Steam 63 Up

63 Up

63 Up is a TV movie starring Nicholas Hitchon, Tony Walker, and John Brisby. Director Michael Apted revisits the same group of British-born adults after a 7 year wait. The subjects are interviewed as to the changes that have...

Running Time
2 hours 25 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Michael Apted
John Brisby, Nicholas Hitchon, Bruce Balden, Tony Walker
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

Director Michael Apted revisits the same group of British-born adults after a 7 year wait. The subjects are interviewed as to the changes that have occurred in their lives during the last seven years.

Comments about documentary «63 Up» (25)

Jessica Fisher photo
Jessica Fisher

It was disappointing to see the working class voice being ignored in favour of a Hollywood "heroic" one. A couple of years ago I saw a film called 2nd and 3rd time and I remember thinking it was far more engaging and thought-provoking than this. And the two directors of this film clearly wanted it to be a "big" feature. But, I still think it was worth seeing. What it does do is give you the depressing sense that society is becoming more and more like a "work camp" with people suffering from the depressing symptoms of this modern day slavery, the so called "war on terror" and the glorification of "victims". One thing you get is a feeling that this is a UK story and that is a brave statement for an independent film to make. The other thing you get is that you have to look very closely at what you are watching to find out what is happening, and what's going to happen. A lot of people are saying that the "portrayal of the Taliban is poor". I think this is an important thing to say because in reality it is not that the Taliban is portrayed, but that the way that they are portrayed is weak and ignorant. It is clear that there are not a lot of cameras around. The thing is that the Taliban are portrayed as a bunch of misguided people who make up a propaganda film, and who are not very representative of the Taliban. The Taliban are seen as the self-appointed moral police of Afghanistan. They are seen as something that the US is doing and that they are very proud of, and this is a very ignorant statement for an independent film to make. But, I think the film does show this. It is not a statement against the Taliban, but rather the way in which the Taliban is presented in the film. It does show the Taliban in a good light, but you are not shown enough. There are some good points made about the Taliban, but I think they do not add up to much, and do not do the movie justice.

Susan photo

This documentary follows three young men who in the late 1960's were part of a campaign to get the government to grant them a certificate entitling them to a loan to buy a car. The men are James C.B.Sawyer, a British Army mechanic, William J.Compton, a lawyer and former chemical engineer, and Kenneth J.Way, a British TV producer. The three men had different reasons for wanting a loan. Sawyer wanted to get a car to start a business, Compton was a young man who had spent the last ten years trying to win a local election and Way was a former college student who was trying to find a "normal" job in the English countryside. As the documentary unfolds, we see their whole lives, the trouble they had with the British Army, the trouble with the loans and the troubles with the British Government, the whole problem. What we see is a very compelling story that is not only entertaining, but also deeply moving. James C.B.Sawyer is portrayed by Donal Logue, a British actor and comedian who in "The Last Show on Earth" talked about his role in the Vietnam War and he talked about how he was awarded a "double-cross" for one of his soldiers. This is Donal Logue's first role as a film director. I loved his interview of Compton who talked about the difficulties he had with the British Government, and about his desire to go to Britain to give his boy a scholarship. Kenneth Way talked about his family problems in England and how he was a lawyer and had helped in the removal of unexploded bombs. When I first saw this documentary I thought it was just a story about three men who wanted a loan. However, after I watched it again, I realized that there is a lot more to it than that. The three men talked about their hopes and dreams, and the problems they had. This documentary shows how they have changed their lives, and I highly recommend it. 7/10

Harry photo

I just came back from a screening of "Up" and I am sorry to say that it is not for everyone. I think most people will see this film, however I was more interested in seeing it as a discussion piece on the "geek" culture and that we don't understand why they do what they do. The first 10 minutes of the movie was an intense discussion on what the "geek" culture is and the reason they are attracted to certain things. The discussion was also a bit of a bummer because of the scenes cut from the movie in which the movie was going to be released. The movie was interesting and I think the director did a great job of taking an interesting topic and not making it boring. In my opinion, the movie didn't have a great ending. I think it was a bit of a let down, but I would recommend seeing the movie if you are interested in the "geek" culture. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was well put together.

