Steam Crime + Punishment

Crime + Punishment

Crime + Punishment is a movie starring Manuel 'Manny' Gomez, Sandy Gonzales, and Rukia Lumumba. A group of brave NYPD officers risk it all to expose the truth about illegal quota practices in police departments.

Other Titles
罪与罚, Zbrodnia + kara
Running Time
1 hours 52 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Stephen T. Maing
Actors
Manuel 'Manny' Gomez, Rukia Lumumba, Sandy Gonzales, Edwin Raymond
Country
USA
Year
2018
Audio Languages
日本語, اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
Japanese, اللغة_العربية, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A group of brave NYPD officers risk it all to expose the truth about illegal quota practices in police departments.

Comments about documentary «Crime + Punishment» (26)

Linda photo
Linda

I had never heard of this movie until I was on the PETA news for a movie.I was in the program, and I just happened to have something to do, and my wife got me a snack that I couldn't resist. I just happened to put the VHS on, and I have watched it every week. I feel like the movie is very accurate and, sometimes, a bit emotional. I agree with the points raised in the movie, but I think it's important to highlight the beauty of animals. It's important to talk about the way their lives are farmed, and how well we treat them in that way. But the way people treat animals in captivity isn't just cruel, it's disgusting. I wish I could tell you about the animal being violently murdered, or having their teeth pulled, or their skin peeled off and used for trophies, but I don't know what to say about that. I also don't know how the director was able to get so many people in the audience to pay attention to the atrocities. But it's very well done. I recommend this movie for those of us who are concerned with cruelty and violence towards animals.

Gary Kennedy photo
Gary Kennedy

I'm not the kind of person who sits through a film to be horrified by the horrors depicted on screen. In fact I tend to do that - very rarely does one sit through a film because the violence is so graphic and the events portrayed so gruesome. I was drawn in by the film's compelling subject matter: Slavery in the United States, and the question of how the war criminals can get pardoned. However, the experience was largely a black and white matter; it wasn't really my place to judge. The film's message is not to be taken lightly. I found it clear and strong in its aim to cause a debate, and to encourage people to open their minds and ponder over the truth of the crimes committed. Overall, the film was effectively informative and entertaining. However, at times it felt like the film was merely talking about its subject matter, and that this was more than likely intentional. The film clearly drew the attention of other film makers to keep up the pressure and write articles or even documentaries on the subject matter. It also became apparent that many people who sat in on this film was not particularly passionate about the subject. The film's subject matter is certainly important, and needs to be discussed. However, the information provided by the film was not compelling and had a slightly lack luster. On the flip side of that coin, I felt that the film contained an information overload. This was not to say that the film was not strong or relevant, rather that the information provided was completely insufficient for the subject matter. If I knew that someone could be given a chance to redeem himself, I would have given that person the opportunity. Instead, I was presented with an information overload, which made the viewer even more reluctant to even look into the subject matter at hand. This leads me to the second point: The information provided was information that was already available through out the film. The information provided didn't give me the information I needed to take action, which is why I did not do so. This is clearly a limited group of people, and I am not sure that the film was even worthwhile to watch for all of its core audience.

