فيلم Big Time: Historien om Bjarke Ingels

Big Time: Historien om Bjarke Ingels

Big Time: Historien om Bjarke Ingels is a movie starring Bjarke Ingels, Charlie Rose, and Elisabet Ingels. BIG TIME follows Bjarke Ingels during the course of 7 years (2009-2016), while he struggles to finish his biggest project so...

Other Titles
Wielka architektura, Big time - att bygga en skyskrapa, Big Time. Retrato de Bjarke Ingels, Big Time, Big Time - Dans la tête de Bjarke Ingels, Kuinka pilvenpiirtäjä suunnitellaan
Running Time
1 hours 33 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Kaspar Astrup Schröder
Actors
Elisabet Ingels, Bjarke Ingels, Knud Bundgaard Jensen, Charlie Rose
Country
Denmark
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

Bjarke Ingels started out as a young man dreaming of creating cartoons. Now, he has been named "one of architecture's biggest innovators" by The Wall Street Journal and one of The 100 Most Influential People on the planet by TIME Magazine. BIG TIME follows Bjarke during the course of 7 years (2009-2016), while he struggles to finish his biggest project so far. We are let into Bjarke's creative processes as well as the endless compromises that his work entails, and we are on the side when his personal life starts putting pressure on him, too. In addition to the recently opened architectural marvel VIA 57 West (625 West 57th Street), Bjarke Ingels' company Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) was given the task of designing and building one of the skyscrapers which will replace Two World Trade Center in Manhattan. While Bjarke is creating these buildings, which will change the New York skyline, he is hit by health-related issues. The Film offers an intimate look into the innovative and ambitious Danish architect, whom the entire world is celebrating as a genius.

Comments about documentary «Big Time: Historien om Bjarke Ingels» (16)

Dylan McDonald photo
Dylan McDonald

The director has been involved in some interesting projects in his life. The following films should be considered "backwards" in production-wise: The Godfather (1972) (was filmed in 16mm) - The Black Dahlia (1980) (was shot in 20mm) - Body Double (1980) (was filmed in 25mm) - The Thin Red Line (1998) (was filmed in 35mm) - Eraserhead (2000) (was filmed in 35mm) - The Naked Gun (1988) (was filmed in 16mm) - The Ringer (1997) (was filmed in 35mm) - Black Christmas (2004) (was shot in 35mm) The third of the three is The Thin Red Line. I've not seen a documentary about the making of that movie, but I think this documentary does a great job of explaining some things. - The Big Time was a movie that was supposed to be released the day before Halloween, but the publicity campaign for the film made people think that it was actually released the day after. This is the reason why it is one of the rarest films in the history of cinema. I've heard that there was one cut that was 1:20, but I've heard that it was shortened a little bit. But I don't think it matters much. The Big Time is definitely the movie that you can't forget. 8/10

Jeffrey Tran photo
Jeffrey Tran

this documentary by Aleksey Zakharova is a fascinating look at life in a migrant ghetto. The story is told through the lives of the people of this small town in Russia and in the larger cities as well. It focuses on the life of the people who live there and shows them all sorts of hardships they must endure. The documentary tells their story, but in a way that never feels pretentious, and never feels cliched. It is always realistic and shows the real effects that it has on their lives. In many ways it feels like a book from a non-fiction book, and it is nice to see that it was made and edited in such a way to do that. This film does a great job at showing the poverty and isolation these people feel, which is made even more real because of the people's desire to leave. I was fascinated by the way they told their story, and how they made their own documentary to help them tell their story. They tried to record as many things that would be relevant, but when the film is shown in most other languages, the narration sounds really stilted, and it seems they have tried to capture as much as they could of the voices of these people, without making it sound like a lot of exposition. I loved how they did this because it made it a lot more exciting and engaging to hear what they had to say. The people in the documentary are fascinating people. One person that stood out for me was Zaur Sobolev, a former member of a Soviet style gang, who seems to be about as cool as the next guy. His life is portrayed through many different angles, from the violence of the street life to the music of his life as a raver, to his friendship with a former member of a Soviet style gang who was in the process of a breakup. These people have been through a lot, and they show their experience in a very realistic way. This film made me understand how the West and the European Union and America and other countries have treated these people and they are not the bad people that people seem to think. They are really just trying to survive in this harsh world and they want to survive it, which is very important to see.

