Steam 306 Hollywood

306 Hollywood

306 Hollywood is a movie starring Sherry Anthony, Ruby Berube, and Nicole Bloomfield. When two siblings undertake an archaeological excavation of their late grandmother's house, they embark on a magical-realist journey in search of...

Running Time
1 hours 34 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Jonathan Bogarín, Elan Bogarín
Writer
Elan Bogarín, Nyneve Laura Minnear, Jonathan Bogarín
Actors
Nicole Bloomfield, Elan Bogarín, Ruby Berube, Sherry Anthony
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

When two siblings undertake an archaeological excavation of their late grandmother's house, they embark on a magical-realist journey in search of what life remains in the objects we leave behind.

Comments about documentary «306 Hollywood» (14)

Kimberly photo
Kimberly

This film, like a lot of documentaries, is pretty much the first thing you see on the film. We start off with a woman who has been telling people that she has been raped and is now facing a state-appointed court judge who will decide whether she is "innocent" or "guilty". This man comes into the courtroom one day and decides to question her, this decision is seen in a way, through flashbacks of her life and how she reacts to things and situations. The woman says that she was never raped and is angry that this man has been calling her a liar, so she decides to come in to the courtroom and tell her story, the judge agrees to hear the woman's case, and he wants to make sure that she is not guilty. But there are many things that he can't see, or may not be able to see. This is a film that you'll want to watch again and again. I can't stress this enough, it is a very well-made film and a really good documentary about something that most people don't think about, the justice system in this country. Some people might find it boring, but for the most part it is a very well-made documentary that should be required viewing for everyone.

Craig G. photo
Craig G.

Cinema is often the one thing we have in common with each other. It is about communication between people and about getting together in the theater to enjoy some movie. This film is the epitome of a cultural exchange. The two main actors are brilliant and the results speak for themselves. What I find interesting about the film is the difference in style between the two different genres of film: European and American. The Americans' documentary style is very obvious and direct while the Europeans' film style is more subtle and atmospheric. The French actors are really great and very memorable and the story is very inspiring. It is interesting to see the power of movies in the west, but also in the east, where documentary style is actually popular. I hope this film will become a huge success and a classic. Overall, this is an outstanding film. It shows how powerful films can be and how different we are from each other. But the best thing of the film is the contrast of style and style with style. The movie is also very interesting to see the way the director chooses to show this film in his style. He uses different techniques, from use of fast cutting, to use of simple short scenes, to use of the camera's eyes. But the film is great, because the two main actors are excellent, so are the music and the location. I think that this film is a must see.

Lori D. photo
Lori D.

Good point about Hollywood movie industry, the majority of the movie industry lies in the USA, which is the one most affected by globalization and other forms of globalization. The majority of those who live in USA pay their taxes, so don't get discouraged when the movie industry is focusing more on the USA and less on the rest of the world. Also, the majority of the money in the movie industry comes from the USA. Also, the majority of the work is done by foreigners, and many of those are quite successful. So, if you want to get a good movie experience, or just want to know what goes on behind the scenes, you should watch this documentary.

Henry photo
Henry

I saw this documentary about a year ago and I had a lot of questions. Is he just in the position of a new-age Dr. Phil? Is he really some sort of super genius who can cure all the world's ills? Is he really a savior for mankind? Or is he just a stooge for the CIA and the East German secret police? The answers to these questions are what we get in the film. By the way, I am not a very big fan of the Dr. Phil Show, but I like this film a lot, because it's more like a documentary than a show. There are no scenes of Dr. Phil saying, "Yes, this is brilliant, but this could be better!" But when it comes to the CIA, I was very interested to find out why they felt this way about him. The director of the film, Sam Fuller, and the actor who plays the CIA agent are not actors, but people who were part of the CIA in the 1980's. There is a lot of news footage of the CIA during this time period and this makes it even more interesting. The CIA is not just some secret organization, but it is a very powerful and highly respected organization. So, what was their reason for trying to get him to go public? There are a lot of very interesting revelations in this documentary, but the most surprising thing was the reaction of the young actor. When the CIA agent says to him that he thinks he is in the right, he does not believe him. The CIA agent himself doesn't believe that he is in the right, but I guess the agent told him that the world is too big to believe that any man could take over the entire world. So, he must be right. I think he was right. It is a sad story, but I hope that we can all learn something from it.

