فيلم De Palma

De Palma

De Palma is a movie starring Brian De Palma. A documentary about writer and director Brian De Palma.

Other Titles
Running Time
1 hours 50 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Biography, Documentary
Jake Paltrow, Noah Baumbach
Brian De Palma
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A documentary about writer and director Brian De Palma.

Comments about biography «De Palma» (31)

Dylan photo

This documentary was very interesting. It was very detailed about the effects of the Vietnam War on young men in the South. The viewer is kept at the edge of his or her seat throughout the film. The images of the American soldiers that were not only fighting in Vietnam, but also suffering from mental trauma due to the violence and hatred that was being inflicted on them by their captors. These images were very haunting and disturbing. The film then went on to discuss the psychological effects on the soldiers and the effects that the war has on their families. The entire film was very emotional and I was very interested in the impact that the war had on the men and the families of those who were not in the combat. It was an extremely powerful film and it is a must see. If you are interested in this film, then I would highly recommend that you go to see it. If you are not interested in watching this film, then I would not recommend that you watch it. The film is very disturbing and you will be very upset after watching it.

Joe photo

An otherwise average documentary from its conception to its end. I think it's fair to say that this is one of those documentaries that is a little too long and has too many good moments and too few bad ones. I think if they'd cut a bit of the "research" that is part of the documentary, it would have been a much better film. Also the film as a whole doesn't have enough of an impact to it. It's a nice looking film, but the points it makes are pretty much a yawn. It's mostly dull, but not completely boring. If you're looking for something different, this is a good alternative.

Zachary Palmer photo
Zachary Palmer

The 35th edition of the Academy Awards will be held in January and "Casino" is one of the nominees for Best Picture. It's a bittersweet, but heartwarming story about a small Italian restaurant and the role that can played by the Italian-American community. The story takes place in 1983 and features some of the most famous people in American history. The dinner, which goes on for a year, is sponsored by the New York Yankees and Roger Moore and his wife, Dianne Keaton. We see how the star's office at the restaurant is filled with people who are friends with him. Eventually, he becomes a star and becomes a celebrity of sorts in Italy. He eventually becomes a "godfather" of sorts. Some of his friends are his idols and they love him. At the end of the story, Moore says that he will retire and will never return to Italy. But not everyone is happy with his retirement. The movie is a documentary about his final days. While the movie was mostly very positive, it also had a few dark moments. It was also very depressing and had many violent scenes. The movie also features some great music, particularly an instrumental by the late great Leonard Cohen. But it also included a lot of gore and violence. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes documentaries about the history of the Italian-American community. It is a very nice movie and I think it's very important that people see it. This movie will be a must-see for most people.

Rebecca Wood photo
Rebecca Wood

The first thing that strikes the viewer is the strength of the performances by some of the big names of the '60's. Here is a group of brilliant actors who have never been truly appreciated for their talent. It is no wonder they did not seem to be playing in the same league with each other. The second thing that strikes the viewer is the richness of the film's presentation. It is full of anecdotes that illustrate the issues surrounding the state of the Black community. The audience is treated to some very good scenes from '60's Hollywood, including a scene that would be filmed for '70's TV. The characters are also very interesting and full of depth. I would say that it is a very thorough film that shows the impact of the Civil Rights movement on the lives of the '60's black American population. It is a very good film. It is also very realistic and never over dramatizes the subjects it covers. It is a good film that should be seen by everyone. 7/10

Jane Hunt photo
Jane Hunt

It's hard to get a balance between documentaries and comedy when trying to make a film about a subject like this. Not that I'm saying the film wasn't entertaining but it was at least entertaining. I wasn't a big fan of the acting and dialogue and was rather disappointed in the character development. Overall, the film was very good and well made. The only flaw was the lack of depth and character development. I'm glad I saw it but I wish I hadn't.

