbreaking band form by John Lydon after the collapse of The Sex Pistols in 1978.

Running Time
1 hours 43 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Tabbert Fiiller
Actors
Ginger Baker, John Lydon, Martin Atkins, Michael Alago
Country
USA
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

After the breakup of the Sex Pistols, John Lydon / John Rotten formed Public Image Ltd (PiL) his groundbreaking band with which he has pursued creative freedom ever since. He kept the band alive ever since, through personnel and stylistic changes, fighting to constantly reinvent new ways of approaching music, while adhering to radical ideals of artistic integrity. John Lydon has not only redefined music, but also the true meaning of originality. Former and current band mates, as well as fellow icons like Flea, Ad-Rock and Thurston Moore, add testimony to electrifying archival footage "including stills and audio from the infamous Ritz Show". With his trademark acerbic wit and unpredictable candor, Lydon offers a behind-the-scenes look at one of music's most influential and controversial careers.

Comments about documentary «The Public Image is Rotten» (23)

Ruth Lewis photo
Ruth Lewis

If you have the same type of mentality as the filmmakers, then you probably won't like this movie. And the same goes for the ones who want to make fun of it. This movie tells the story of the production of "Airplane", one of the best comedy movies ever made. It's hard to find a movie that gets funnier than "Airplane", even with the fact that it's a comedy and not a drama. It's a perfect comedy with many heartwarming moments. But if you are looking for a great documentary, then "Airplane" is not for you. I can't understand why the movie was made, but maybe the directors had a problem with it or were trying to make it a comedy. And if you are a critic, then you are likely to hate this movie. Because it's basically a work of fiction. But I still loved the movie, I really did. And that's the reason why it's 7 out of 10. It's funny, and if you want to laugh, it's a good movie to watch. If you want to know what it's like to be in the air, you might not find it. If you are looking for a lot of facts, then you should skip it. I didn't find any, I guess it's too complex for a simple viewer. But you are never going to get bored. And if you like documentaries, you should definitely watch this.

Donald photo
Donald

If you want to see the dirt on director Kathryn Bigelow and director Clint Eastwood, you should really check out the documentary 'Revenge of the Thief'. Bigelow and Eastwood are interviewed at length and some of their most quotable lines are all those Bigelow and Eastwood have been saying since the movie was made. 'Revenge of the Thief' is a fascinating look at the film that changed the face of war in Vietnam, changed the face of filmmaking in the mid-seventies, and changed the face of war in the American war on terror. However, the title of the documentary is misleading. The 'Revenge of the Thief' title refers to the film's title, which was not given to it until after it was completed. Eastwood and Bigelow are credited with producing the screenplay and script, but this is not how the film came to be. While the movie is essentially about Eastwood and Bigelow's collaboration on the script, it is really more about the film itself. We see the film in a pretty superficial way. The editing, cinematography, and sound are all very good, but what we don't see are the technical aspects of the film, the different stages of the film's production. We don't see the meticulous planning of the shoot. We don't see the careful hand-to-hand combat that Eastwood and Bigelow had with the cinematographer, or the intricate editing of the film's final scenes. This is not a film to show to your friends, or to teach them how to make films. The 'Revenge of the Thief' film is much more than that. It is a film about the filmmaking process and the impact it has on the audience. This is especially true for the Vietnamese. Many Vietnamese felt that they were contributing to the war on their own terms, rather than the American military's. The film is about that. Eastwood and Bigelow provide a number of interviews with people who are involved in the production of the film, but it is really the Vietnamese people themselves who are the real stars of the film. Many of the interviews are very personal, and there are several interviews with Eastwood himself. I have always loved Eastwood's films, and his experience in Vietnam really had a profound effect on him. I have a huge admiration for Eastwood and his films, and I think that the film 'Revenge of the Thief' was a great documentary that is almost a must see for any filmmaker. But the film also has a lot of flaws. I am sure that it was very difficult for the Vietnamese people to deal with the decision to make a film about the war. Most of them were in the middle of it. It is a tragedy that Eastwood and Bigelow made this film. The film had a great impact on the Vietnam people, but it also had a lot of flaws. It was also an extremely expensive film, which is a shame, because I think that the film should be seen by as many people