Katherine Stevens photo
Katherine Stevens

When a judge hands down a life sentence to a man who is known to have "graved" in prison in order to deal with the bad character he has created in himself, the prison authorities go all out to try to clear up any misunderstanding. Not just about the man, but about the men who have been serving their time. It may sound like an excuse for them to get to know each other. It's not, though. You get the idea that these men aren't like any other men. They aren't like any other people. They are a very isolated group who were put in a very frightening situation in their younger days. One of the judges who is dealing with this man's character goes so far as to acknowledge that it is probably the first time he has had to deal with someone like this. He is certainly not the first. The film highlights the difficulties that are associated with this behaviour, and how the staff are taken aback by this "normality". The filmmakers do an excellent job in bringing this reality to the screen. It is difficult to relate to some of the scenes. I never felt sorry for the prisoner, who was fully deserving of what he had to go through. But his was a real-life situation. There was no "normality" here. It was a psychological situation where the young man, his family, and the guards knew that he was going to do it. And they did nothing to help him. The film points out how the guards in the place where the young man is being held have been told that this is a one-time thing. However, I couldn't help but think that this is something that the guards who do these things should be prepared for. If the guards were "unrelenting" in trying to get the man out of jail, then perhaps the judges wouldn't want to deal with them so much. The footage in the film was incredibly disturbing. This man, in the time that he spent in prison, had lived in complete isolation, and the harsh reality was that the only other people he knew were his fellow inmates. No one knew where he was, and even when he did, he didn't know who he was. But he did have a small amount of normal human contact. He had a phone with him, a place to stay, and a few cigarettes to light up before the guards started to talk to him. The film was not made to show his emotions. It wasn't made to show him scream, cry, or scream and cry. No, it was made to show the life in prison, where he had no way of being connected to the outside world, and was really on his own. The two main prison guards who were involved in handling this man's character were put in a very difficult position. At the time, no one, including the prisoners who knew him, believed that he was the kind of person who would end up being a violent criminal. The guards knew the man as a hard-nosed man, and they did everything possible to see him sent back to prison. He ended up having to be locked up on the other side of the prison wall. In the end, he was sent to a place that would eventually be called "The Hole". It was there that he was doing his time and the guards were doing everything they could to ensure that he didn't do more time. One of the guards saw him and said that it seemed like he was having a good time. She said that it was like he had gotten through another day of punishment. He would occasionally see that she was starting to get a little bit upset. He would turn to her and say "Hey, it's all good now". When he walked out of that prison, he was proud. He was proud that he could not get out, because the other prisoners would take him back into jail and begin to treat him as if he was just another prisoner. They would talk to him as if he

Margaret photo
Margaret

Since the 1970s, only five American presidents have made the 'crime + punishment' paradigm their calling card. By adopting this approach, a handful of presidents, particularly Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan, have significantly contributed to the decline in crime rates in this country and the subsequent decline in violence. Hoover was particularly successful in lowering crime rates while Reagan was more successful in reducing homicide rates. Many in the media have questioned the relevance of this approach in recent years, but I question how many would still believe the police department is morally and politically 'tough' because the arrest rate in this country is actually lower than crime rates. In conclusion, police departments in this country, like any other American institution, should be viewed as institutions, not as part of the state. This way they become the partners in crime reduction and also help to prevent crime in the first place.

Patrick H. photo
Patrick H.

This documentary was not as intense as the first one, which had great implications about how to make a society, but still not as important as the first one. However, they made a good job to explain some of the things that the government of China do. It will be a good thing for people who live in China. For me, I think that this documentary is so good, because I will make a lot of comparisons to other Asian countries and even people from abroad. There are differences between the way that we have education in the west and the education that they have in the east. I can say that I have never felt like they had education in the west, because in general, their education systems are not as well developed as ours. I think it's better to have education in the east than in the west. Some of the things that the Chinese government do is very important, for example, they make an all of it free of charge. Some of the subjects they do in the documentary is very interesting and interesting. I can't understand why people have such great confidence in this documentary. It's not that I can't understand what they have to say. I can't understand why some people think that they have everything that they want, but they have to work to achieve those things. I think the documentary is better than the first one because it's more interesting and it shows some other important things that they have done. They should keep making films about something like this and not more documentary like this.

Jordan H. photo
Jordan H.