Kenneth Crawford photo
Kenneth Crawford

When the documentary "Traffic" came out, I read the book. I think it was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. I have seen the movie several times and I still can't get enough of it. What a great story about the death of a major drug lord in Mexico. The way the movie was filmed made it seem like it was real. The soundtrack was amazing, the directing was brilliant and the acting was amazing. I also think the film was very realistic and not some staged movie. It really gives you a great look at the inner workings of a drug cartel. I was not disappointed with this movie at all. 9/10

Ronald photo

The first thing you will notice about this documentary is that it has been filmed and directed by Quentin Tarantino, the man who once told you that "Hollywood is a sick and twisted place". This documentary is a great insight into the creator of some of the greatest movies of all time. The first part of the documentary focuses on the film "Pulp Fiction", and how it came to be, and the next two parts take us back to the beginning of the 90's, when John Travolta started making films, and how he was mentored by his idol and mentor director Sam Raimi. The last part of the film talks about the reason behind his films, as well as why he made a documentary about the man who made him famous. In between, we get interviews with some of the people who have worked with him, and how they feel about him. There is also footage from other movies, and documentaries, which gives us a lot of insight into the man who is considered one of the greatest film directors of all time. Tarantino has gone on record as saying that his passion for cinema is his life, and that he has never made a film that he was not proud of, and his passion has led him to making some of the greatest films of all time, and a great number of them. In his movies, he is using the classic formula of the story telling, the character development, the directorial skills, the editing and cinematography. He has a great eye for film, and he knows how to tell a story, and how to tell it in the right way, and this documentary has plenty of insight to help us understand the man behind the legend. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to learn more about the man who has made some of the greatest films ever, and to people who love his movies. In conclusion, this is a great documentary that will change the way you view Tarantino, and he may never make another film like this again. 8/10

Teresa G. photo
Teresa G.

I'm not a big fan of the director's work, but I do love his early work. It's a shame that this was so different from the style he used in the later work. I was really happy with this, as it felt like a new and fresh beginning. I'm also a fan of this director, so I was quite happy to see him and the cast doing a documentary. The documentary started with a look at the process of making a film and what they were doing. It was a little confusing and hard to follow, but they got it right in the end. They were very well casted and did a great job. I had a hard time figuring out who was who in the film. I didn't know who the cameraman was, who was the director. I did understand the actors names, but I did not understand the dialogue. I think they did a great job of bringing this filmmaker's style to the movie. I did notice some flaws with the editing and other things, but overall, I thought it was a great documentary and I was very happy to see it. I give it a 9/10.

Samantha Long photo
Samantha Long

The first half of this documentary, focusing on the group of friends who were responsible for The Firm, could have been a great treat for the film buff. As it was, the focus was on their marriage and their attempts to stay married, and not on what makes a good film. The focus of this segment also seemed to be on the friend's private lives, and not their professional ones. Perhaps there is a point to this, but I found it disappointing. If you're going to look at the film in this light, you'll probably find it very interesting, but if you're going to look at it in the context of professional actors and film makers, this could have been a very interesting and interesting documentary. In the end, it was a good attempt, but a disappointing attempt. I think it was more the filmmakers and the subject of the film than the film itself.

Charles photo

Ricardo Aragone is a filmmaker. His films are very hard to come by and he has never been able to get a deal. In this documentary, he interviews the people who work with him and the people who work with him. There are lots of interviews, but the focus is on the subjects of his films. His films are very challenging, challenging to watch, challenging to listen to, and challenging to write about. I felt like I was in the director's chair. He is very passionate about his work and he talks about his life in a very emotional way. This documentary was a great introduction to Aragone. I hope you see it and find something new in it.

Michael R. photo
Michael R.

