Steam Moynihan

Moynihan

Moynihan is a movie starring Jeffrey Wright. A biographical portrait of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, twentieth century colossus: public intellectual, policy specialist, ambassador and U.S. Senator from New York. The film captures the...

Running Time
1 hours 42 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary, Biography
Director
Joseph Dorman, Toby Perl Freilich
Writer
Joseph Dorman
Actors
Jeffrey Wright
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 biographical portrait of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, twentieth century colossus: public intellectual, policy specialist, ambassador and U.S. Senator from New York. The film captures the spirit of Moynihan's remarkable ideas as they evolved over the course of his tumultuous life in postwar America, featuring both the triumphs and the controversies. A poor boy who grew up on the streets of Depression-era NY to become a Harvard professor, Moynihan devoted his decades-long career -- serving both Democratic and Republican administrations -- to battling poverty. Possessed of a natural wit that appealed to both elite and street, Moynihan remains one of the most widely quoted people of his generation. Moynihan's legacy continues to be claimed by both the left and right, even as he defies easy categorization. The film is an exploration into the heady and boisterous world of ideas that helped shape his complex worldview, and the policy prescriptions that have stood the test of time. At a moment of degraded political discourse, MOYNIHAN re-elevates the debate.

Comments about documentary «Moynihan» (18)

Sara J. photo
Sara J.

I just saw this movie last night and I was quite impressed with it. I was a bit skeptical at first because I am not a big fan of Judy Garland's work, but I have to say she did a fantastic job as well as Diane Keaton and Julie Andrews. I was particularly impressed with her performance as a little girl in the movie, and I think that she did a great job as a mother with a strong personality. I thought it was well done, and I would recommend it to anyone. As a movie fan, I also thought it was good because I liked the characters, and I liked how they portrayed different generations of women and how their lives were different, and how they overcame the obstacles that came their way. I think that this movie is something that will make people reflect on the past and will make them think about the future. It also was funny, but I think that it was probably the best, and most entertaining part of the movie. It was good, but not great, so I recommend it to anyone, but definitely not to people who are looking for a great movie experience. 8/10

Tyler Andrews photo
Tyler Andrews

After a long silence, Steven Spielberg finally releases his documentary on the great actor's life. In it, he interviews friends and relatives of both Siskel and Ebert, and others around the world, to chronicle the legendary actor's life. It is a powerful, in-depth look at the life of one of the most accomplished actors in history. It is not as good as his own book, but it does contain some good material. The movie is mostly based on his interviews, but also includes some of his memories, some of his achievements, his illnesses, his health, and more. It is a really fascinating documentary, but I feel like it is a little too long. I don't think it's a documentary, it's more like a family documentary about the man, which is a great way to get a little more in depth into the man's life. Spielberg does a great job at presenting him, but it's hard to get a lot of facts out of him. There is a lot of information that is left out, and a lot of the information isn't very interesting. I think if this documentary is running at about two hours long, it would be much better. It's probably a good thing that he's gone on for so long. In a way, the film feels more like a biography, rather than a documentary. It's kind of the same thing as watching the life of a celebrity, where you don't have any information, but you're watching the life of that person, you can't get a lot of information out of them. He's done a really good job of presenting the life of this great man, but in the end, the documentary feels a little too long. I was a little bit disappointed in the way the movie ended, because I was really looking forward to that, but they ended it pretty abruptly. Overall, I think it's a great documentary, but it's not very interesting, so I wouldn't recommend it.

Christian Turner photo
Christian Turner

I think this is one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time. It's all about Bernard Madoff, the once successful money manager, whose downfall in the late 1990's, and subsequent downfall in 2001, is one of the most well documented and interesting stories of financial crime that I've ever seen. This documentary covers a lot of ground, from the real-life story of Madoff and his background as a very talented kid, to the many stories and anecdotes of his wife, his ex-wife, and his close friends. You'll see Madoff talk about how he wanted to be a star, but realized that he was not good enough to play one. You'll also see a lot of personal and professional reflections on the many people in the world that he knew. This documentary does a great job of getting to the heart of Madoff and his downfall, and the way it affects those closest to him. Even though the documentary covers all sorts of details, and takes some time to slow down and relax, you won't be bored as you're just as interested as the Madoff and his family and friends. I highly recommend this documentary.

Aaron photo
Aaron

An interesting, but controversial, documentary about the 1972 movie Manhattan: Men, Women, and 'Murphy's Law' starring Rosalind Russell, Martin Landau, and Norman Jewison. Much of this documentary deals with the controversial idea that women are the caretakers of men, and men are the caretakers of women. Rosalind Russell is seen in the film, and has some interesting thoughts on her thoughts on the movie and what it meant to the time, and the world. The documentary does show some of the background of the movie, but that is about it. Much of the documentary is quite humorous, and this movie does work quite well on a variety of different levels. It's certainly not a movie to watch with a lot of people, but for those who want to see it, I would suggest watching it.

Brenda C. photo
Brenda C.

Easily one of the best documentaries ever made, this film is a must see for all serious film lovers, especially those who are looking for a movie that will touch their hearts. This film is the perfect way to remember the great movies of all time, and it is a masterpiece in it's own right.