It's an amazing thing, that filmmakers have to make more movies. Every director has a particular vision, and sometimes it's better to have just a collection of short clips and montages. This documentary for the most part doesn't disappoint. The production values are fantastic. You have the nice weather, great location shots, and you have the amazing talent of good film making (Robert Rodriguez, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and so on). There are many scenes in which your jaw is dropped. Like when James Cameron walks around the desert, you just can't look away from him. We also have several documentaries on modern religions and how they are interpreted. It also shows the practical side of making films and the cynicism of what this industry is. I like it when filmmakers are willing to tackle controversial subjects. There are plenty of documentaries on the UFO phenomenon and it's a new industry to tackle it. It's fascinating how they did it. I could see this movie when I was ten years old. But it's about to be ten years old for me. It's a great reminder of a time when I believed in film making and it really inspired me to be a filmmaker. I wish they wouldn't make so many documentaries. It's time that documentaries come more often.

Philip B. photo
Philip B.

I was in very early stages of my scoliosis. I only had a few craggy areas in my back. I felt like a freak during the whole 30 minutes of this film. I have an honest feeling about the person making this film, as well as the level of pain that you feel when you watch it. It is real. No lies or exaggeration. Everything in this film is what it really is: horrible to watch, and extremely painful to watch. It's a real life experience. And most of all, it should be a reminder to people who think that a piece of human flesh is just some kind of empty ornament. To be honest, the only reason I'm giving this film a higher score than one star is because of the wonderfully shot, and surprisingly well edited film. The story itself, is very interesting and entertaining. If the makers of this film thought that this film would be a step in the right direction of "knowledge," they were definitely wrong.

Jennifer G. photo
Jennifer G.

Good points: Michael Moore and Bob Fosse are two of the most courageous, creative people working today, and they both make the film as interesting as possible. I agree that they do a great job of using archival footage to add to the story, and it is beautifully shot, at times it almost feels as if the camera is on a low angle, making the images less restricted and more focused on the content. Moore's commentary provides insight and a surprising amount of humor, and I felt at times I was reading his thoughts in a different language. I agree that there is a lot of historical knowledge that they went through and plenty of interesting history to learn about. Some of the problems I have with this film are that, while there are numerous archival footage that clearly shows Moore and Fosse working on a story, it seems the only problem the filmmakers faced was getting the footage to be re-edited to match the new footage. So, while there are a lot of interesting historical details that Fosse, Moore and the film makers have chosen to leave out, we're left with a fairly chaotic narrative, and the images that fit in are often so hard to find, that we just can't fully enjoy the film. The ones that were most important, and ended up on the DVD, were chosen to be edited and brought in to the film. I also feel that a lot of what is interesting about this film is in fact not particularly original. These are shots taken by the U.S. Air Force and Army, and they were likely used in a similar fashion to what the film makers did, but they're not unique. It's one thing to do an insightful, documentary style film, it's another thing to do a film where all the stories that don't fit in the narrative are completely put out of their minds and forgotten. Moore makes a film that has certain shortcomings, but it's the type of film that makes you want to watch it over and over again, and it's something that's worth seeing over and over.

Shirley photo
Shirley

To the Editors: Though most of you will not have heard of Charles Dickens until sometime in the 1970s, he was a prolific author who popularized many of the concepts we now take for granted. Perhaps he was not a very nice man, but he was an incredible writer, and I believe that if there were only one moment in his life that had most lasting impact, it would be one of his "little novels" written for children. I believe this film will be almost as popular with adults as it will be with young children. The book, which is currently out of print, I believe, has a parallel to how our own society is continuing to go through a slow, powerful, and truly inspiring transformation. For the record, "A Christmas Carol" was actually written in the 1840's. The protagonist of the novel was twelve years old when it was written, and the book is set during the height of the Civil War, making it very relevant to today's world. One thing I know for sure, I won't be watching this film any time soon. You may not agree with me, but I'm not alone in my opinion that "A Christmas Carol" is, in my opinion, the greatest literary work ever written. "A Christmas Carol" is not a story that is easy to follow, and I will agree with many of the other posters who say that the movie lacks in several areas. The characters are not well developed, and the actors don't do a particularly good job. But that doesn't mean that this is a bad film. I recommend it for any audience, or for any age. I think that if you have a little time to kill, and you have not yet read the book, go ahead and give it a shot. You might be surprised.

