Steam The Public Image is Rotten

The Public Image is Rotten

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

Running Time
1 hours 43 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Tabbert Fiiller
Martin Atkins, Ginger Baker, Michael Alago, John Lydon
Audio Languages
日本語, اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Japanese, اللغة_العربية, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The story of PiL, the groundbreaking band form by John Lydon after the collapse of The Sex Pistols in 1978.

Comments about documentary «The Public Image is Rotten» (24)

Dennis J. photo
Dennis J.

I'm not a huge fan of Steven Seagal, but I like the guy a lot. The Rotten Tomatoes ratings are horrible, but it's a movie that's fun to watch. Seagal takes you on a tour of his upbringing in the Indian ghettos. He remembers his parents yelling at him and his mother beating him. It's a wild story that will leave you with a lot of anger towards those in power. I won't reveal anything about the movie, but I will say it's interesting. It's like the trailer and some of Seagal's early movies, but with some nice in-jokes and his fun-loving attitude. I enjoyed it and it makes me want to watch Seagal movies in the future. It's not the best movie I've ever seen, but it's an interesting watch that's worth watching. The rating on this movie should be much higher.

Judith photo

My name is Joe Ferraro, and I am the author of the upcoming book, Rotten Public Image. I was approached by HBO to produce a documentary about the way television and the film industry were over-riding our idea of artistic integrity. It was a very difficult proposition, especially when I was producing a documentary on the same subject, which I edited in my undergraduate years at University of California, Berkeley. The biggest influence that I see on the movie industry is that they were always promoting their own brand of creative work. This is a very important film for anyone who has had the experience of watching television. I watched it a number of times, and every time I was compelled to make the effort to see it again. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in film or television.

Julie photo

This is a very intelligent and well-made documentary, especially for a documentary on the British military in Vietnam. They do a very good job of making this a riveting look at the times, and the personalities involved. While the acting in the film isn't great, it isn't bad either. If you're looking for a good look at what the British soldiers were like in the war, you'll find it here. If you're looking for a good look at the British Army in Vietnam, this isn't the documentary for you. The good thing about this documentary is that it has an interesting look at the history, and the personalities involved. It isn't perfect, and the interviews with the soldiers are brief, but the film is well-made, and the insights into the personalities are very insightful. Overall, this is a great documentary, that focuses on the personalities and the personalities of the people involved in the war in Vietnam.

Kenneth Simmons photo
Kenneth Simmons

I found this documentary on the Discovery Channel interesting because it focused on the story of Meryl Streep's dramatic performance in an Oscar winning film. At that point in her career, she had only one film she was really proud of, "Punch-Drunk Love". Her acting style was about as distinctive as a cat's whiskers. "That's one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen" she said to the camera. The director, Alix Brosh, compared her to Joan Crawford in the film. This really isn't the case. The closest comparison I could think of was Joan Crawford in "Pocahontas". I think she was a lot like that as well. It wasn't until she started her career in the 1950s that she became the sort of major star we now know her to be. For the most part, she didn't do much "acting". She was very good at directing. She could tell what was going to happen on screen and how to end it. "In the Land of Blood and Honey" is an example of that. She used subtle cues to end the film with a big bang. Other movies that have been praised by critics for their acting are "The Wizard of Oz" and "Raging Bull". The latter is a wonderful movie. But the former is an even better movie. The movie is about a rich man who is accused of killing his wife. He was accused of poisoning her. But he had left the substance in a container and forgot to bring it back to the police. He did not have a gun, but the police had found the container. The police thought it was stolen, but they figured it was "meth" so they couldn't get rid of it. So, they left it where the police could find it. And that is the way the movie ends. I don't think Meryl Streep is the most memorable actress in history. I think she was just a little bit more memorable than Joan Crawford in "Pocahontas". Joan Crawford was a great actress, but she was a lot like Marlene Dietrich in "Last Year at Marienbad". The way she used her body to express herself was also very similar. But in "Raging Bull", she was the most prominent character. It was difficult to believe that it was Joan Crawford playing that role. Meryl Streep was a little bit like Marlene Dietrich, but she was much better at it. "Punch-Drunk Love" was a real disappointment for me. It was not as good as "Raging Bull", but it was better than "Pocahontas". I think the other actors were better than Meryl Streep. It was a good movie, but it was too "happy". "The Public Image is Rotten" was an interesting movie, but it was not as good as "Pocahontas". I'm not sure if I would recommend it to a friend. I would recommend it to a family friend who is in the mood for a movie that will make them think. But that is really not what I would recommend. It is a movie that you can sit and think about for a few hours. But don't expect it to make you think.