Adam H. photo
Adam H.

I found the movie to be quite refreshing, unlike the recent Hollywood propaganda movies. In particular, the movie has an unusual narrative structure. Instead of being narrated by the documentary makers, the narrative is completely and utterly based on the views of the documentary makers. There is a great sense of wonder, and you don't get the impression that you are watching a documentary. The first half of the movie deals with the concept of the "new paradigm" of science and technology, the second half is about the evolution of knowledge and knowledge of the mainstream media, and the third half is about the importance of science and knowledge of the mainstream media. The movie is very well done, although the editing is somewhat choppy and the script is a little vague. However, the acting is excellent, especially by the three documentary makers. The movie itself is a great political manifesto, not for the uninitiated but for people who are interested in the concept of the "new paradigm".

Brian Lawrence photo
Brian Lawrence

I'm not an advocate of the original documentary on the Watts riots, it was a very good documentary and well done, however, after seeing "A Time to Kill" I can't help but think that the film could have been made a bit better. While "A Time to Kill" was kind of vague and left out some of the crucial moments, it was still a pretty good documentary. Michael Moore is a well respected documentary director. There is a lot of stuff that is left out in his documentaries that I feel he could have made a better documentary on. "A Time to Kill" would have been much better if he could have expanded on some of the things that he said, as it was kind of a broad documentary. However, I can't deny that "A Time to Kill" is an excellent documentary. While I can't say that it is a very good documentary, it is still a very good documentary. I think it's one of the best documentaries of the year. If you like Michael Moore or documentaries, I recommend that you see "A Time to Kill". I give it an 8/10.

Martha R. photo
Martha R.

As someone who knows both Philip Larkin and John Irving, I can say that this documentary provides a wealth of information about both men and their work. The film includes interviews with prominent critics and scholars who agree with the essential conclusions of this documentary, yet still question its authenticity. The film also includes interviews with prominent historians who say the documentary is either historically accurate or totally incorrect. Yet both sides of the debate remain extremely balanced, despite their disagreements. The documentary makes a strong case for both Larkin and Irving as individuals whose work was significant and of lasting value. But the film also provides a strong case against the claims of Irving's friend, the late Russian writer and poet Oleg Cassia. Cassia, who died in a boating accident, was a major supporter of Irving's work, and most of his writings have been found to be plagiarized from Irving. These are not only serious charges, but they are proven by the documentary's evidence. Though I am personally in favor of historical accuracy in all things, this documentary does make a compelling case that some of Irving's most important works have been copied from someone else. This is because the same ideas are found in both of the works, but the methods of copying seem different. Irving, for example, said in one interview that he had been inspired by the story of a soldier who had burned an American flag, while Cassia used an altered version of the story of a soldier who burned a Russian flag. Some of Irving's work, such as "The Portrait of a Lady," is also stolen from his friends. These stolen ideas were found in the writings of other people, such as Mark Twain, as well as in Irving's own work. As the documentary points out, the only difference between Irving and Cassia is that Irving wrote his own story, while Cassia never wrote a story on his own. Regardless of whether the similarities between the stories are intentional or unintentional, these similarities are important and deserve serious consideration by all who are interested in the subject of Irving and Larkin. While I am personally in favor of historical accuracy in all things, I do not agree with the thesis of this documentary. While I do not believe that Irving's work was completely plagiarized, the way he wrote his stories was stolen from other sources, such as Mark Twain. The only difference between Irving's work and his friends' work was the creativity and originality of the ideas. While this documentary does a good job of presenting the evidence that is available to support this thesis, it does not go as far as to say that the works of Irving and Larkin were written by the same person. For example, the documentary's evidence shows that there are several different versions of "The Portrait of a Lady," but it does not say that the works of Irving and Larkin were written by the same

Brenda Cox photo
Brenda Cox

This documentary tells the story of the trial and the plea bargain that was reached for Martin Luther King Jr. that resulted in him being sentenced to life in prison without parole. The film shows both sides of the story including the prosecution's attack on King's integrity and the defense's attack on his emotional stability and mental illness. This documentary is filled with fascinating facts and images that everyone should know about.

Terry White photo
Terry White

A very interesting documentary that is also very, very funny. I've never been so moved by a film before, and it's one of the most well-made films I've ever seen. It's really a film about what happens when we are "supposed" to be alone, but instead are surrounded by people we can't stand and people we don't understand. It's also about how much we really need to be alone, and how much we have to be alone to survive. If you're thinking about going to see this film, please don't. It's not worth it.

Amy photo
Amy

This is a very interesting documentary about the early years of the Church. The documentary is filmed from the perspective of the first missionary. I'm sure that this film will be very inspiring for many people. I recommend this film to anyone who wants to know more about the history of the Church and about the early missionaries. The documentary is well-made and gives a very good overview of the missionary life. I think that the documentary is very inspiring, and the film is very well-made.

Thomas H. photo
Thomas H.