George Weaver photo
George Weaver

In most movies that deal with the so-called "nontraditional" sex, this film would make an appearance. But for all of you, this one is not going to give you the pleasure that you are looking for. The kind of material, that the film deals with, is usually difficult to present. You need to get a feel for the subjects and portray them with the kind of care that would keep you hooked on the film. This is one of the rare films where the director of photography shows you the film through the eyes of the camera, and it is as if the camera itself is acting in the movie. The narrative is given in a non-linear, linear way, where the transitions between the frames are seamlessly and the movie flows with no break in the flow. The moments of the film show a sequence of many shots and some that have more emotion than others, and the fact that the film focuses more on the relationship of the two actors than the other scenes, is a clever technique, that keeps the viewer engaged in the story without becoming more or less impatient with the film. The story of this film is based on an actual story. It is not a fictional story. The actor who plays her husband and the director, Bjorn Hurtubiss, who takes the film for its poetic nature, do not try to take us in their worlds. The viewer doesn't even realize that the film is from this director. If it was from a stranger, it might have become a disaster. The relationship between the two actors is very important, and the audience is reminded of the importance of both of them and the passion that was put into this film. This film might be a little too long. The film ends with a whole lot of questions, but one that the director is trying to answer. How much is love worth, and what is it all about? The film is not perfect, but it is very good, and I recommend it to people who like to look at the world in a different way.

Justin Flores photo
Justin Flores

It was two weeks ago when I first saw this documentary. I didn't get very much out of it. And I really didn't get much out of it until now. I'll admit that the first half of the film is boring and the second half is a little too cheesy for my taste. The film is also very, very difficult to watch. Some parts of it are hard to watch because the subtitles don't show up very well, making it hard to read the English dialogues. If you are a film student, it may not be for you. The film doesn't make it any easier to watch. I've read through some reviews and I saw quite a few people saying that this is a documentary, or that it is more of an opinion piece than a documentary. I also read a lot of negative reviews about this film, especially about the films history. So, my question is this. I've read so many comments about this film, and I think it is probably going to be a cult classic. How come? The answer to that question may not be as obvious as it was to me. I'm not very interested in what a film historian says, so maybe this documentary is not for me. I thought that the documentaries I have seen about this film have some kind of history behind them. There are some pretty bad documentaries, but most of them are very interesting to watch, because they are trying to tell you something about the history of a certain period in time. You have to be open minded, or you won't get the most out of the film. But if you are open minded, it's easy to enjoy this film, because it is about such a specific subject. If you are interested in this kind of documentaries, you are probably going to enjoy this film. I was also very, very interested in the film because it was made by Lars von Trier. I thought that the guy was very interesting. I didn't expect him to be quite so good at telling a story. The film really is interesting to watch, because it is very interesting to see how a film can turn into a documentary and how the film can also turn into a parody, but that's just what the film does. Overall, I think this documentary is a great way to see a film, but it's not for everybody. If you are a film student, it might not be for you.

Barbara Fox photo
Barbara Fox

What this documentary does is it presents a whole bunch of the history of the series The Magnificent Ambersons, in a very condensed and short fashion. It only goes into the minutest details of the movies, but in a way that doesn't really allow the viewers to get too bored or frustrated. It also uses a lot of clips from the series, but it's fairly short, as most of the series is not really worth getting into, but still I enjoyed it and found it to be very informative and entertaining. Also, the writers of the movie gave an interview with GQ, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in seeing how the film was made. It's the kind of thing that a documentary would probably lack, but it's still very informative.

Marie Valdez photo
Marie Valdez

The short documentary about the making of "Bjarke Ingels Persson" is a nice introduction to the film's history. The film follows the production of the film's original screenplay from Anders Breivik to the original Danish language version, and includes interviews with director Lars von Trier, the cast, and production manager Tom Hoefl. The documentary also includes footage from interviews with other important contributors to the film's development, including Kurt Westergaard, Peter Benchley, and Anders Behring Breivik. The documentary does a good job of summing up the key moments in the film and telling their significance. The documentary does a better job of telling the story of the development of the film than the screenplay itself, which I think is an important point. The documentary also does a good job of explaining how the movie ended up on the screen. All in all, I found this documentary to be a great way to get a better idea of what it was like to make the film and to get a better idea of what happened to the film. The documentary is much better than the film itself, and I think that it should be required viewing for anyone interested in the making of the film.

Richard O. photo
Richard O.

Although the film was almost a year old when I first saw it I think that it is still worth seeing. I believe it is really sad how so many films are overrated and missed by the general public. While some may think it's just a comedy, I believe it's about a man named Finn whose job as a piano tuner is to tune the strings so that the pianists sound good when playing. For a piano player, playing is the most important thing, and the more you play the better the sound. The tension between the pianists and the man who looks after them is so intense that it is almost like they are in a war. There are two families living on the island, and each has its own set of problems. Finn's family is not happy, and when Finn and his wife leave their children there is no real explanation for their behavior. When Finn's daughter sees how bad the situation is, she begins to play piano in the garden. The one thing I can say about this film is that it is probably the only film that I have ever seen that I had to watch several times to understand what was going on, and it was so difficult to do that that I just had to pay attention the next time I saw it. The other film I watched it a few years ago that I watched the same way was The New World, which I watched twice. I am not even going to watch The Lion King for that matter, as I really hated that movie. It's really sad that these great films like this get such a bad rap.