Rachel photo
Rachel

These are just two of the many "hidden" messages this movie carries. I had no idea that a documentary about the pre-AIDS era of gay men was also about the anti-gay agenda. I thought the producers were simply going to present gay men as being kind and generous with each other. It's all too easy to blame one's personal life for the hardships of others. That's what the film does: blame the past for the present. The film offers a short history of AIDS, but only the first half-hour is fully explained. The second half is shown from a gay perspective. The filming is done in black and white so it's hard to tell exactly what's being said, but the editing is poor. A scene that I found most offensive was a scene that featured one of the participants at a conference, discussing his treatment with a doctor. The doctor was supposedly involved with a mental hospital, but no one was quite sure what the hell he was talking about. Another participant in the scene (who was clearly mentally ill) was dismissed because the film didn't want to use the word "crazy." At the end of the film the doctor was presented as a brilliant doctor. No mention of the mental illness. That's not very accurate. One thing the film does well is to show the "gay lifestyle" as being a form of liberation. But that's not what the film is saying. The film has an agenda, and it wants to promote a certain view of the gay life. It's a sensationalist documentary about the gay life, but it's not about the gay lifestyle. It's about how society tries to control the gay life, but it's not about the gay lifestyle. There's plenty of talk about AIDS, but the film spends a lot of time talking about how to be an open gay man. The filmmakers want to convince people that they are happy gay men, when they are really not. The film is full of fake stereotypes, but that doesn't make the film less accurate. All it does is look at the "gay lifestyle" from a different perspective. It's not trying to preach, it's just presenting a different viewpoint. There's no scientific evidence of a link between HIV and AIDS, but that doesn't make the film less accurate. There's also no attempt to present a homosexual agenda, although the film is not perfect. In fact, some of the documentary's main points are totally obvious. The film is more about the gay life and how society tries to control it, but there are other points of view that are worth discussing.

Alan Stewart photo
Alan Stewart

So the idea behind this documentary is to look at the relationship between a successful entertainer and his public image. He is as much a symbol of the tabloid media as he is a symbol of pop culture. As I watched this documentary, I was struck by the similarities between him and a real-life celebrity. While I'm sure there are people who are just like the star (or the singer, or the actor, etc.) I don't think that people are so afraid of being lumped in with the public image that they become self-conscious. For me, that's the magic of celebrity. I like the movie and the look at how the media scrutinizes his image, but it's not really an objective look at his career. It is more of a portrait of a celebrity's reality.

Teresa Lee photo
Teresa Lee

There is a reason why this film has only a 5.5 rating, it is not good. If you want to see a decent documentary about a gay man in the 1990's, see: "Stonewall". I liked the interviewees. The film is hard to watch, and many of the interviewees are as much fun to listen to as they are to watch. It is not for everyone, but if you are a fan of David Copperfield or Broadway, or a person who wants to hear some really well-placed homophobia, you should enjoy this film. If you want to hear a well-placed and well-presented discussion of some of the prejudices against gay men in the 90's, see "Stonewall".

Russell photo
Russell

I had the great pleasure of seeing this documentary at the Tribeca Film Festival. It is quite good, with a good cast and good people telling the stories of artists that don't always get the credit they deserve. If you are a fan of the Masks or the Velvet Underground, this is a must see documentary. It is informative and tells the stories of artists from the 70's, who went to the success of artists from the 80's and 90's. Many of the interviews are from the 60's and the 70's, and we learn about their struggles and the successes they had. There is not a lot of "out-of-this-world" art. It's not something that everyone would find interesting. But if you like art, you should check this out.

Lawrence photo
Lawrence

I was surprised at the quality of this documentary. It was well put together and informative. The director, Chris Anderson, did a great job of keeping the audience engaged. The narrator, Dave Broderick, did a great job of keeping the viewer interested. It was well worth the price of admission. The entire experience was highly entertaining and enjoyable. I have seen documentaries about the Iraq War, the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the impact of the internet on our lives. This documentary covers all of these topics. This documentary is a must see.