Benjamin H. photo
Benjamin H.

I had seen this documentary before, and I wasn't much impressed. What seemed to be some pretty good quality footage, but nothing much to hold my attention. I guess that is the only thing I can remember about this movie. There was a little bit of something I did like about it. First, they were able to get a little bit of time with a few people from the First Church of Scientology. Second, they were able to get clips from some of their famous talks. Third, they had some nice pictures and a short bit of music. There were a few interesting things that I noticed. First, it was possible to get some time with an extremely famous Scientologist, in which they tried to show his personal life. Second, the question is: What kind of life do they live? Third, it was possible to see a couple of the famous talks that they gave. It was quite interesting to see how they try to make a presentation of their organization, and what kind of people they are. It was also interesting to see the views of the church, and how they see the world. Finally, it was nice to see what they are doing today. It was also interesting to see what they were doing in the past, and how they are doing it today. Overall, it was a good documentary, but it wasn't anything to really look forward to. It was nice to see some interesting things about Scientology, but I was not really impressed.

Thomas photo

After a long absence from the big screen, director Peter Mullan returns with this engaging docudrama about the challenging relationship between Aids survivors in Zimbabwe and their sense of self. It's also about the uneasy alliances among the people who have become the leaders of a country that has survived an epidemic for 40 years. It's a fine film, but it's not the film I was expecting. I had been reading about the brutal things that people in the country had to do to keep their community functioning and that all this time, the virus has just been taking it's toll. When I heard that Peter Mullan was taking this story, I was expecting a documentary about Aids and the forces that are working against it. I think the message of this film is a little different. I also think the film is better in its closing credits than the one in the middle. It's still very entertaining and it's a good film to have on your personal shelf. If you haven't seen it, go ahead and give it a look. It's certainly better than I expected.

David P. photo
David P.

I caught this one on BBC3 and liked it. At times it was a bit boring and predictable, but overall I enjoyed the documentary. It shows how stupid the NHS is, how great the voluntary work, how the donations go to the charity rather than the people themselves. How the most privileged people in Britain still have no problem with people who are poor. What makes this documentary even more interesting is that the people who made it were born in the UK and had to deal with the reality of their situation. I personally would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that I was watching a documentary. But I'm glad I did, because it's interesting and makes me appreciate the work of the NHS so much more.

Eugene A. photo
Eugene A.

Director Werner Herzog directs a look at a century of jazz musicians from the Harlem area, New York and the Dominican Republic. Herzog spends a good amount of time showing the great music and the personal experiences of the musicians and it is a rare opportunity to see how music connects with people in an emotional way. It's a sad story but it's an important one to tell and one that I found very moving.

Tammy Carr photo
Tammy Carr

It's quite an ironic pleasure to watch a film about the business of finding, selling and buying of houses, a subject which is no longer discussed in this country but does not cease to exist in the greater London area. The film focuses on a very small section of that business, and a person whose business it is to sell them. Of course the part that's not the selling or buying of houses is the main subject of the film, and it's a pretty good one. So what's the film about? Well it's the day-to-day workings of selling and buying houses, which is very common in the London area. It is interesting to watch the interactions and battles that the people involved have to overcome and the negative reactions that they face in dealing with a number of different kinds of customers. The film shows a range of different characters in the business. Many are portrayed as either nasty people, or people who try to cater to everybody's every whim. However, there is also a number of people who are quite polite and nice, and who are happy to sit and eat together or have tea with the other members of their community. I liked the fact that this was shown as an ordinary man's world and not as the stuffy, narrow-minded, privileged world of the wealthy and powerful. I enjoyed watching the human stories and struggles that they were dealing with. I also liked the fact that they were brought together by the need to make money in order to survive, and the selfishness that they each felt towards one another. A good film about the business of selling houses, but also about the world of the poor.