I remember being fascinated by this movie when it first came out. I was young and naive, and as far as I was concerned it was the greatest movie of all time. So, when I saw it again, I was just as fascinated as I was when I first saw it. Now that I have seen it, I understand why people seem to be so upset. What I saw in that movie is nothing short of brilliant. I have seen the original version of this movie and although the new version is much better, I still think it is a masterpiece. It has a lot of moving images, especially the second part of the movie. It's also a fascinating look at the work of the film-makers in these years, especially De Palma. I think he's had a lot of influence on the films he made after this one. And the story is the most interesting part of the movie. It starts out with all the people (mostly black people) being questioned about the riots in Watts. They are told how they were killed in a racist attack, and then all these police officers are at a diner and are trying to justify the way they treat people in the area. It's a powerful story. It starts with the shots of the police in the area and then they start talking about how they were treated by the police, how it's just the way things are. It's an interesting story and I think De Palma has done a great job of putting the details in. The problem is that it isn't very exciting. The story is interesting, but I think it just seemed more complicated than it needed to be. The movie also has a lot of telling-me-about-myself thing. It's also the only one of his movies I've seen that I didn't like, so I don't know what that's all about. I think it's important to understand that in order to appreciate a movie, you have to be able to understand the director's style and his methods. I think there are some things that I didn't understand, especially at the beginning. I think De Palma could've done a better job explaining what he was trying to do. I think he did a good job at showing the power of the police force in those days, but I think he could've also explained how that power was used. It was not the only part of the movie that I didn't like. There was a lot of talking about how to get the best footage and how to get the best actors. I think it would've been a better movie if he had also explained why he wanted to do all this. Also, I think that the movie was a little too long. I think it could've been shorter, but then I don't think it would've been as good as it is. It's probably a little too long for a movie like this, but I think that it could've been shorter. Overall, I thought this was an excellent movie, but I still don't think it's the best of his movies. I think his movies are always better than the ones he's done after this one, but I still think that this one is better than all his other movies. I recommend this movie to anyone who's looking for something to watch and someone to listen to.

Julia Castillo photo
Julia Castillo

Another in a long line of films about the Vietnam War and its impact on people. This one is different in a few ways. First, there is a narrator who gives a detailed account of his experiences, much more than I ever could. This is one of the few films that gives you a complete picture of the horrors of the war and its aftermath. We learn the names of the people who were killed, the story of the struggle to get them out of the war and what they went through in their last days. We also learn of the courage of those who stayed and the struggle to bring them home. We see the impact of the war on a whole nation. This film is also about the ethics of the war. While I was not a student of war and military history, I felt the film was very well done and it would be wrong to criticize the filmmakers for presenting what the war was really like. I also think it was a great job of bringing the story of the war to the masses and making it more accessible to the American public. The film has a number of historical moments and a few that were dramatized, but none of them are shown. The best moment was when the war was over and a few of the soldiers showed up at a reunion. The filmmakers did a great job of bringing it all together and the story was told in a way that you could really feel the pain of those who fought and the struggle of those who stayed to help them get home. There are a few scenes that are graphic and the filmmakers did not shy away from them, which I think is the best way to tell the story. This film is a great example of what should be done in an educational film, not a Hollywood action-packed war film. If you are interested in this film and want to know more about it, I would recommend watching the film. It is a great story that I think should be told. I think this film will be remembered for many years to come.

Pamela L. photo
Pamela L.

The first half of 'Adventures in Babysitting' is riveting. It is a look at a family's relationship with a lost child. Yet, the second half is not as interesting, nor is it as emotionally draining. The movie does suffer from a few flaws, such as the nature of some of the events, the writers' choice of actors for certain characters, and the odd, contrived behavior of the kids. I do wish it were a little more consistent in its style, and in the tone of the movie. The film starts out with a '30 Days of Night' style nightmare sequence, that moves into a dream sequence where our characters are as scared as they are. It is very fast paced and jarring. The last half hour or so of the movie is where the movie begins to sink, and lose its edge. It is a lot of repetition of '30 Days of Night' like scenes, and a few scenes that are just boring and lack impact. The director seems to think the audience is so distracted by the subject matter that they will forget what they are supposed to be feeling. The kids don't do anything that makes them stand out, and the adult actors seem too professional. Overall, 'Adventures in Babysitting' is a movie that will give the viewer a good dose of realism, and a chance to talk with a child about the real world. If you are interested in children's films, and have children in your household, I recommend seeing this movie.