Laura Sanders photo
Laura Sanders

This documentary is about "Bjarke Ingels'", the Danish writer, filmmaker, and actor who has been the most influential Swedish author in recent decades. This is the movie about the fact that when Ingels was born in 1922, his family and classmates did not know about homosexuality in Sweden. They were very sensitive about his sexuality. Even his mother was afraid that his father would kill him if he was not circumcised, and he was worried that his classmates would be afraid of him because he was gay. But he was a perfect young man who was the best of friends with all of them. But his classmates, and even his family, did not know anything about his sexuality. But, when Ingels was a teenager, the first he knew was from his parents when they came to visit him and his father's family. The movie follows his life from the age of seven when he first talked to his father about his sexuality and his thoughts about it. But this is where the movie goes to another level. In this time, he comes to terms with his sexuality and he becomes a man. His sexual orientation was not something he had to deal with at all. He could choose which way he wanted to go. He could take the road to where his desires would be, to where his desire would be and he could be as he wanted to be. His family, and the way his parents reacted to him was a big part of what this movie is about. The people he met in his school life and in his school life became the basis for this movie. The way he talked to his parents, the way he talked to his peers, and the way he treated the women in his life all came from his feelings about his sexuality. So, when I heard about this movie, I was very excited about it. I loved it because I was able to learn about Ingels' life. It was an interesting documentary that was very well-done. But this is not a typical documentary about Ingels' life. This is a documentary about a person, about a person who is not just a good person but a great person, a person who has gone on to become a great person. And this person is his father, who is able to explain everything to him. This man is able to explain to him what his father did and why his father did it. And this is because the father was able to talk to him and explain his father's life and life style. This documentary is interesting because of the fact that it is well-done. The documentary is well-directed and well-edited. It is a well-done documentary that is very well

Victoria photo
Victoria

Excellent documentary that will have you questioning the actions you have taken in the last ten years. The viewer is taken into a culture where it is commonplace for individuals to go through life without having to think about where their next meal will come from. The viewer feels sympathy and compassion for the youth that has been subjected to this rampant greed. It will have you questioning if you should be spending your money on your children or your personal belongings. The question is "Where will my next meal come from?". This documentary also highlights how commercialism is ruining our food system. There are many countries that are starving to death because they do not have the money to produce food for everyone. It is interesting that there are not just more animals that are fed for meat but more vegetables that are fed as well. It is very disturbing that the food that was once passed off as clean and safe for human consumption is now contaminated with more harmful substances than the food that was originally thought to be safe. The documentary even shows that animals are raised for food on farms that are not safe for the animals. This documentary is definitely worth a viewing.

Marie photo
Marie

I saw this documentary a few weeks ago and I was pleasantly surprised to find out how well it worked as an educational tool. It does not present an anti-Semitic agenda or blame Jews for all the problems the world is currently facing, nor does it want to incite anti-Semitism, despite a few moments of anti-Semitic rhetoric. Rather, the filmmaker presents two myths about Jews and the history of the Holocaust and encourages both sides to examine their own history and both sides to open their minds to the other side's point of view. The documentary is about a couple of teenagers, not Jews, but on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and the film begins with them discussing their views about Jews. The narrative, while slightly biased toward the right, is also neutral enough to allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions. I was pleased with the ability of the filmmaker to use each side's history and history of the Holocaust to form their own conclusions and to demonstrate how similar their points of view are, as they are. It is also encouraging that both sides of the political spectrum use historical information as a basis for their arguments, while the filmmaker presents only the facts of both sides. If one of the other viewers is Jewish, the film will hopefully encourage them to consider their own personal history as well as how it has been misrepresented. As a historical document, the documentary is well-made and well-presented and I hope this film will encourage more people to study the past as well as the present and their own history to better understand it. The documentary will be helpful for both left and right-leaning people, because it not only provides a balanced view, but also does so in an educational and factual way.

Joe Henderson photo
Joe Henderson

The words "artist" and "director" appear on the film cover, which means I'll be watching it, even though I'm not sure how to rate it. It looks like an "Art" documentary about artists, with actors, but is this actually a documentary about the film making process? It's not exactly a documentary, there is no production team or writer/director involved. A certain level of description is also lacking. The premise is actually a rather popular topic in the arts community and art history: how do artists actually go about making their movies? How do they approach the production of their movies? How do they cope with the demands of a studio, financiers, agents, etc.? I've seen documentaries that talk about how to make a film in an old-fashioned way. These documentaries were far more "realistic" and went into a lot more detail. But there's something else, something I like to call "creativity", that I don't think about much. But I'm going to do that in this short comment. If you're not interested in this sort of thing, there are plenty of other videos to watch, like "A Conversation with Art Spiegelman" or "8 1/2" or "The Sculptor", or even "This Is My Life". The goal of these films is to tell a story, to tell us something about the subject. These are not documentaries. They're documentaries on a different level, with their own interest. I was expecting a more "artsy" documentary, and instead I got a film about a certain kind of film-making that I don't like very much. I'd like to make this film so that other people will be able to make films like this one. But I can't.