Kelly Richardson photo
Kelly Richardson

What I got out of this movie is that it's time for us to stop using our brains and just act. Stop trying to come up with solutions to problems that don't exist, and just make it happen. There's a lot of great information in this documentary. I really enjoyed the way they explained the many different ideas behind what's wrong with our society, and how we can take control. I especially loved the "institute" of lectures that explained the main ideas behind the film. Also, the idea of "acting" is really powerful. Most of the time, we don't want to act, but we all want to be someone else. I hope this movie inspires other people to act. A lot of people are saying that it's unrealistic to change the system that we have. That's a pretty good point. So, I think it's a great documentary. It's very well made and it shows the common beliefs and the bad parts of our society. I really think it's a good film and recommend it to everyone.

Patricia photo
Patricia

A great piece of documentary, using interviews with young people who have experienced the criminal justice system. I thought the film would go on a bit too long as it was not really about the criminal justice system per se. The main focus was the young people who had faced the system. They had little to no idea what to expect from it. The interviews were very funny, and I think they were some of the best I've seen. The production was great, with many different scenes, and lots of great footage. A lot of the interviews had nothing to do with the actual crimes the young people were accused of, and you could tell they were joking about them, and they were laughing. The interviews were really funny and the production was very good. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to learn more about the criminal justice system.

Dylan W. photo
Dylan W.

I thought the documentary was good and you could see the subjects comments and observations. However, there were some points that you could see were not necessarily facts but more the opinions of the subjects and the questions that they were asked and the reactions that they got. The film is mainly about the paranormal activity and especially the paranormal activity that is happening at the Universal Studios in Hollywood and what you can see on the news about the attacks. The stories that the subjects were telling was the following: Things that people said and how they were reacting to them. The subjects also claimed that they had seen the person who the pictures were from, which is a great story and there was a rumor that was being spread in the community. However, after watching the film, there were many questions that I had. If people can see the ghost, why are they seeing it in the first place? There were so many people that were seeing the ghost, it was a really big problem. Even if they say that they saw the ghost, the ghosts are able to see them. Then the evidence was very convincing. They were able to create this fire that they were able to create that was visible from the plane. Then there were the animals that were able to see the ghosts and some of the things that the ghost was able to do. But they did not show the spirit's and the behavior of the ghost. They also did not show the ghost that was able to fly around the airport. Some of the animals were able to get into the plane but were unable to fly and some of the animals were just able to walk away. But the biggest problem that I had was with the person who was said to have seen the ghost. I believe that he was able to see the ghost but then the ghost had changed so many times. He was able to change the energy in the room, the music in the room, the timing of the shots, even the time of the film. Then he claimed that he had seen the ghost only once and then claimed that he had seen the ghost several times. Then he was able to get the money that he needed and they were able to send it to some of the victims that were claiming that they had seen the ghost. So that is my opinion. But if you want to see the proof, I recommend that you watch the film. 7/10

Joyce A. photo
Joyce A.

The Public Image is Rotten: An International Survey of the General Public's Attitudes toward the World Health Organization and the WHO. It is based on a poll of 1,200 adults aged 18 and older in 24 countries, with their answers in English and Spanish, with a margin of error of 3.6%. A representative sample of 20 countries were selected. Results were weighted to the age distribution of the selected countries. The survey was conducted in April, 2007. It is based on questions posed in English and Spanish, with a margin of error of 3.6%.

Dennis Carr photo
Dennis Carr

Michael Moore's Rotten Tomatoes rating for this movie is so low that it's laughable. This is the only movie that Michael Moore has not shown the audience how he thinks the American public thinks. What I mean is that there are so many left wing radicals in this country, that no matter what they do, they always win. So I thought I would give this movie a chance. I had heard a lot about this movie and I liked the way it ended. I think that Michael Moore is a very good director, but I don't think that this movie will be a big hit. I didn't know how many people would go see it and it just ended up being one of the lowest rated movies I have ever seen. I don't think that people are that stupid, I think that they just don't like Michael Moore. I hope that Michael Moore gets a chance to do more films, that are better then this one. Michael Moore has a way of making people think that he is so powerful, that they just can't help but like him. This is definitely a movie that I would not recommend.