Melissa Dixon photo
Melissa Dixon

Not since the "On Deadly Ground" documentary from the early 80s has there been a documentary like this one, from beginning to end. Director Andrew Marcus of the director of "Jailhouse Rock" and "The Last Seduction" has captured the quiet, beautiful, and occasionally chilling world of underground South Florida for this fascinating story. It's an awful day in the "Resurrection Alley" when the police arrest one of the best young musicians in the world, while a huge fight breaks out in front of the club. The police are investigating a drug deal gone bad and the club owner, a local preacher named Dick Baril, who's become notorious for using violence as his way of speaking with his congregation, is eventually arrested, along with his two sons and a local radio DJ named Russ. The final straw is that Dick Baril is a member of the South Florida Youth Choir and will be forced to give up his position on the youth choir and his club. This is not a happy ending, and in fact, the ending is a bit of a downer. The police tell the Baril family that they will have to cut off all communication with their son, Dick Baril, and that they will not allow him to contact them. The Baril family feels that the police should be talking to them rather than their son. The story moves along, and the Baril family gives their version of what happened, while the police chief, as well as the pastor, the music publisher, and the radio station all give their opinions. What I found most interesting was that the police chief, while being an incredibly honest man, said that he believed Dick Baril was responsible for the violence, but no one else could explain why. As this is not a police investigation, it is impossible to know exactly what happened. The cop gave no explanation to the family. It is very interesting to see the cop's struggle with religion and his own conflicted feelings about whether he should just leave Dick Baril alone and allow him to deal with his problems. This is a powerful, powerful documentary and should be viewed by anyone who is interested in the quiet world of the underground South Florida. The police chief is very intelligent and honest, and the cop is very honest and intelligent. This is a great film and should be viewed by everyone who wants to know more about the world of South Florida youth. It should also be seen by anyone who is interested in the music that Dick Baril created.

Juan Burton photo
Juan Burton

This documentary takes a look at the careers of some of the most influential directors of the 1970's. This documentary follows the life of director Roman Polanski and features a lot of behind the scenes footage and interviews with many of the people involved in his films. It also covers the effects of his sexual abuse as well as his battle with drug abuse and his inability to find work. This documentary also delves into the subject of why Polanski chose to do films like Eyes Wide Shut and Repulsion, but it doesn't delve into how his films became so popular and that he was considered a genius. I am a big fan of the director, and I felt that this documentary did a good job of telling a personal story about the man. However, I did feel that some of the interviews with the director were a bit long. Also, some of the interviews seemed to be really personal, and this was distracting. Overall, I think that this documentary was interesting, but it was a bit of a letdown for me. This documentary is worth watching if you're a fan of Roman Polanski, but it's not a great documentary.

Olivia photo

I really liked this documentary about Clint Eastwood and his troubled relationship with his first wife, the beautiful and talented Rosalyn Rosenfeld. I also liked how he tried to keep the family's separate from the scandal. I thought this documentary was very interesting. It was very well done and I recommend it. I think the main reason why I enjoyed this documentary so much was because of the ending. In the end, I didn't really understand how Eastwood could be so close to the wife of one of his best actors. He seems to have lost the chance to keep his marriage, so why does he stay with her? I think the film makers, Peter Bogdanovich and Harvey Keitel, could have done a better job in the end. Eastwood could have at least explained to his wife what happened, but she is pretty good in explaining that in her words, it's all the fault of her husband. She says he's a very caring husband and he is trying to find ways to be a better husband. But when it comes to his marriage, she says he can't change and he's just got to accept it. Overall, this documentary was very interesting. It made me really understand how a person's marriage is always going to be, how important it is to have a good marriage, and how a person can make it to where he/she can do what they want. I think this documentary was very good and I would definitely recommend it. I give it a B+.