Austin Price photo
Austin Price

I was captivated by this film from start to finish. It was like a roller-coaster ride from start to finish. The film captures the story of how one man is able to create a massive worldwide empire. Not only that, but it also provides us with some insight to the man behind the T-shirt. This documentary is definitely worth the price of admission.

Jordan photo
Jordan

The most recent addition to the "Lavish" series by Masterpiece. I have seen quite a few of these, and I have never liked this one. The film starts off with some brief, not very interesting, discussion about political events in the US. Then we are introduced to a young man who is not a homosexual, but a man of the cloth. He wants to become a teacher, but doesn't quite fit the mold. He joins a group of young gay men in an underground gay club, but that is not where he wants to be. There are more tangents in this film than a Silver Bellini's a la Millionaire. We have discussion about death, drugs, rock & roll, the current political situation in the USA, racism, censorship, etc. It is a little confusing at times, but it has a very unique, off the wall, high-brow art direction that has to be seen to be appreciated. I did like the artwork used throughout the film. I have seen other pieces by Masters that have been very impressive. It is all really artistic. I thought this was a really good film, and I hope that Masterpiece continues to make this kind of work.

Joyce Curtis photo
Joyce Curtis

This film is well made and has a great message. The director takes great pains to present the power and influence that money plays in politics. The filmmakers, with the assistance of a historian and others involved in the film, go into great detail about how the politicians act and the consequences they have. The documentary is an important and powerful document. It highlights that politicians do not like to face tough questions and questions about what they have done in their past or what they are going to do in the future. They seem to prefer to play games and end up going down. The journalist who was chosen to play the journalist in the documentary also knows that he cannot be completely honest. He has the same truth in his head as everyone else. I wish the director would make more films like this. It seems that his films are more thoughtful than average and well made. I also enjoyed the fact that he did not focus on the story of the story but the story of the people. He used interviews with those involved in the film, including the president of Norway, to reveal the true story. I also liked the fact that he did not present his interviews and his own thoughts about the documentary. He did not try to manipulate the viewer, he presented his thoughts and feelings, but he was not trying to talk to his audience. I also thought that the film did not have a political agenda. The director was not trying to convince anyone. He did not try to paint the politicians as villains. His point was to show the power of money in politics. I also enjoyed the fact that he made it very easy to watch the film. In this day and age when we have instant access to a lot of information on the internet, you can see that in many cases we are too easily swayed. I thought that the director was very thorough in his approach to his subjects. This movie is a must see. If you are not easily swayed or not as swayed as the filmmakers were, I would not recommend this film. But, if you do not like politicians, I would recommend this movie as it is important for all of us to see. I would give this film 8 out of 10.

Frank photo
Frank

This documentary is basically a conversation between Bjarke Ingels and his mother. There are a lot of talks about his early years as a film-maker and the role his mother played in that. This is what makes this movie great. It's not about him making movies but rather about how his mother played an important role in his early life. It is also interesting to see his interaction with his father and grandmother who both played important roles in his childhood. The conversation also talks about his relationship with his father and the fact that he was sent to a work-camp at the age of 16. This is interesting as he states in the conversation that he has a strong family ties and it seems like he was very close with his father as he recalls that his father was a very successful businessman. If you have a strong family ties you have to pay attention to them because they are going to be more important than your career. Bjarke Ingels is a great director and he can do some incredible things. The other thing I liked was the soundtrack and I think this is also very important for the history of film-making. I also like the way he keeps it very simple and never misses a beat. You won't be able to figure out the plot until the very end of the film. Even if you don't know what this film is about you will be able to figure out what is happening in the film. I have always been a fan of Bjarke Ingels and I definitely think this documentary is great. It shows his development as a director and how he got his start. It is also great to see the relation between his mother and his father and the fact that his father is very successful. I think this documentary is great for people who love Bjarke Ingels and he has done great things. He has been one of the most successful directors in the world and I think this documentary is very good.

Andrew Burton photo
Andrew Burton

It's one of the few books that have had a movie made about it. It's an interesting look at the conflicts between great writers, and how they cope with their differing goals and personalities. It's good for people who have read the book, but it's worth seeing the movie if you have not read it. It's an example of what happens when you have to mix the extremes. A great film, I give it a 7 out of 10.