Ethan photo
Ethan

Not all of the entertainment shown is something we can all appreciate. But one thing that I found refreshing about this documentary is the fact that, despite all the successes of these "millions" of actors, the industry is not a success for the people. Of course they make lots of money but most of them are actually unproductive. This documentary tells about how many of them are actually exploited and then all the interviews are very critical about the way the industry is doing the job. It is interesting to see how much more of a passion for the profession there is nowadays, especially among young people. There is a great opportunity to fight the exploitation that is destroying the industry.

Samuel M. photo
Samuel M.

This movie should have been nominated for a BAFTA or the PULSE. Every single word spoken in the movie is grammatically incorrect. It is frustrating. This is such a stupid movie. Why do they even make it?

Kenneth photo
Kenneth

This film tells the story of some thirty or so homeless men living in San Francisco's old 'n' rundown hotels. It's a fascinating story, full of humour and heart. But it's also quite grim and depressing, because the men are simply being pushed around and humiliated. They're forced to work in sub-par jobs and live in crappy conditions, even when the government tries to hand them out of shelters. The men are portrayed as homeless people, but they're not really homeless. They're homeless because they're afraid of being homeless, of having nowhere to go and just being useless, and because they've been out of shelter too long. The film is made by an anonymous group of volunteers, and you know that it's not really made by them. The man who directed it has no prior film experience, but his willingness to tell a story like this, with no outside assistance, is heart-warming. I really enjoyed this film, and I hope you do too. There's not much to be said about the film itself, but I recommend it. And I recommend the website for the film, as well.

David photo
David

This documentary was directed by Dr. F.X. Orenstein and is a very interesting look at the life of a homosexual man who spent a lot of time in prison and has to live his life behind bars. I think this film is a good look at what a person who has to live in a world where it is against the law to be gay. Orenstein makes a very good point that it is because the people are afraid of being prosecuted that they are willing to participate in the homosexual lifestyle. If you are a gay man, and you see the documentary, you will understand what I am saying. This is not a film that is going to make you want to get a vasectomy, and I think it will be a very disturbing film for people who are trying to stay away from the homosexual lifestyle.

Heather photo
Heather

I watched this film for the first time, in 2009, and I have been on the lookout for a good documentary on the subject of Big Tobacco. As such, I was very excited when I saw the trailer for the film. What I saw was a very interesting and informative piece. However, I was very disappointed when I watched it. There were many many great moments, but they were overshadowed by the negative comments made by both the tobacco industry and their critics. I felt that this documentary was not completely fair. The film did not show how Big Tobacco and their advocates used their money and power to get what they wanted, or why they did it. I understand that the film was made in order to discredit the industry and what it did to society. However, it could have been done in a much better way. There are many other documentaries that can serve as an alternative to the one presented in this film. I would recommend "The Truth About Cigarettes" and "Death By Cigarettes." I also recommend "The Big Tobacco Saga: Cigarettes, Tobacco Industry, & Death" by Anthony Johnson. These documentaries cover many other topics, which I have not yet seen, and could be very beneficial to anyone who is interested in Big Tobacco. I was also disappointed that this film did not cover the negative side of the industry, like the benefits of cigarettes and the impact it had on society. I would recommend this film to anyone who has an interest in Big Tobacco, but who is unsure of what they should do. It would be great for people to watch the film, to understand what they should do, to learn about the industry, and to learn about the history of Big Tobacco. This is a documentary that is best suited for the general public. The public needs to be educated about what Big Tobacco has done, and how it affects our society.