I was lucky enough to catch the premiere of this documentary at the London Film Festival. It is a truly brilliant piece of work. It's not only a brilliant documentary about the late great writer but it's a documentary about the power of writing. What a privilege it was to be in the audience during the film premiere and to be able to watch it as well as hearing the words of the film and hearing the voice of the man himself. I hope you will see it and enjoy it as much as I did. I can't wait to see it again. Congratulations to the makers and to the great Michael Moynihan.

Patricia H. photo
Patricia H.

I got a chance to see this movie at the Sundance Film Festival. It was shot on a shoestring budget. The film starts with a narrative exposition about the drug trade, then it proceeds into a fairly structured narrative that follows some of the drug lords in Mexico, and then it picks up again. The film starts with a central theme, a narrator, and then it proceeds with two parts of the story, where we see drug lords, or heads of the drug trade, and then we see them in action. There is a fairly neat structure to the film, and it is quite well made. As you are watching the film, you are not seeing the person, or the actions of the person, but you are watching how they behave. There is a very strong sense of tension in the film, and the sense of dread is heightened by the lack of sound. The film uses sound and sound effects to tell the story. It is well constructed. I was interested in the personal stories of the people who were making the film, and the story they told. The filmmaker wanted to show the struggles of drug lords in Mexico, but also wanted to show how drugs are made. He wanted to show the destruction that drugs can cause in Mexico, and the sense of power that drugs have over people. He wanted to show the devastation of the drug trade in Mexico. I thought the film was well made. There were some great points made, and some points that didn't make sense. The music used in the film is also used well. I liked the music for the film, and the music in the film was also used well. I thought the film was well done and I recommend it to anyone who likes a good film. 8/10.

Brandon P. photo
Brandon P.

A portrait of a tough and determined man who was raised a Jehovah's Witness, but later left it for personal reasons. Moynihan is followed by director Spike Lee as he visits the man and his family, and interviews his former boss and family members. Moynihan gets angry and irritated with the media, but then gets along with his daughter, and speaks candidly about his faith. His former boss and family come off as sympathetic, and he says he is very grateful to them for being so kind. Moynihan's former boss, Frank Fertig, seems to be one of the nicer people in the room. His daughter, Mary Louise Demarest, is a bit boring in her job interviews, but her family is pretty nice. Moynihan's daughter, Aimee, comes across as extremely frustrated with life, but with some candor she admits she is a bit angry with her mother. Moynihan's son is a bit more charismatic than his father, but he is also rather quiet. It's clear that Moynihan's life has been pretty stressful. He seems to have had a hard life and has experienced various personal hardships. He seems to have had a lot of grief from his wife, and his daughter's mother had died after a long illness. He has been on several different types of anti-depressants, and has been sober for a long time. He seems to have been very successful in his life. He says that he has had a lot of ups and downs, and a lot of bad times. The camera is often on him and his family, as we see the family, but the camera often cuts away to his father. Moynihan says that he never really got along with his daughter, and his son was a bit strange, but he is more patient with his son. We see that he is very hard on his son, but loves his daughter. This film is quite a good portrait of a man with no real life, and a lot of personal stress. It is clear that the film is about his struggle with his religion, and his personal life, and we get to see his family as he is rather like a father to a son.

Sharon photo
Sharon

I am a fan of David Byrne, and I was looking forward to this film. I found it to be an interesting look at the life of David Byrne, and the music he has created. David Byrne is a very unique individual, and I found this film to be very interesting. The music he has created is very powerful, and it is a great way to show how important his music is. I found the film to be very informative, and it was very entertaining. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in the life of David Byrne.

Karen photo
Karen

A filmmaker approaches his subject in the most straightforward manner possible, keeping to the facts as much as possible, and there is little he has to say about the subject. This documentary is a testament to this concept, and a cautionary tale of how difficult it is to get a straight story about the Black Panther Party. As usual, it's not a linear narrative, but rather a series of interviews that sort of play out chronologically, with the first half focusing on the party's founder, Bobby Seale, and the second half focusing on Huey Newton. The first half consists of interviews with Seale and other key members of the party, and this is followed by footage of the former prison guard from the 1980s, who gives some of the most interesting comments about the state of the prison at the time. A flashback is then shown of the assassination attempt on Bobby Seale, and then the interview with the former prison guard. The interviews then move to the present, and it's here that the filmmaker (who is Black) is able to give us some information about what happened and what's going on in the present. This documentary is a fascinating look into the lives of the leading Black Panther Party members, and it provides insight into the subject matter. It's also, unfortunately, a very dull documentary.

Peter photo
Peter

One of the most powerful documentaries I have ever seen. An absolutely fantastic film. A must see.

Jean L. photo
Jean L.

A true story of a young boy who's life is changed forever by an accident. His father was killed by a drunk driver and his mother, an alcoholic, was sentenced to serve 10 years. He lived with his aunt, uncle, and cousin. He's now 17, and in prison. He is forbidden to have a cell phone, so he's basically alone. This documentary gives a new perspective on the boy's life. It's a lot more interesting than the usual "Kids in America" documentaries that try to show the American youth as the heroes of the story. This one is more of a character study of the boy. It's not as sensational as "American Idol" or "Romeo and Juliet", but it's a very interesting and touching documentary.