Robert C. photo
Robert C.

After many years of work I am going to have to give my first thought a poor rating for this documentary. It was definitely worth my time and money but the content left me with some questions. I would have liked to see more background on the producers, the artists, the producer's family, the artists and their families, the community, the state, etc. The interviews are so flimsy and poorly edited. Not to mention, the way that the documentary is presented leaves very little to the imagination. The people who have a certain aesthetic to them seem to be people who were both talented and admired. I wonder what their ideas are if they thought that way. This was more like a lecture, as opposed to an experience. I thought that it was a lot of promotion and social media manipulation. The images are slick and the camera work and editing is perfect but the viewer would have liked to have had a deeper look at the people and the stories.

Henry photo

For once in my life I actually had the pleasure of viewing a documentary that was both entertaining and informative. This documentary was extremely well made, was very well done and was surprisingly entertaining. The message the filmmakers were trying to convey was not for everyone. For some this documentary will simply be a complete waste of time, if that's what you want to see then it may be worth watching but not if you are looking for a complete and entertaining documentary, in my opinion this documentary is definitely a movie that will make you think. To each his own. This movie is worth watching and should be seen. It was very well done and I look forward to more documentaries about the music industry.

Julia Long photo
Julia Long

By focusing on the dialogue and not on the production, the film focuses on an era where dialogue and production was largely the same, and why it's important to this day. A lot of dialogue was about political parties and how they should communicate. By focusing on the production of the film, it gives a very different perspective, which is why it's important to see this film and be completely objective. It does a great job of pointing out that while there are political parties, their ideologies are very similar, which is why they were a lot like the governments they were trying to overthrow. The film also points out the historical influences that were influencing the directors and actors. It also points out that, despite the top-notch cinematography, it doesn't have the best sound design, which is why it's a great piece of work. However, it's only a small piece, and it's the sort of thing that only a few people would notice. While it does a good job, I'm not sure if it's a masterpiece or just a great documentary.

Tammy photo

Although this is an absolute gem in my book, it is not the film I would recommend for everyone. I was very surprised at the way the producer, producers, cast, and director handled the material. The actual film is very short. One of the main things I noticed was the consistent lack of the cameras pointed in the exact same direction. The camera was constantly panning to the side, sometimes facing one direction, sometimes another, never the other direction. The director had been very consistent in their approach. They had done it consistently throughout the years. However, one of the things that I would have done differently, if I could have done it differently, would have been to take the camera closer to the actors. For instance, if I were to use the camera to take a closer look at the actors, I would have taken the camera in front of the actors so that the audience could see what they were seeing. I think that the camera would have been more intense in that scenario. I think this would have made the experience more immersive. Also, the audience would have been more in the mindset of the actors, which I think would have been beneficial. Lastly, I would have made the filmmakers, if they were interested in making the film more personal, more aware of what made the actors tick, I think they would have taken the camera farther away from the actors. It would have been more cinematic and less confusing. Overall, I really think the directors did a fantastic job of showing the director's personal style and not focusing on any one particular actor, but instead focusing on the style of the film itself. The entire film was shot in black and white, as a tribute to the actors. I think that was a very unique and interesting approach to the film. If you were to take a look at the credits, it was very interesting to see that they were all shot in black and white. Also, I think that the color balance of the film was very consistent. The black and white kept the audience in a constant state of uncertainty. When I first saw the film, it seemed very confusing and disjointed. However, after watching it, I felt like I was in on the same journey the actors were on. It was extremely fascinating to watch the characters interact, and the director, because he was very consistent in his approach to the film, would have been able to direct it more consistently. However, the director's style also kept the film from feeling like a musical. The musical score was very very distracting. I think that if the director had directed it in a way that would have been more consistent, it would have fit into the film more and would have felt more natural. Overall, I would say that this is an amazing documentary that is very unique. It is very hard to explain the film, as the director does not share his filmmaking process. They just say that the film was made in collaboration with an actor, and that the actors had to act in front of an actor, and that they were filmed in front of an actor. I think it would be best to just watch the film yourself and decide for yourself if the film is for you or not. I recommend this film to anyone interested in film.