Craig photo
Craig

I know I'm not alone in having seen this movie, but I don't really know what to say about it. It's pretty terrible, but then again it's a trailer for a new movie I've heard a lot about. The movie itself is called "Rotten" and it tells the story of a group of people who are trying to make their voices heard, especially as they are on the verge of losing their jobs. The story is based on a group of real-life people, some of whom I've met or heard about in real life, but others I've never heard of or only heard from the media. The film is basically a 10-minute interview with the director and an interview with a couple of the actors. One of the actors talks about how he's had to deal with bullying and how people just want to trash his character. Another actor talks about how his dad was like this but when his mom told him that, he just stopped caring. I won't go into the plot or anything, but it's basically all about how the people are dealing with the future of their jobs, and the future of their own relationships. One of the actors in the film talks about how he was able to get a job at a restaurant but couldn't afford to pay his rent and bills and then he had to stop eating and that's when he found out he wasn't getting any health insurance. A couple of other actors talk about how they're dealing with how they're taking the social media "hurt" when the people they know don't like them, how their friends don't want to be involved with them, how they have to be careful not to put their families in danger because of how people react to them, and how they're dealing with things in their own lives that affect them and how they're dealing with it. The other actor in the film talks about how he got kicked out of his job at his local gym because he was taking it too seriously and just wanted to take care of his family, and how his parents have to deal with how their daughter is being treated. Another actor talks about how he was involved with one of the girls in the group and his attitude toward her changed when he realized that she's taking the social media seriously and what he was doing was nothing compared to what he was doing for the people that he knew, how he dealt with being drunk and how he tried to change the situation, and how he was also kicked out of his job because he was the only one that could get the food service guy to do the job. The most shocking thing to me was how the other actors in the film were laughing at them in a very dramatic way when they were talking about how they're dealing with their relationships. It really doesn't make sense that a group of real-life people would be laughing at them as they were discussing how they were dealing with their relationships. The worst part of the movie is the director of the film, one of the actors, and the actor that's in the movie that is speaking

Lisa H. photo
Lisa H.

I am a fan of the Criterion Collection for several years, and have been anticipating the release of this DVD for a while. I was not disappointed. The opening scene is great. I would have liked to see more of the interviews with Stanley Kubrick, especially in regard to the recent release of his film "2001", which is a favorite of mine. I think that this interview was a very good introduction to the man and his career. I was very pleased with the interviews with Werner Herzog, especially as his comments on "2001" made me laugh, and it made me wonder about the significance of this film. The film itself, though I thought, was a wonderful journey into the mind of a brilliant man. I do agree that the director was not consistent in his directing style. However, I think that this is a feature that is overlooked by some of the critics. This man was not a lazy filmmaker. He was a very well-known director, and if I could recommend one film to him, I would recommend this. I think it is one of his best films, but I also think that it is also his most underrated.

Julie photo
Julie

You'll know immediately that this is a TV-length documentary. However, it's the first one we've seen in recent memory. It's a bit dated now, but it's an interesting look at one of the most influential and influential movements in history, and one that changed the course of many lives. It's not nearly as entertaining as it should be, and the quality of the camera work is really sub-par, but the documentary is mostly informative and well-done. The format is actually quite simple. In addition to various interviews with some of the people who were involved in the rise of the Third Reich, there are also film clips, a short documentary (I found this interesting because it didn't seem to focus on Hitler or his inner circle), and, of course, the movie itself. This is a pretty good movie, though not as good as I had hoped it would be. It's certainly well-made and has some good documentary-style editing, but it's not a particularly memorable film, especially compared to the subject matter. There's no way to tell if it's more factual than it is, but it's certainly not the "facts" most people think it is. The fact that the film only runs 81 minutes is also disappointing, since there are so many things to talk about and interesting things to learn. However, I was happy to see that the producers did not limit themselves to just a few people. If this documentary was only about Hitler, we would have been stuck with two hours of Hitler or a few other people. Overall, this is a very good documentary that has good production values and it is interesting to see how this movement came about, but it's certainly not the best documentary you can ever watch. I recommend this one to people who want to know more about the Holocaust, but I would definitely recommend skipping this one.