Tiffany B. photo
Tiffany B.

I recently re-watched Dyan Cannon's film Mystery Killings, not knowing it had only been a few years since I had seen it. I was intrigued by the premise of this film, because it is based on a true story. I always feel the need to see movies based on true stories, because I cannot truly know their circumstances or how they ended up in that situation. I mean, I can't really tell how a 14 year old became a serial killer, although I can tell you if he/she killed 10-15 people in one day. But what do I know about murder and that? I do not want to just watch a documentary about a murder, even though that might be interesting. I want to experience that, not just watch it. So when I first saw this film, I was intrigued. Because I have not seen the original film, I didn't know that the murders in the first version were just flashbacks. That was very interesting, as I wondered what would happen if I watched the original movie instead. I was not disappointed, as the murders were very good. And the recapping of events was interesting. Now I know that the original movie is very hard to find, so I think it is a good idea to watch the original movie first. I would have also liked to see the film with subtitles, because I do not speak Korean and I had to learn some of the characters names. But I do not really like watching films that are hidden to a lot of people, like this film was. I was hoping for it to be a better film, than the original, because I was excited by the idea of the film being based on a true story. However, I am surprised at how similar this movie is to the original. I think the entire idea of the original is to show how serial killers really were, and to show how this is just an everyday event for those who are serial killers. But that was not the case in this movie, there was not a whole lot of violence, only blood. But I would have liked to see more blood in the movie, as it did show a lot of the killings. I think that I would have liked to see the murders more in this film, because it is a very different movie. I felt that the movie was interesting, and I would definitely watch it again. The fact that I was not disappointed in the movie, but I was disappointed in the first film is a bad sign, because I never thought the first film was all that good. I would also like to see some more scenes in this movie, because it is very different and probably a little better. But it is still better than the first film.

Russell McCoy photo
Russell McCoy

This documentary follows the lives of John Gotti Jr. (son of John Gotti Sr.) as he deals with the media scrutiny he's being subjected to. While the documentary doesn't delve into the details of what actually happened during the investigation into the murders of his father and brother, it does touch on the decision of the family to keep the family name in the news and that of the resulting violence. If you're looking to see how the Mafia came to be, this documentary would be an excellent way to start. I'd say that I enjoyed this documentary as a documentary, but I'd say it's also a good educational film, if you're into the topic. If you are looking for some news coverage, this documentary is probably not the documentary for you.

Gregory Clark photo
Gregory Clark

The story of a young woman's struggle for justice in a small Texas town is an uplifting one, and it's an all too common story. But the fact that a person of color, a woman of color, or a person with disabilities can suffer a similar fate is one of the most amazing things about this film. I've watched it once, and it stuck with me. It made me think about how so many people can be victimized by a small criminal act. How one moment can have a devastating effect on the lives of so many others. The fact that it's a documentary made with the same attention to detail as the "Say Anything" films shows that this film does a great job of telling a story. It's a story about the effects of an act of violence on one person, and how that act has a lasting impact on so many others. What I love about the film is that it's a story about a woman's struggle. It's about her struggle, and it's about her healing. This film does a great job of showing that a woman who is victimized by her abuser, can be able to get back on her feet and rebuild her life. It's an inspiring story, and it's one that should be told and shared.