Joan photo
Joan

A poignant look at the lives of those who help keep these projects alive. Don't ask what the value of a film is in that sort of discussion. Ask what you want to learn from it. And don't expect the discussion to be some sort of summary of a piece of work that may have been mentioned previously. There are many interesting topics touched on in the film, from the impact of the war on young people and on their families, to the myth of the great film industry that we never get to see. That being said, one of the main points the film makes is that there is a lot more that should be discussed about the film industry. Not just the films, but how they affect the people who make them and the people who support them. There is no doubt that there is a lot more that goes on behind the scenes than we know about. This is a very important film to watch. You won't have a problem following along and not having a problem at all with the analysis. If you want a serious analysis of the effects of war on children and families and the people who care for them, this is the film for you.

David photo
David

It's a great film, however, I found it to be a bit too long. It doesn't feel like it had that much focus put into it. As a result, it felt rushed and sometimes it felt like they took too long to get there. It was very much about feeling happy about things and everything that had been going on in your life, rather than actually getting to the point of where you are in your life. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to learn about how people act in life and how they react to it. It also is good for showing people how to be happy and to appreciate the things in life that they are doing well.

Kenneth S. photo
Kenneth S.

Greetings from Lithuania. "Mona Lisa Smile" (2015) is a rather short documentary film that I reviewed for the year 2014. The movie is about the "Mona Lisa Smile" which was a woman with a flaw in her eyes which makes her smile with a happy look. During her lifetime the woman had many eyes. One of the most famous is the most modern one - a white one. She lived for more than 100 years until she died at the age of 80. Her name is Helen Keller. Here the filmmakers get into some kind of a plot about the story. It's interesting and I liked the way it is written. I would also like to point out that there are two "visions" in the movie. One is of the old woman and the other is of the person that the woman was. I must mention that I was a little confused with the second one. I mean, it's not so clear how they should put the person in the center of the story. So it's better to put it in the middle of the story. And the creators did a pretty good job with that. The rest of the movie is also good. The thing I liked most about the movie is the way the director uses the medium. There are a lot of interview shots in the movie. I was surprised by that. They are not just the "shot of the month" kind of shots but really well shot. It's nice to see how the filmmaker uses the medium. He is very experienced with it. Another thing I liked is the way the filmmakers use the music. The movie itself has a good soundtrack. It has some classical music in it, it has some pop music, it has some original music and it has some rock music. It's nice to hear the music that was not known at the time. The way the movie uses the music is very well done. I liked that. I was also surprised by how well the actors did. The movie is also about the legendary Helen Keller. I think this is very important. I was not expecting to see Helen Keller at all in the movie. There is no appearance of her in the movie, but it's important that you see her in the movie. This is not a famous actress like Susan Sarandon, but a famous person who has died a long time ago. So it's good to see her in the movie. I liked the way the director has used the footage. He doesn't use a lot of stock footage, but he does use a lot of footage of the real Helen Keller. It's nice to see her face and body in the movie. I also liked the way the movie uses the material. It's not a film about a famous person, but a film about a famous person. This is a good way of using the material. It also helped me understand the content of the film a little better. I think it

Frances G. photo
Frances G.

THE SAME DIALOGUE THAT HE DID FOR THE OTHER MOVIES: "So here we go again, a story that's been done a million times.it's not really new, but it's been done a million times. It's not very interesting, but it's not too bad. I like movies that have a story, but it's not new, and it's not very interesting. The point of the movie is the fact that I want to be inspired by the genius that is the director, but this time, I was just tired of the same story, and I have nothing to say about the story. What's new is that this time, it's about some good people and I really like this idea." OK, I'll agree that this movie is a little bit repetitive, but this is just the same story that we've seen before, with a few new tricks added to it. There is also a trend of new movies with many negative reviews, as if this is the last thing you want to see. They tell you that you are wrong, that you are being "too critical" because you are not going to like the movie because it's not new, because it's boring, because it's not interesting, because it's not well done, etc. etc. OK, maybe you just need to be in a positive mood to see this, but do you really have to hear these excuses? You need to be able to see and enjoy a good movie, not just look at it from the negative perspective. Well, I did see this movie and it is good. I liked it a lot, it was entertaining, it was exciting, it was funny, it was touching, it was thought-provoking, it was inspiring, it was fun, it was funny, it was beautiful, it was beautiful, it was inspiring. It is a good movie. It is just one of those movies where you can't put the words into the movies dictionary, and that's fine, because you don't really need to, and you don't need to go into it looking for the meaning of the movie, because the meaning of the movie is in your head, not in the movie. As far as the director goes, he's great. He is the first to really bring the concept of "American Beauty" to the screen, and he did it in a way that it's a little bit different than other movies of the same genre. The movie is told in a way that it's not just a continuation of the story, but also has the feel of an independent film. It has a very special feel. It's a movie about a family in America. The problems of a family, the problems of a man, the problems of a woman, the problems of a man, the problems of a woman.it has it all. The best thing about this movie is that it doesn