Jason N. photo
Jason N.

Perhaps the best and most comprehensive documentary I have ever seen about the true life of George Palma, the man and the man. At one time he was hailed as a genius and an innovator. He has been labeled the next Spielberg and the next Kubrick. I'm not sure he was the first director to "explain" the Hitchcockian phenomenon, but he was the first director to do so. The man was an innovator and a genius, who never gave up and refused to compromise. I think his greatest achievement was in the early 80's when he started making movies that were true, not Hollywood conventions. I wish I could say more, but there are some surprises and bits of information I won't reveal. I also know the man is very private and, though he may be a very private person, he is very proud of his work and his legacy. I also have a great respect for him as a person. The film is pretty depressing, but it is not to be taken seriously. I was a fan of the man and always will be, but I think he is a very private person, who is very proud of his work. I think the true world of George Palma is not the Hollywood world. I think he did much better work in the 80's. I think he could be a great director. He really has a gift for telling a story. I hope he does well with his next project.

Marie C. photo
Marie C.

John Frankenheimer is an extremely interesting person and his stories are fascinating. However, he is not an expert on filmmaking and his self-indulgent material is boring and fails to tell the whole story. This movie tries to tell the story of John Frankenheimer's life but fails to tell the story of his life. It just shows you a small piece of the puzzle and not much else. It tries to show you the story of the German cinema, but doesn't tell you much about the history behind it. I know a lot about the history behind the cinema but this movie just does not show you enough about it. All that it does show you is John Frankenheimer. John Frankenheimer was a very important man and this movie just does not tell you much about his life. The film shows you what a small piece of the puzzle is and does not tell you a lot about it. The movie also tries to show you his personal life, but he did not really do anything personal. The story of his wife and his children is completely ignored in this film. The personal life of John Frankenheimer is a complete mystery and the movie is very boring and slow.

Douglas F. photo
Douglas F.

I thought this was a very good documentary. It was a very interesting look at a subject that is rarely seen. I would definitely recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to see some great information on the history of the Vietnam War.

Alexander photo

The guy that is asked to be a model is really weird, but the other people who are there for his photos are really great. I really liked the way he brought out the dark side of the man. And the cameraman and photographer are really good. I can't believe the guy who shoots the photos has been a model, he is really nice. The whole film is really great, I really liked the way he made the story of the old men and the children, it is really touching. The way he shows them at the end is really nice. I don't know how many people see this film, but I am sure it will be really popular, I have to say that this film really gets my respect.

Megan Medina photo
Megan Medina

Dont think of this movie as a documentary. The Director was in the trenches of how some people cope with the police, the media and the terrorists, just like everyone else. He was not trying to convince anyone to make the same mistakes. But he was trying to show that what he did was totally legal. And as an example of that, I think he showed how the driver of a truck (which was an example of terrorism) ended up with a speeding ticket. As for the acting, that was perfect. The subject matter is a bit sketchy, but it was not a political statement or anything. Just a story of a guy who did nothing wrong and did not have a chance to turn the other way. This was what was really good about the movie. And for me, the hardest part of the movie was when he showed how people talked about him. Like how he should have been arrested, or something. But as for me, I thought it was interesting how he ended up in a country with no law, no extradition, and no extradition. The only thing he was accused of was vandalism, and if you were able to write a word of it, you were supposed to be sent to prison. If he was not allowed to make a video, he could not go to Syria, he would be arrested and tortured. But as for the rest of the story, I think it was pretty interesting, and I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see what a police officer goes through in these moments.