Rose photo
Rose

A remarkable, if perhaps over-simplified, look at the history of Roman society in the West. Roman society was brutal, but there was also a sort of honor code, with the most honourable persons being the ones who did not have to fight or kill, they simply did not fight or kill. You can tell by the bone structure of the feet of many soldiers to determine if they were warriors or not. Military discipline is portrayed as something akin to killing the other person. Everyone is guilty of murder and murder is a capital crime, that is, if you kill a person, you are considered to be a traitor to the state. It was commonly understood that the "walking dead" (as they were called) were immortal, but there was also a law against killing them. The appearance of the "walking dead" is sometimes attributed to the Romans, since there were stories that they were all dead. Although the idea of the "walking dead" is popular in modern times, it really was not common at the time the Romans ruled. There is very little violence in the documentary. There are a few accounts of gladiatorial games, but not very many. The only violence is the occasional bludgeoning by soldiers of the body of one of the living gladiators. The violence that was used was simply throwing food in front of the gladiators. The people of Rome and Rome-apparently-exalted martial skills. Almost every gladiator had to be trained in boxing and some had to be trained in Karate. When fighting in the arena the gladiators did not wear much armor. Most gladiators wore simple vests and shoes. They were designed to be extremely agile and strong, and the sound of their blows was enough to kill a person. This made gladiatorial fighting a martial sport, more akin to a sport. The Roman Emperor Trajan forbade gladiator fighting as a political and social reform, and the Senate also called for the abolition of gladiator fighting. However, the best gladiators were still fighting in the Coliseum, and those who still competed for them were still forced to be sober and show some restraint. In the West, we have a very different story. We do not have a 100% pure form of Roman culture. We have a "Roman" attitude to life, to violence and death, to honour, and to the idea of honour. We have societies that are dark and brutal, and societies that are not completely civilized. We have cultures that have slaves, slaves that are beaten, slaves that are raped, slaves that are exterminated. We have societies that commit genocide in large numbers, such as the Holocaust. It is very hard to take Roman society at face value. The Roman attitude toward life is presented as the norm of the time, and we have very few stories of even the most honourable members of society. The most important story told by the film is that of the daughter of Marcus Aurelius, who was himself killed in the fighting at the arena. It is a good film that is extremely well-made. I was very impressed by the fact that the director didn't try to use actors who had known actors in Roman history, but just an ordinary non-Roman (if you can call him that) who never knew anything about ancient history, who didn't know anything about gladiators or gladiators' families. He didn't do this to hide the fact that he was doing this documentary. He knew that he would be able to make a film that was important, because it is an important story. This documentary tells a story of a story of a story. It is an interesting documentary that really shows the difference in culture between Rome and the West. It makes you realize that there is a lot of good in the West.

Gerald photo
Gerald

I was always looking forward to this documentary. It was the first documentary that I watched and I was impressed. The way that the filmmaker tries to present the way that the media spreads a message. He wants to show the typical ways that media groups make their money. I was shocked at how fast the media spreads the message. He tries to show that this was one of the main factors that caused the crisis of the mid-nineties. It is also a lot of other factors that we still have to fight with today. There are so many ways that media groups spread their message. It is even harder than before. It is not that much difficult to watch. The documentary is very interesting. I think that it is important that we have this kind of documentary to show what is going on in the media and how they influence our lives. We need to be aware of what is going on in the media and how they are influencing our lives. We need to know how they are influencing our lives. It is just as important as ever. It is not the media that is the problem, it is the way that the media is spreading their message.

Peter Russell photo
Peter Russell

I saw this movie at a screening in New York City, and I was shocked at how much I liked it. I think this is a great movie about the choices we make in life. It was very well done. I think it is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. The story is well told, the music is great, and the acting is great. I loved the way the movie was filmed, and I think the editing was amazing. I think this is a movie that everyone should see.

Amy photo
Amy

There is a little point to the documentary about 'Son of Sam'. The case was obviously bad, but that's why we can all laugh. It was more like a comedy. As a documentary, this is great, but it lacks a certain essential. It does not convey the kind of emotion, the painful and intense feeling, that a good documentary should have. It's not that there are no funny moments, but they are not powerful, they are more so funny than real. I found this documentary a bit boring, and not very informative. It had a few bad moments, and some good moments. I give this documentary 8/10.