Barbara photo

This documentary about the eighties saw the release of four films that were in many ways experimental, something that came back to bite them. The three most significant were Blue Velvet, which also had a running time of 2 hours and twenty minutes and was still pretty great, and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which was also notable for being released at the same time as its two competitors, but at a much more limited time. Both films were very well done, and the director, Robert Altman, especially with Blue Velvet, made the best use of his time and talent. In this case, he took the eighties in an unusual direction, rather than one of nostalgia, but in many ways it was the same story. In both cases the film maker was trying to use a clever message to its advantage, but in both cases it did not work. The other major difference was that in Blue Velvet, it was a very clever, and quite funny, film. The three films that followed it in the eighties were either forgettable or terrible. In this film, it is not clear if it is worse, better, or somewhere in between. It does have the best film of the three and the most interesting, but is not better. The film is divided into three parts, and is really interesting if you get into it. The first half of the film follows the producer of Blue Velvet, James Wood, as he travels to a college where he wants to interview students, and interviews some students, as well as interviewing the police chief, a student of the college, and a student that has never been interviewed before, a film crew, and other college students and college people. There are several interviews with students, and two other people who work at the college, and a student who is taking a class in the film. It is interesting to see the students, and see what they think about the film. As I say, the first half of the film is very good. However, as soon as the students start talking, and begin discussing the film, the film is not as interesting. It is not nearly as clever, and does not work as well as it could have, and as soon as the film makers get to talking about the film, the film becomes boring. The second half of the film follows the same director and others who worked on the film, and the film they made about it. It is interesting to see how the director has dealt with the film, and how different it is from the first half. The movie is much more interesting than the first half. The third part of the film is all about the director, Robert Altman, and how he talks about the film. It is also interesting to see how the directors of the film, both with Blue Velvet and with Vicky Cristina Barcelona, have dealt with the film, and how different it is from the first half. As with Blue Velvet, this film is very good, and really interesting, but it is not as good as the first part. The final segment is the documentary about the filmmaker, and the people who worked on the film, and the people who worked on the documentary. It is interesting, and shows some of the people who worked

Ruth photo

The movie Up is a tour de force for a director who previously worked on the more serious, "The Bonfire of the Vanities", "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" and "Master and Commander". It's the story of a young Jewish boy, who grows up to be a highly intelligent man, and to run for President of the USA. The movie is very moving and entertaining. The acting is excellent, especially from the two children. The director uses clever editing to make the story flow better. It is not the most riveting movie ever made, but it's definitely a good watch. It was nominated for many awards and should have won. It's great to see something that is a big hit and it's good to see something that isn't completely mainstream. It's a must see for everyone. I give it a B-.

Michael photo

You should watch this. The point is to expose the real story. It's true, some famous people have changed their opinions or have had mental problems. But we can take the top 10 cases to the FBI. Some of them have changed their opinions after watching this movie. They are real people and not fake. This is why I have not watched this one. The movie should have more new interviews. It's not enough to only show famous people. It's not enough to show people who are friends with these famous people. The problem is the different quality of the movies. Some are great, some are bad. And if it's about fame, then all famous people are real celebrities. This is why I do not like these movie.

Rose photo

I was the lucky one to see this film at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival. Although the title seemed odd, I knew it was going to be a great film. I thought the film would not be a biographical film about someone as great as Steve Jobs, but more of an examination of his life. However, the film was great, not even close to being "really good" but good enough to recommend to someone. One of my favorite parts of the film was how many points Jobs was able to achieve while on the clock. I was surprised to learn that Steve Jobs could accomplish so much. He knew how to make music, he was very good at it, and he could write software code. He was an amazing person. Steve Jobs was a great person, and his life was incredible. It was a great film, I would give it a 9 out of 10.

Joshua photo

I'm not a fan of Duran Duran. They are the type of music I don't really like and the songs they perform are terrible. I can't even remember one song that I liked. I'm not even sure why they are still playing their songs on TV. I'm sorry, but I'm just not a fan. I don't know how they can still make music. I'm not going to watch this again. I just can't get into their music. It is very boring. I'm not saying I don't like Duran Duran, I just don't like Duran Duran. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Duran Duran. I don't know, maybe I just don't like Duran Duran.