Jessica Castillo photo
Jessica Castillo

In his recent documentary on "the great men of cinema", John Ulmer uses clips from films such as "Citizen Kane" and "Casablanca" to illustrate the fact that, in the 21st century, one of the greatest directors of all time is a film critic. The subjects include directors like Federico Fellini, Alfred Hitchcock, Federico Lippi, George Lucas, Luis Bunuel, Almodovar, Fritz Lang, Sergei Eisenstein, Ingmar Bergman, Erich Segal and many more. But, in this documentary, director Fulci (also known for the shocker "Transylvania 2") is treated like a footnote. After having discussed his films in his film "A History of Violence" (2005), Ulmer made an about-face: he now talks about the films that are only mentioned in passing. One of them is "The Last Temptation of Christ". "It was a film with a real subject matter," Ulmer told me. "It is important. It is true. It is authentic. But in this film, I never even thought about the subject matter. I never said I was going to talk about it." In the film, a high school student named Michael (played by Bradley Cooper) has an affair with his teacher's daughter. Michael later says in the film: "I've been a Christian my whole life, and I was a good one." The film critic gets a different take on his film. He says: "Some people will talk about Jesus, and I don't believe that's a good thing. But when it comes to the topic of how we are made, how we become good or evil, and we're all basically the same, it's a very powerful subject. I'm not talking about the Bible. I'm not talking about anything about Jesus. I'm talking about the human condition. It's a very strong subject." Fulci is considered one of the greatest directors of all time, so it is interesting to see him and his films discussed in a documentary. However, I felt that the film was pretty weak when it came to discussing his films. Fulci is a great filmmaker, but his filmography is also great. So, the film failed to give a good analysis of Fulci's films. The film was better when it focused on his films instead of his films.

Kathy S. photo
Kathy S.

While I'm still pretty new to De Palma's work, I was still a little excited about this movie. I heard that it was pretty good, and my expectations were high. Unfortunately, I found it to be just as bad as the first movie. I can't really say that I didn't enjoy it, because the first one was good, but this one is just awful. It seems like they tried to recreate the style of the original with this one, and it just fails to do it. It just looks like a different movie, and it's no different from any other movie. There are some great shots and music, but the entire movie just falls flat on its face. It just looks like a re-make, with a few old tricks, and a few new tricks. I have no idea why they thought this was a good idea, and I don't know if I should blame the filmmakers or the director, but I think it was just a bad idea. While I am not necessarily a fan of De Palma, I still found the movie to be somewhat entertaining, and I'm sure it's not as bad as most people are making it out to be. I just hope that he comes up with something a little better than this. The movie is pretty intense, and there are some decent shots in it, but most of the time it's just a re-make of the original with some new tricks thrown in. The movie is worth seeing, but it's not really worth paying for. I give it a B-.

Willie D. photo
Willie D.

This documentary was pretty much flawless. The movie is just about 3 hours long, so you have plenty of time to sit back and watch it. But I really appreciate that it wasn't a 10 hour documentary. It was just about 3 hours long. And it's still fun to watch. There's plenty of other great documentaries out there. This one is a solid 7/10.

Bobby B. photo
Bobby B.