Willie Green photo
Willie Green

I really enjoyed this documentary. I was curious about the guy who was making this film because I'd never heard of him, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. However, I really liked the film and thought it was very interesting. I liked how the filmmaker was able to take a documentary about an issue that's very personal to me, and how he went to some lengths to get the answers he needed. It also made me think about how we see ourselves and others and what we're willing to say and how we're willing to look at ourselves and others. I thought it was an interesting look at a very personal topic and I think it will be interesting to see what other people think about this film.

Jennifer W. photo
Jennifer W.

The Public Image is Rotten is a pretty good documentary. It is well made and does a good job of highlighting the bad things about the USA, from the various companies and people that you would probably never even hear about in the mainstream media, and from the many sub-communities that have their own opinions and agendas, and seem to have no real basis in the general population. This was one of the first documentaries I have seen in a while that has been well-directed, well-scripted and thoroughly researched. It's certainly not an easy film to watch, but there is a lot to be learned from it. For starters, there are a lot of bad things that happen to American workers, especially in the service sector. But the documentary also points out that Americans are all different, and the country is currently not on a "normal" basis. It is the most over-regulated country in the world, with an incredibly high rate of uninsured citizens. Americans seem to have a "cultural norm" that says you have to be able to pay off your medical bills in 90 days, regardless of your ability to pay. The average American worker has to pay an average of 3.8% of their income on medical expenses every month. If you have an illness, it is very difficult for the American system to help you. The documentary highlights a bunch of stories that show that Americans are not as good as they are being made out to be. For example, I know a woman in the service sector who lost her job because she had the misfortune of getting pregnant. She was working very hard to help her son, and then she had a baby and had to quit her job. And, of course, we don't have an unemployment rate of 10% in the United States. This documentary also points out that there are no child-care spaces in many American cities, and the percentage of people who can't afford a place to live is also very high. So, Americans are not all "normals", and you can see a lot of things that the rest of the world does not. This documentary was one of the most enlightening documentaries I have seen in a long time. It is definitely not for everyone, but it is well-made and does a good job of pointing out the "normals" of the USA.

Ralph photo

*CONTAINS SPOILERS* When I was watching the movie for the first time, I thought that I was watching a documentary about the history of Gatsby. Then I noticed that the topic was not even a historical or social event, but rather was a self-perpetuating story about the inner workings of a popular writer's mind. The fascinating aspect of the story is that this is a story about a man's transformation from being a cynic into a committed follower of his inner convictions. You cannot talk about this story without talking about the film itself. It is one of the most famous and highest-grossing movies ever made, but it was not made in any way that was successful in the sense that it had the ability to reach people. The cast is amazing and the story is fascinating. It is a true story that I would recommend to anyone who has not watched it yet. There is a documentary, though, about the book. It is far more effective, and more relevant, than the movie. I highly recommend the documentary. It is actually the best part of the movie.