Danielle Bell photo
Danielle Bell

The big drawcard of this documentary is the wealth of great and interesting interviews that all sit comfortably on the same page. However, the topic itself is not the point of the documentary. In fact, the subject is so poorly documented and the title so over-sentimental that it's hard to keep track of all the interviews and the movie is really just a record of all of the interviews. The movie is a compilation of almost ten years of interviews with Michael Moore. The interviews are very engaging and the subjects of the interviews are great and interesting. However, the bulk of the interviews are interviews with people who have no apparent connection with the topic of the movie and therefore their participation in the movie is not really necessary. However, there is a scene where a very important interviewee stands up and says something like "Michael Moore's film is not about the War in Iraq. It's about the War in America. It's about a president who thinks he's doing the right thing but in fact is doing the wrong thing." That scene is very interesting and probably was meant to be the centerpiece of the movie. However, the majority of the interviews are very boring and there is not really a point to this movie. I was disappointed. I could see it could be a really great documentary about how the Bush administration does not care about the Iraq War and the Iraq War is a complete fabrication. However, the movie is a compilation of interviews and a compilation of interviews are not enough to really create a great documentary. This is a documentary about Michael Moore and the War in Iraq and Michael Moore and the War in America.

Steven P. photo
Steven P.

I've always been curious about the Wild, Wild West of the late 1800s and early 1900s. And I was glad to see this documentary about the life and times of William Randolph Hearst and the history of the Golden Era of the American movie industry. William Randolph Hearst was one of the most influential and successful movie moguls in the United States during the 1920s and 30s. In addition to being a movie mogul, he was also a powerful political figure. He was a key figure in the rise of the Republican Party in the United States. Hearst was also a highly influential figure in the entertainment industry of the time, particularly in Hollywood. As this documentary makes clear, Hearst was extremely popular among the Hollywood elite, particularly Hollywood's elite women. And Hearst's pro-Hollywood views may have contributed to his downfall, but it's hard to say for sure. At any rate, the film explores Hearst's early life and his rise to power in Hollywood. Hearst was a perfect match for this documentary. Hearst was a charismatic person who made people swoon. Hearst also possessed a strong work ethic, and he was a good conversationalist. While he was a prodigious and very talented movie producer, he was also a smart businessman. By the time he died, he was one of the richest men in the United States. He was also an avid philanthropist. However, his political views may have led him to be more controlling and exploitative than he should have been. I think he was a bit too ambitious. While he was able to win his battles in the courts, he also ceded a lot of control to his friend and business associate, Henry Luce. He also ceded a lot of control to his political allies. There were also times when Hearst became too arrogant and self-important. The film also showed his rise to power in the early 1900s, when the studio system was struggling. Hearst was able to give the studios the resources they needed to make movies. The studios were doing well financially at the time, and they were able to pay Hearst's staff very well. But by the late 1920s, the studios were in trouble. The studios were being threatened with bankruptcy and there was a mass exodus of workers. They lost $7 billion dollars in just two years, and Hearst's empire was on the verge of collapse. Hearst was a very ambitious person, but he also had a lot of self-absorbed arrogance. He believed that he was in charge, and that other people didn't have a voice. That's not the way it really worked. There was a very short period of time when Hearst was able to rule the studios. By the early 1930s, his empire was already starting to crumble. The studios were about to go under and the business was going to stop. The studios were controlled by Hearst's political allies, but Hearst was beginning to get himself into financial trouble. And by 1937, the studios were going to have to cut

Karen Castro photo
Karen Castro

The one thing I noticed about this documentary was the lack of clarity regarding the source material. For instance, how do you tell that your character "exchanged his death-wish for a life of luxury" in order to be the famous celebrity he has become? It was not clear. One thing that struck me as I watched this documentary was how many of the characters seemed to be living lives of complete anonymity, which gave a very anti-climactic effect to the film. While the film itself was very well-made, the editing and use of music by different bands was disconcerting at times. Overall, I think this film is interesting, but not very well-made.