If there is one film to sum up the strange and dangerous world of Hollywood, it would have to be the oft-told tale of how the director's chief passion (the exploitation of a classic film noir noir theme) was turned into a money-making scheme that ultimately devastated the careers of the actors and the producers who tried to capitalize on it. The story of a few select actors, some of them struggling with the realities of their careers, and one man who was simply too old for the role of Robin, is a compelling one. "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is a film of such extraordinary power that it is almost impossible to look away. It is the kind of film that can touch your heart and make you remember a time when your movie dreams were real. The film starts with a shot of the great William Wyler in full costume as Robin Hood (he was only 19 when he made this role, but he has a great voice and a great body to play it). He appears in the 1920s, dressed in armor, in a true but ridiculous expression of the age that we all know from the movies. Wyler then moves into a later period, the 1930s, as Robin, played by Geoffrey Rush, who plays a disillusioned but loyal servant who only finds redemption by going back to the criminal life. It is during this time that Wyler becomes a star and seems to find redemption by becoming Robin. In the mid-30s he is gone and replaced by the wonderful Richard Harris as Oswald, the Sheriff of Nottingham, and then it is on to the 1940s, the 1960s and 1970s, the 1980s, and finally to present day. We are introduced to the great cast of actors that we see in this film, including Christopher Lee as the Sheriff of Nottingham, Gerard Depardieu as the noble knight, Brian Blessed as Oswald's fellow knight, Glynnis O'Connor as a mysterious lady who turns out to be a great warrior, and the great Michael York as the famous villain. The star of this film is Morgan Freeman as Oswald's loyal friend and accountant. Throughout the film he appears in a variety of roles, the most prominent being the title role, that of Robin Hood. Morgan Freeman has one of his best roles as Oswald, though his role is minimal. He is a complicated and complex character that has to be understood and appreciated. There is a great deal of complexity to the role of Robin Hood, a role that Morgan Freeman is simply excellent at playing. He is the heart and soul of this film, making it possible for us to understand what is going on and to root for this brave but troubled hero. His character is well portrayed, but he is by far the most complex character in the film. His character is not just a simple Robin Hood, it is a character that could be thought of as a caricature of Robin Hood, but also a good and noble knight. Morgan Freeman does a wonderful job of playing the part and he even does a few great things with it, such as portraying Robin Hood as a man who is passionate about his role and willing to do anything necessary to make it work. He even does a bit of acting in this role, such as giving his eyes a sort of feral look that would not have been out of place in a 1930s silent film. We also have many great comedic scenes, such as when Robin encounters a song on the radio, which he decides to play by himself, and in one scene when Robin is riding down a wooden bridge, the wooden bridge turns out to be an actual wooden bridge. The film is full of great lines, many of them from the classic films of the 1930s and 1940s, such as "The red knight," "You were dressed in armor, but

Amber photo

You can't get a film like this any other way. It is simply a brilliant, gripping and genuinely moving film about a film maker. There is so much on display here, that I won't spoil it. The film comes to life in the cast and the editing. The first scene where the man and the woman are walking along the river, was a brilliant piece of work, and it was the next scene where we see a very clear picture of what the story is about. This is so much more than just a film. It is a true story, which is not often given the treatment it deserves. It is a story about film making, and about life. The film comes alive in the performances, but also in the editing, the score, the beautiful cinematography, the story, the themes, the messages, the symbolism, the images, the photographs. The film doesn't have a weak point. It doesn't have a weak element. It is so much more than that. It is a piece of art, and it is something to be admired. The film maker, Joe D'Amato, has been able to capture so much of the magic of film making, and to make the viewer feel the magic of film making, and film making is something that most people do not get. Joe D'Amato is a man with an amazing gift. He is able to do this, and to show how a film can be beautiful, and how a film can make us feel something, and to make us feel something. It is a film that I recommend everyone to see. It is an amazing film. It is a masterpiece.

Doris C. photo
Doris C.

What makes this film so extraordinary is the amount of information on the film. I am a fan of the Director, but the Director is the one that I respect. It is the best way to experience the movie, because you get to know the man behind the camera, and you are learning how he makes his films. This film is not about who made the film, or who the Director is, it is about the Director himself. It is not a documentary of a career, it is the story of a man who made his own history. The guy has a kind of telekinetic power, he can do things that would not be possible to even dream about. It is the story of a man who has never been afraid of making a film. This is not an account of his career, this is a biography of a man who made his own history. I was looking for more information about this film, but it seems that there is not much information on it. So I was surprised when I discovered that there was a documentary about him, but I was not aware of it. This documentary would have been amazing if I had known about it. I am curious to see how this documentary will be shown on the screen. If you are an admirer of the Director, then you should definitely watch this film, but if you are not an admirer of the Director, then I recommend you to avoid it. I would like to thank the people who made the documentary, because they gave me a glimpse of the documentary that I was looking for, but I had to buy it on DVD, because I had to see it again to understand the information that was given. I would like to thank everyone who gave comments, because the comments were very helpful. It is not about who made the film, it is about the Director.