Roger Chavez photo
Roger Chavez

It's no secret that some of the content in "The Public Image is Rotten" (by independent film critic Ken Tucker) is offensive. Most of the footage in the documentary is from 2002 and prior to 9/11. In the clips, which were all "classified," they are shown showing "the American public." One of the most poignant clips, which is the one that made me cringe, is of a lesbian couple of military kids crying over their boyfriend's suicide. You can see the frustration on the military kids' faces, and the reactions of the wives and girlfriends in the military base where this was filmed. The clip has the same effect of coming back to the effect that being a child of the Korean War and witnessing the horror of the war. The narrative at the beginning of the film is something along the lines of a history lesson. It is so difficult to watch the tapes and be reminded of what is happening in the world. The military are going to the extremes of sexual and physical abuse to make sure that their sons or daughters will not grow up without a father. You can see the frustration in the boys and the responses of the girls to being teased, even physically. You can see the pain that some of the girls go through at the hands of their father. And you can see the anger that the daughters are going to go through, especially after their mother is forced out of the military by their father, who she finds out has been working for the government to help with their "social life." You can see the hatred that many of these girls feel towards the military. You can see that the girls hate their fathers and dislike them because they are not loving enough. You can see that the military's order to "convert" the girls into lesbians is not just a policy, but a desire by the parents to get rid of them. And you can see that these girls are really being brainwashed by the military. They are being brainwashed by what they have been taught in school, by the popular media, and by the families. It is just sad that there are some who would be so disturbed by these clips. However, I think that the intention of the film is to present an honest view of what is going on in this country. If you have a bit of a critical mind, it might be enlightening. If you just want to see a documentary that tells the truth, you might not like it. But, it is an honest look at a subject that has been hidden from the American public for decades. In this case, it is the relationship between the United States and Iraq, as well as the relationship between the United States and the terrorists.

Christina photo

The Public Image is Rotten was a fascinating documentary about the connection between advertising and public perception of the company. The director was able to look into how this connection was formed, and how the consumer reacts to what they see on the screen. I have always been fascinated by how people perceive companies. For example, I was interested in the connections between the McDonald's brand and the public perception of it. It seems to me that the public is often willing to accept certain things from a company, simply because it is in the name. As I watched this documentary, I started to think about how we all want to be recognized by our employers. Even though I am not a McDonald's fan, I was fascinated by the topic. I enjoyed this documentary because it kept me interested. It was interesting to learn about how companies influence our perception of what we see on the screen, and how that influences our self-image. The director did a great job at telling the story of how advertising can change how we perceive a company. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to know more about the relationship between advertising and public perception. I think it is a great documentary to watch.

Gregory T. photo
Gregory T.

The filmmaker behind the critically acclaimed directorial debut "12 Years A Slave" is at it again, this time documenting his childhood experience in South Africa. This film was well-received by the audiences I saw it with and it certainly made me think a little bit about the stereotypes that exist in American society today. How we are very judgmental about each other. I wonder if the film is intended to be something more than just another self-promoting rant. I really enjoyed the insight the film provided into the mindset of a young boy from a broken home who is raised by two incredibly loving parents. I wish that he could've been shown in more detail, but I can understand that the film would've gone on far too long without showing this. I think the film was trying to portray the horrible side of the American society we live in and that's a very important point to make. I'm just saying that the film had a lot of value in the telling of it, but the real message wasn't really clear to me. I recommend seeing the film if you're interested in seeing what I think the director was trying to get across, but I can understand why some people would find it boring.

Howard L. photo
Howard L.

I loved the movie. It was extremely entertaining and well-made. The topic of the movie was well-presented and the director did a good job of integrating the social aspect of the movie into the narrative. The narrator did a very good job in this regard. The most interesting aspect of the movie was the way it was presented. It was a thought-provoking, heart-felt movie that made you think. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys social commentaries on cinema and would enjoy the film. I also would recommend it to anyone who wants to see a film that is entertaining, but doesn't take itself too seriously.

Brenda W. photo
Brenda W.

This is the kind of documentary that makes you think about what you think and what you're doing in your life. It's a great example of how documentaries are about telling a story, and not about the film itself. It's about a group of people who all have different stories, and it's about how they all decide to tell it. I've watched this film twice, and I plan to see it again. It's a very interesting and fascinating look at how people cope with the pressures of fame and the pressures of fame. And how that can lead to a self-destructive cycle.