Ashley Butler photo
Ashley Butler

What if all you wanted to do was to be a criminal? What if you want to live out your wildest dreams, and not have to be a criminal in order to fulfill those dreams? This documentary tries to answer that question, and the answers it gives are not as clear cut as the title would suggest. You have the right to be whoever you want to be, but if you want to be a criminal, you are just going to have to live out your fantasies, and not be a criminal in order to fulfill them. It's a shame that so many documentaries on this topic, on all kinds of criminal activities, seem to be less and less relevant. It's good to see a documentary on the good side of being a criminal, and the bad side of being a criminal. That's what this documentary is about, and it's an interesting watch.

Eugene photo
Eugene

I had never heard of the South Africa of the apartheid years before watching this documentary. This movie explains the story of how apartheid affected the lives of everyone living there. It was an awful period of time. The real story is not the stories of the people who were suffering during that time, but rather the lives of those who lived during that time. A lot of the people were going hungry, and it was hard to find food. This documentary also shows how much suffering was inflicted on the black population of South Africa, as well as the whites who were victims of the discrimination. In my opinion, this is a must-see documentary. It is a must-see for anyone interested in world history. I give this documentary a rating of 9 out of 10.

Jesse H. photo
Jesse H.

I saw this at a local film festival and I thought it was great. A mixture of film maker and religious fanatic are interviewed in the film, and you can tell that the people involved have a lot of faith in their own faith and the truth, and it is evident that they are not trying to "sell" anything, but simply sharing the truth. The reason I am giving this film an 8 is because it was pretty clear that there were a few editing issues at some points. But overall, the interviews were very interesting and the ideas that were put forward were very well put forward. I would recommend this film to anyone who is into documentaries about religion and their teachings, or anyone who has questions about their faith.

Phillip photo
Phillip

The wonderful, funny, moving documentary about two women who are very different. From the perspective of a man who is drawn to a woman who is broken and who can't be understood. But you are drawn to this woman. The film is very informative and even has an ending. I would recommend this film to anyone who likes to learn more about the 'other' sex.

Nicole L. photo
Nicole L.

I can't say this enough: this movie is a must see! It was about a person who has lived and suffered since the day of her birth. This movie is so inspiring and enlightening and a must watch!

Katherine S. photo
Katherine S.

The 10 year war between Israel and its Arab neighbours (the PLO) has always been a contentious issue. During the 1990s, the conflict was at its peak. The Palestinian people lived under an oppressive regime of the PLO. Israel's military presence was used as an excuse to launch the first intifada, a series of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians that was largely responsible for the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. There is no doubt that the Palestinian people have been treated unfairly throughout the years. Israel has not been a friend to the Palestinians. Israel has sent in its own troops to carry out many of the wars in the Middle East. The occupation of the West Bank is a fact of life for the Palestinian people. It is the occupation that has made them more desperate. Many of the Israelis who served in the IDF during the 1990s are Palestinian citizens of Israel. Many have lost family members in the wars. But the conflict is not just about Palestine. It is about the occupation. For all intents and purposes, the PLO is still the only legitimate Palestinian government in the country. The conflict between Israel and the PLO is the main cause of the conflict. The Palestinians have chosen the PLO over the other Arab countries. The PLO has control of the Palestinian bureaucracy, media, and military. The PLO also controls the tax system in the West Bank. The PLO has also control of the Israeli military and the Israeli Police. This gives the PLO complete control over the Palestinian Authority. When the PLO declares a unilateral ceasefire, Israel sends in its troops to enforce the ceasefire. The Israeli troops do not enter the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. They simply fire rubber bullets at Palestinian civilians. Israel has also attacked Palestinian villages, villages that are occupied by the PLO. Israel has also been involved in the political agenda of the PLO. During the intifada, Israel played the PLO and Hamas against each other. The PLO was using the war to try and gain political power. Israel was using the intifada to try and achieve its political goals. Israel had no intention of respecting the ceasefire, as it has always been opposed to Palestinian independence. Israel has had many reasons to use force against the PLO. The PLO has refused to recognize Israel. The PLO has also rejected peace proposals from Israel. When Israel had to make peace with the PLO, it began to expel the PLO from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It has been a highly effective means of advancing Israel's political objectives. During the intifada, the Israeli government, in a show of force, began to allow the Israeli military to enter Palestinian villages. This was a move that was not well received by the Palestinian leadership. Israel had the support of the majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank. It had the support of most of the Palestinian citizens of Israel. The intifada had a severe effect on the Palestinian people. When Israel had to fight the intifada, the Palestinian people had nowhere else to turn. The PLO became increasingly unstable. The PLO leaders, Hamas, and the PLO began to pull back from the intifada. The intifada became a self-inflicted wound. In the end, the intifada killed several hundred Palestinians. The violence caused the PLO to lose its legitimacy. The PLO began to drift away from the intifada. The violence created a feeling of hopelessness among the Palestinian people. The PLO began to become more moderate. The PLO became a political party, rather than a guerrilla movement. It became more reasonable and pragmatic. It began to negotiate with Israel and to negotiate with the other Arab states. The PLO became more and more a political force. It became less and less a military force. The PLO began to leave the West Bank. The PLO moved away from its support base in Gaza and to other parts