Eugene Romero photo
Eugene Romero

I loved this documentary, despite the two dozen reviews. This is a wonderful film. I think it's a bit too long. It's the type of film where you can see where the different people are coming from. I think most people would agree with the film's statement that democracy is something that is used by a few to protect the little people from the rest of us. If you don't like it, well, then don't watch it. I think the film really does a great job of exposing the problems in our country. What's really shocking is that the people that are supposed to be the guardians of our rights, are actually the ones who want to protect them. That's something that I think the film doesn't have a really good answer for. It's something that we have to live with. I think that's something that a lot of people don't understand. I think a lot of people who watch this film are going to be surprised. I think that they will be shocked at how the system works, and they will probably be surprised at how they feel about it. It's really not an easy thing to watch, but I think it's important. It's a really interesting thing. I think that the best way to watch it is with someone you trust. Like, a friend. I think it's really good. It's definitely not the easiest thing to watch, but it's worth watching.

Martha photo
Martha

I've heard many people praise this film. It's not without its flaws but it is definitely a film worth watching. I must admit, I haven't seen a film as good as it's predecessor for a long time. There are too many similarities to films such as Rocky Horror and even South Park. It seems as if most of the comedy in the film has been copied from those films. I also feel that the music in the film is not very good, it's very much in the middle. Overall, I can't say I enjoyed the film as much as I did when it was first released. I must admit that I'm getting a little tired of all the movies made about political or social commentary, and the film isn't that bad. It's not very well thought out and the film is a little predictable, but it's still very funny. I do recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen the original. 8/10

Julia Gilbert photo
Julia Gilbert

A very interesting documentary, and I really appreciated the fact that it was not just about the city but also about the city. I think the documentary was a little too much about the city, but overall I really enjoyed it. The pictures are amazing and the interviews are great. It was just a shame that the movie wasn't as good as the documentary. I think I was expecting a little bit more. All in all it was a great documentary and I would recommend it to everyone.

Nathan Meyer photo
Nathan Meyer

I think the main reason this documentary is so interesting is that it exposes the very dirty side of Hollywood and its patrons. A lot of this can be attributed to the fact that this film was produced in the early 80s, before the big profits and controversy that came from the development of the series "The Omen". For the first time in a long time, Hollywood was being accused of putting its own private interests before the public interest. You can feel the anger and frustration that this causes even today. People are still debating whether it was a bad decision to release the film when the rights were still being bought up. I think it was a good decision and I think it helped build up public interest in the series. As for the second half of the documentary, it's just a celebration of the fact that you can't really blame the film. The film makers were never trying to be the most original movie ever made, they just wanted to create a film that they felt would be enjoyable to the audience. They were just doing it on their own. They knew they could do it, they just didn't want to. They wanted to make the movie that made them look good. That's how you make money. And that's what the movie was made to do. It made them look good. And that's the kind of movie you want to see. The movie is a showcase of what happens when you make a film that everyone in the film is supposed to think is the greatest film ever made. And I think it works pretty well. As a movie, it's pretty good. As a documentary, it's really good. There are just some aspects that just are way off. The general public will probably be disappointed, the film makers will probably not want to talk about it, and most people will not even know what the film is about. But there is one thing that really surprised me. The fact that it was even made at all. And I think it's a pretty interesting fact. I think that it's very rare that a documentary is made without a lot of funding and without the idea of a sequel. So if you have a movie that's going to be profitable for two years, you would probably not make it. I think that a lot of people just accepted it as the way it was and kind of never questioned it. But it's kind of sad that it didn't have a sequel. I think it would have been a lot better if the sequel would have been made, and that would have been the only way that it would have made any money. And that would have been the case. But it's a good thing that it was made because it's a documentary and it's very entertaining and interesting. It's a great documentary.

Rachel Edwards photo
Rachel Edwards

This is a great movie to watch in the morning. The way it shows the life of the bahamas in the beginning and the war they went through is great. But its a great movie, it is a movie that should be in the movie history.

Diana photo
Diana

I never watched this until the end of the film, when it was mentioned in passing and I was curious to see what it was about. While it's not entirely about Hollywood, it's one of the first films I've seen that depicts how much influence the movie industry has on culture and how its culture was often what it is today. The film is a satire of movies and the entertainment industry in general. I think it's fair to say that "The Master" is a great film, but it is not for everyone. I thought it was much better than the film that preceded it, but it's definitely not for everyone. I think that it was the right choice for the first movie, but that it was the wrong choice for this one. It really should have been a direct sequel to "The Master" (and that film was really terrible), because that movie was the first movie in a series of movies that was really an insult to the original. It's not really a "great" film, but it's a good one. I think it's still worth watching. For me, it's worth watching.