Eric photo

This is a film that can be viewed by all people. But, it should be seen by those that have the guts to stand up and tell the truth. What is wrong with our government? What are they hiding? What is their intention? What is the real value of our country? It is up to us to find the answers. If you want to understand the value of our country, watch this film.

Jennifer photo

The Public Image is Rotten is a documentary that I found while browsing through the various Vimeo channels. I thought it would be a great documentary about the effects of the media on young people and how they would eventually try to get away from it. The film begins with a shot of a young boy on a bicycle who has been labeled as a 'prostitute' by the media. The boy then gives a poignant speech about his childhood and how the media impacted his life. He is then given the opportunity to give a speech in front of an audience. The audience of mostly college aged students seem to really be affected by the speech and seem to understand his words. I don't know how this film was funded but it is a very interesting and very unique documentary. I recommend it.

Joseph G. photo
Joseph G.

The Public Image is Rotten is a fascinating documentary that investigates the history of two men, William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce, who were responsible for the world's greatest propaganda machine. For two decades, they were responsible for getting the public to be fascinated by the world of politics and the people involved in it. They were the ones responsible for spreading the image of "free love" in the early 20th century. Now, as the "Tin Pan Alley" generation is becoming an age, they are going through a slump. The population is turning away from the idea of freedom and embracing fear of the future. The audience will see why they are losing the public's attention and they will see how their public image is deteriorating. As the men go through the decline, they are portrayed as hypocritical, manipulative, and dishonest. The movie is very well done and well worth seeing. There is no doubt that the men are flawed, but they are still fascinating. The movie will definitely have you thinking about the events of the 20th century. It is a fascinating look at the men behind the "free love" movement, as well as the people who were involved in it.

Virginia photo

This film was really well done. It's basically a documentary of the public perception of the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. It was very interesting and well made. I really enjoyed it and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. It covers the period from 2000 to 2004 and the level of public perception of 9/11 is even more extreme than I have ever seen before. The film shows the media's reaction to the attacks and what they portray as the 9/11 truth movement. It also shows the reactions of the people themselves, people who felt that 9/11 was just a bunch of explosions. I really enjoyed the interviews with the people interviewed in the film. It was very interesting and I found it very interesting. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone interested in the subject.

Nancy Rogers photo
Nancy Rogers

A brilliant and entertaining documentary about a controversial subject. The film goes into the background of a great man who loved his country. Then it moves into his era and how he became the hero that he was. It shows the similarities between his story and that of many other people who have served in the military, and how they deal with the challenges and make it through. I think the film is an excellent starting point and a very good look at a man who is much more than the "soldier" that everyone sees him as. The film shows that we don't need to be a soldier to be a hero. A very well made film.

Dennis Daniels photo
Dennis Daniels

As a small child, I watched the film for the first time, and was enchanted by it. My parents, the two older sisters, and my brother and sister-in-law all loved it. The theme of the film is a reminder of what you can do when you take the time to really listen to others, and the power of kindness and generosity. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in the topic.

Roy photo

This is a good documentary. It's not a documentary about the causes of homophobia, but it's about how it's treated in society and how people can avoid being "nasty" to each other. The one thing I wish more documentaries did is to tell the stories of the people that are actually being persecuted for being LGBT. Most of the documentaries I've seen about LGBT people are really just telling stories of people who are being persecuted, and not really telling the stories of people who are actually being persecuted, which is what makes it really powerful. If you have a hard time understanding the difference between what's being called discrimination and what's being called hate crimes, then this is a good documentary to watch. I really recommend it.

Jacob Curtis photo
Jacob Curtis

The Public Image is Rotten is an informative documentary about the life of Rotten Tomatoes, a website that I loved when I was younger. Now, I've grown up and now own a blog, but I still love the site. Rotten Tomatoes had a reputation for being a source of bad reviews, but it also had some pretty good reviews, and that was pretty fascinating. Some of the more negative reviews have since been removed from Rotten Tomatoes. This documentary was an interesting look at the site and the people who run it. I recommend it.