Shirley C. photo
Shirley C.

It's hard to deny that the world has seen a lot of bad things in the past two decades, and a lot of good things too. There is still room for improvement in the world's poor and desperate people. But the good things that are being achieved are rare and very important to the lives of many. Here, on the other hand, the subject is a rich and entertaining story, beautifully told. We are treated to the everyday life of the poorest and poorest of the poor, in a wonderful and convincing way. The story goes on and on. The effects of these experiences, the kind of problems they have, are shown in an incredibly clear way. They are very relevant to the lives of the people, and the story is not only about their problems. The camera follows them, but not all the time, because they do not want the camera to. They don't want it to interrupt their conversation. The story also covers the life of the people in a way that makes it interesting. It is a life that needs a lot of effort and persistence to change and it is hard to change. We see this in their struggles, in the world they live in and in their hope, in their dreams, in their decisions, in their failures. The last 10 minutes are very important to the whole story and provide a great explanation for the problems in this world. The emotions of these people are shown in a very clear way, and the story is not about how bad the situation is, but about how important the things are. It is about the things they are making and they are making it very well. There is not one piece of the story that is not excellent, but the quality of the story is quite high and the world is the source of the perfection. The people in this story are real people, the situations are real and the words are real, they are alive. This is a beautiful movie and is very good.

Russell photo
Russell

This is a film that will probably offend a lot of people. I know that this film will make you feel that you are the most important person in the world. This film is a great documentary and I highly recommend it. I think this film is so well done and has such great commentary that I can't help but like it. I don't think that anyone could dislike this film and that is why it is so good. I think that this film is a great way to get to know a lot of people and to see how the world really works. It's like a documentary but with a lot more action. I think that this film is really well done and I think that everyone should see this film.

Catherine photo
Catherine

You have to be really patient in order to watch this film. I went in expecting a depressing, but informative film. That is, until the final credits rolled. It was amazing how quickly it made me re-evaluate my life, which for the most part I would have had the patience to do if not for the film. I found it to be a very personal film about a subject that many of us have lived through. It was very hard to watch at times, but I am glad I watched it. For me it was a very important film. Although I have not experienced much violence myself, the violence depicted in the film made me think of all the deaths that occurred around me. It was disturbing, but I felt that it was necessary. I was not the only person that had a hard time with the film, so many people in the audience left the theater disgusted and disappointed.

Alan H. photo
Alan H.

If you're a person who can't stand the idea of slavery, or if you're just an intellectual who doesn't like to be reminded of the horrors of the past, this film will likely change your mind. It is certainly worth watching. It's worth seeing again, especially if you have a history degree. The film is very, very well made, and the stories are well told. The only reason I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the "bloopers" at the end. They're not really bloopers, but they are noticeable, and I think they hurt the film. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. If you don't mind those things, you should enjoy this film. I hope this review helps. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I'm happy to answer.