Julia Weaver photo
Julia Weaver

Wow. Just Wow. I have never been more moved by a documentary. I didn't feel like I had just been left behind or forgotten. I was just numb and fascinated. This was a must see. This movie has everything, a great story, great photography, great music, great direction, great actors, and great communication. This is one of those documentaries that just keep getting better and better. I am excited for the next documentary!

Dylan photo

Up is a very well made and interesting documentary. It is a lot better than most documentaries you will see on the big screen. It is well acted, and really shows the complexities of the conflict in South Africa. The narrator does a good job of explaining the events in a non-tear-jerking way, and the film does a good job of explaining the South African society. The conflicts were well depicted, and the director did an excellent job of capturing the chaos and confusion that went on. The film is well done, and makes you feel for the people in South Africa. The movie is well worth watching.

Mary H. photo
Mary H.

This documentary is a great example of how a documentary should be made. It's interesting to see that the goal of this documentary is to expose the violence of organized crime, and how the media promotes this violence. It's a fascinating story, and it gives a good insight into the global drug trade, and how it affects the people. It's also a great example of how an outsider can make a difference in the world. I think that people are not very well served by the media, and it should be noted that these documentary's are far from perfect. I'm not an expert in drugs, but I think that it is very accurate that most of the people in the film are addicts or drug users. It's definitely a great film to watch. You'll probably enjoy it. 8/10

Brian photo

It seems that the 'real' news story is the one where the new media tycoon Mark Zuckerberg went on a media blitz to promote his social networking site. However, the story is so sensationalised, the media likes to paint a false picture of a man of great wealth. This was a great example of a man not being presented to the masses with facts. However, it is a bit of a shame as there is no evidence that the site was responsible for the mass suicides in Japan or the effect on the USA. So the story here is that the website is responsible for the suicides. But it has been proved that this site had no real effect on suicides, in fact, it was reported that this site was in fact responsible for the suicides of people who were already depressed. It is not at all surprising that there is a number of people who are now questioning whether Facebook should have a role in what happens to the young people who use the site. What is shocking is that the suicides were caused by people on the site, this is a company who makes money on the deaths of other people, and yet they are blamed. They are blamed for a site that they are not at all responsible for. The problem is that the media loves sensationalising stories, and it seems that the story on Facebook was much too sensationalised, even by the media. However, the film does a great job of showing how this media company has its hands in every aspect of our lives. It is clear that they have a massive influence on the media, in the media they are the prime manipulator, in the media they are the one who decides what stories are important. This is a great example of how they can be the villain of the story, but they are not. The film is a great example of how the media is controlled by the powerful corporations. So the film shows how this media company has a massive impact on the lives of every citizen of the world, and yet they are not the villain. So why are they not the villain?

Frances photo

Forget the title of the movie, it's not what it's about. The movie is about Krasinski and Soderbergh in a very unscientific way. They get into the whole bi-racial thing with a film that was not great, but interesting. The movie is almost 20 minutes long and contains every racial stereotype and joke you can think of. It's like a fizzling piñata. Don't get me wrong, it's funny to see some of the stereotypes and jokes, but there's just no point to it. The movie is just a bit too long and doesn't really deliver. I'll admit, the idea of an African-American "slave" film is somewhat original and interesting, but the way it's made, it's just so dry and dull. You could actually watch it a hundred times and still not get it.

Brian S. photo
Brian S.

I can only say what I felt watching this documentary. This movie is a very interesting portrayal of a human being who, in spite of his own perceived defects, has a kind of high social status. Even though his life is a complete failure, he is at least kind and considerate of others, which gives him a kind of dignity. I do not want to speak ill of a person who shows so much dignity and kindness towards the people around him. The point is that, despite his failing life, he is able to show such an attitude towards others, even when he is in a dire situation. The movie is really beautiful. I was moved by the acting and the message. A lot of people were shocked by what happened to him and his family, but I think this is because they do not know what it is like to be in such a situation. I really hope that, once this person becomes a public figure, that he will be given more opportunity to do good things. A really beautiful documentary that you will enjoy.