Lauren Garrett photo
Lauren Garrett

By the time this documentary was released, Al Pacino had just had a huge hit with Scarface and the film itself was seen as an ode to the counter-culture of the early to mid-1970's. It is a well-done and thoroughly entertaining documentary, but it comes off as being a little too preachy. The one redeeming quality of the film is the interviews with Pacino, and some of them are pretty good. They aren't Oscar-winning performances, but they are good. One of the greatest things about this film is the way that the filmmakers were able to go in for the jugular. You feel a little bit like a psychopath, but you know Pacino is actually just doing his best to get to the bottom of the corruption that's going on around him. And for what it's worth, I would have liked to see more of those interviews. It would have been nice to get Pacino in on the action a little more. That's probably why there's only one of him in the film, which I think is a pretty good thing. Pacino is a bit too aloof for my taste. He seems more in control of the material, which I think is part of what makes him so great. But he's never been much of a talker. He just doesn't have the charisma that we're used to seeing in him. And he seems to be a little too comfortable in his own skin for my taste. And he doesn't seem very interested in the people around him. It's a good film, but it's not the best documentary about the movie that Al Pacino has ever done. But it's pretty good for what it is.

Joyce photo

This is the third in the trilogy of documentary's on Martin Scorcese, and this one is more or less the weakest. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it's a great improvement over the first two, and it's an improvement over the third one as well, but it does come across as a bit of a disappointment. Scorcese's documentary on Martin Scorcese's life was interesting and well-made, but this one is a bit of a disappointment. This documentary was filmed in real time and, although I have read that it was shot with a hand-held camera, it still felt more like a documentary. It was just a lot of running around. I have seen this documentary on the DVD and I was able to hear the dialogue, but I did not see the actual footage of the film. I have read reviews of the film on IMDb and, although they do mention the documentary, I do not understand why they were so harsh. They say that the film is 'awful', but there was one particular scene that I thought was really good, and I have not seen the documentary. I thought that the film was well-made, but I also thought that the film was very boring and I didn't like the way that it was filmed. It just felt like there was no real insight into Martin Scorcese's life. I did like the scenes that I saw on the DVD, but I was also very disappointed by the documentary. I did not feel that it was a great documentary, and I thought that it was more of a documentary than a film. It just felt very boring. It is a shame that there was no real insight into Martin Scorcese's life, because it would have been really interesting to see him in a more interesting documentary. Overall, I would give this film a rating of 6/10, but I would not go so far as to give it a rating of a 1. I do think that it's a good documentary, but it's not as good as the first two.

Angela Greene photo
Angela Greene

Here's another one of those movies that is extremely well done and contains some amazing footage of some very interesting people. I don't think I've ever seen such a well made movie about what happened to a lot of people in the late 60's and early 70's. I can't even remember the last time I had the pleasure of seeing a documentary about the subject. The time frame was all over the map and many different people were involved in the situation. The interviews were all very interesting and made it interesting to know what these people were thinking and how they dealt with the situation. This is a great film. The director, Michael Stuhlbarg, did a great job. I hope to see more of this kind of work from him.

Jeremy Payne photo
Jeremy Payne

Martin Scorcese's most underrated film. Some of his other films have been better, but this one is the most impressive. I haven't seen anything like it before, except for M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Sixth Sense'. A rare film that uses a musical score to enhance the story and its message. It was one of the best films of 2001, and the best film I have ever seen. It made me think about my life, and made me realize that life is more important than material things. It was inspirational. I am a big fan of Scorcese, but this film will always be my favorite. The fact that it was nominated for an Oscar is just a matter of pride for me. A film that makes you feel, and will make you think about what you see, and the way you live your life. And this film is one of the best films I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot of films. I am giving this film a 9 out of 10, but it is not a perfect film. The pacing is a bit slow, and there are a couple of plot holes. But, the film is just brilliant. It is an inspiring and powerful film, and it is a very personal film, that shows how important life is. I recommend it to everyone.