Betty photo

I'm a British guy who's been reading a lot of reviews on this movie. Mostly people are hating it because they can't believe it's being called a documentary, so they go and watch it. And they go back and forth and they get confused. "What's the point?" you say. "This is about the rapes, not the story". "It's not a documentary" you say. "What if the rape victims were not raped?". And it is a documentary. And the point of it is to tell the truth, it is a piece of work, not some documentary. And you should not give a **** about a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about. People are upset because they think that all the rapes in the world are not real, and then they go and watch a documentary about it. But people who go and watch documentaries like this are just going to go "I don't know what they're talking about". There's not a documentary on that. And a documentary can't be about the whole world. A documentary can only be about the things that you know, that you know for a fact, that you've seen or heard or have thought about or have seen somewhere. That's the point. So I don't like documentaries that try to tell you everything you need to know. So I thought the film was really good. And it's not a documentary. It's a story that you see, and you get to make up your own story. And I liked the fact that it's about the rapes, not the story, and that you don't have to be a journalist to understand it. So if you've seen it, I think you'll agree that it's great. If you haven't seen it, you're probably going to think it's a really long and boring film. But I think that it's a really good film. And I think that if you like documentaries, you should watch it.

Stephanie Cook photo
Stephanie Cook

This is the first time I've ever gone to the movies with the intention of watching a documentary about an issue. Up isn't that far off from that in this regard. The film presents a collection of interviews with various people involved in the film, some of whom were interviewed before and some of whom were interviewed after the film's release. The way the film is put together is a bit unusual, but I think it's great for a film like this to be made in this fashion. The way the interviews are put together is fascinating, and I think it's a very good idea to present such a series of interviews before the film, and to allow those interviews to form a cohesive whole. The amount of information and information provided about the subject matter is very interesting, and I think the way it's presented helps to inform and enlighten the viewer. I'd recommend this film to anyone who wants to learn more about the issues being discussed in the film. I think anyone who has ever had the opportunity to go to a college class, or just anyone who is interested in history or cinema, will find this film to be an excellent guide.

Rose H. photo
Rose H.

With the end of the Vietnam War over, I find myself wondering if this was the best war movie ever made. I didn't see this movie, but I am assuming that it was the best war movie ever made. At first, I thought it was going to be a dull, depressing, and overly-simplistic war movie. But after seeing the movie, I changed my mind. It was actually a very interesting movie, and I found it very moving. The movie was extremely well-made, and well-acted. It was not predictable, and the movie did not tell me anything I didn't already know. It was definitely one of the best war movies I have ever seen. I would give this movie an 8/10.

Jessica Weber photo
Jessica Weber

This documentary on the migrant crisis in Greece focuses on how the EU and EU member states are responding to the migration crisis in Europe. Most of the events are covered in chronological order, although they are not all shown chronologically. It is mostly about the way the EU has been responding to the migrant crisis, which is a continuous issue. The film includes information on what the EU and the countries involved are doing, the EU's contributions, and the involvement of the countries in the EU and their interests. The film does not explain the motives of the member states, but it does show that they are reacting to the crisis in a different way. It does not show any of the countries' propaganda or exaggerations of the crisis, but it does show the reasons of the member states. This documentary is rather long, but I liked it. I liked that it focused on the migrants and the EU's reactions to the crisis. It was a documentary that I would watch again.

Susan Ramos photo
Susan Ramos

To me, this is the most important movie ever made. This film was shown in my movie theater and everyone at the movie theater thought it was good. I watched it and was immediately blown away by the amazing performances and the realness of what it was like to be a "red-blooded American" during this period in history. This movie was about what it was like to be black in America during this period of time and I think most people would agree that it was absolutely the most powerful and important film I have ever seen. This film makes you think and I think that's why it's so amazing to watch. Not because it's a political message, or a "message" as some would say, but because it's about being a person in this country during that time in history. It was an important movie and I think everyone should see it. I would highly recommend that everyone see this film.

Sean H. photo
Sean H.

This film was a fascinating look at the first scientific team to land on the moon. The film is a great look at the Apollo program. The best part about this film is the music. The music is great. The film is also great in showing how the race to the moon was. I can't think of a better movie to watch.