Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Ver Back to the Fatherland

Back to the Fatherland is a movie starring Gil Levanon, Katharina Maschek, and Dan Peled. BACK TO THE FATHERLAND is a documentary film that tells the story of young people leaving their home country to try their luck somewhere else....

Genres
Documentary
Director
Gil Levanon, Kat Rohrer
Starring
Dan Peled, Gidi Peled, Gil Levanon, Katharina Maschek

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Gil Levanon, Kat Rohrer
Writer Susan Korda, Anneliese Rohrer, Anneliese Rohrer
Stars Dan Peled, Gidi Peled, Gil Levanon, Katharina Maschek
Country Austria
Runtime 1 h 17 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description BACK TO THE FATHERLAND is a documentary film that tells the story of young people leaving their home country to try their luck somewhere else. A common tale these days if these young women and men weren't from Israel and if they wouldn't be moving to Germany and Austria, where their families were persecuted and killed.

Top reviews

Monday, 10 Aug 2020 00:37

When I read about it, I had no doubts it was one of the most important films to be released in Ukraine in 2016. I knew this due to the fact that the film was directed by Yuri Vasyliy, and its director was a Ukrainian, and the subject is the growing of Ukrainian nationalism in the post-Soviet era. However, I was not aware that the film was also dedicated to the importance of Fatherland and their continued military service. I have now seen the film, and it is a pretty interesting documentary about the Ukrainian military, especially their military service. The film looks at the history of Fatherland and the military service, and tries to give an accurate portrayal of this subject. However, it is not a film that you will want to watch repeatedly, but it is definitely one of the most important documentaries on the subject, and it deserves a watch. On the negative side, I didn't find the documentary very insightful. I did not get to see any of the past military service, but that's not a huge problem. I would have enjoyed seeing some of the other experiences of the Ukrainian military, so that I could really understand why so many people in Ukraine are willing to fight for their Fatherland and to die for it. It is not that the military service is "unforgivable", as some people in the documentary say, but it is just one of the biggest, most important factors that makes Ukrainian patriotism so strong, and it seems to me that the documentary only tries to portray the issue in the light that is easiest to understand. The documentary is not meant to be a documentary about the military service in the Ukraine. I think it would be better to have researched the topic a bit more. On the other hand, the documentary does give us a very clear picture of how the Ukrainian military is organized. The fact that there are many units that are far apart, some units have only one officer, and most of the other units are not only made up of soldiers, but there are also officers as well. In summary, the documentary is a fairly good documentary about the topic of Fatherland, and there is much to learn from it. As a viewer, it's a must watch, but I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you do see it, I would recommend watching the documentary on Youtube. I recommend the film to those that are interested in the topic. In my opinion, the film should have been released more widely, and if you have any doubts, give it a watch, but don't expect too much.
Friday, 07 Aug 2020 03:31

Russia is a country in which thousands of people can freely travel to other parts of the country and the same is true for Russians living in the United States. But here they must be careful not to attract attention to themselves. In Moscow, a group of taxi drivers has set up a taxi service which has a giant poster in the window and they all ride in a yellow taxi. There is also a no smoking and drinking section. This taxi is in fact a work of the City of Moscow's Ministry of Public Transport. To make it more efficient, the taxi drivers have also organized a program of walking and watching people from the road, taking pictures and trying to get a good shot of their loved ones when they are not at the cafe they are waiting to meet. All this is happening without any need for a license, nor any charge. Taxi driver Oleg Irtukhin is filmed by his friend Vitaly Kondratyev. He does not want to have the camera there himself, but he does want to share the story. The picture is a documentary shot on a mobile phone by Oleg Irtukhin in his home city. We see how he is happy with life in his home city, and we see how he feels at his job. And we see how this life changes him. He becomes bored and he misses the present and he feels lonely. He is not happy to spend his life waiting for the taxi driver program to begin, but he understands that it is a very important thing for the taxi drivers, and so he becomes a volunteer. There are other stories and how they all connected to each other. As a film it is beautiful, and the message is not just about how to live your life. We also see how people can help one another and how their lives have changed from the time they are not driving taxis. We see that life has become more productive and how the taxi drivers have formed a new family of friends and their lives have become better, better, better. We see that in the modern society there is a need for such people who are always ready to help people who need help, but do not need to be helped themselves. The film is shot in just three weeks in Moscow, and we see how the taxi drivers share their story and how they also teach each other. This documentary has the virtue of being very short, so that the audience does not have to think too much about the subject. It does not get too long, and at the end we see that we are able to be touched by the taxi drivers' story.
Friday, 24 Jul 2020 09:44

When we read the lyrics to the song "I'm Gonna Rock Ya", we think of a cool rock band but the words are much deeper than that. This is why it's so special and very hard to find a version of it which is not a massive rip off of the song. Very important and very important to have the rights to the lyrics as a side note. And also have the rights to the song itself as a side note. The filming of this film was extremely difficult because the lyrics to this song were so obscure. The film was shot in Iran and had to change their language to Persian. So it was almost impossible to find the translation of the words of the song as we now have subtitles in our language. This was very important to get the rights to the lyrics to the song. The film was shot in Iran and it was great to have those Iranian actors who could say the words to the song. The film itself is pretty hard to find, but then again most of the films that are released by Iran are pretty difficult to find and the film is usually shot in the middle of Iran or in Iran's harsh deserts. When you watch this film, it will be very hard to believe that it is actually shot in Iran. So you will need to be very patient and very patient because you will need to watch it again and again because this is one of the most difficult films that I have ever seen. In the end, the film really has a lot of meaning and is very important to have. So watch it and appreciate the effort of those who were involved and to appreciate the rights of this song.
Wednesday, 15 Jul 2020 21:27

In the last days of WWII, a 10 year old boy by the name of Richard Battey (voiced by Kevin Spacey) makes a point of playing the role of the Fuhrer in a series of programs about Germany and its people. This documentary follows the story of Richard and a later biographical version of the same boy by the name of Jon Favreau (voiced by Chris Pratt). The two men were friends in high school, who had a special bond. That bond was strengthened by the time they got married. However, shortly after the death of his wife, Richard was evacuated to the U.S.A. to live with his mother. During this time, he meets his girlfriend, Rachel (played by Karen Gillan) and they soon fall in love. However, as they move into their own home, Richard begins to question his past. In this documentary, we meet his mother (played by Loni Anderson), the two brothers (played by Jason Bateman and David Arquette) and his brother-in-law (played by Freddie Prinze Jr.). These people have a wide variety of emotions. They are each trying to find their own identity, while staying true to their roots. Richard has some ideas for an orchestra in the future, and they are considering a potential collaboration with one of the major institutions in Germany. The documentary goes on to tell the story of Richard's struggle with the feelings of patriotism. It also focuses on a very serious issue of separation of church and state, and the feelings of the state during this time in history. There are many humorous moments as well, with one of them being the two of them playing a game of two-dimensional chess. However, the feelings of patriotism in the audience are never mentioned. The documentary is also very interesting, not only because of the documentary itself, but also because of what the two men have to say about their parents. They are shown speaking about their parents, and they talk about the two of them being born in a different time and place. However, the two men show their loving family at the end of the film, and it is very heart-warming. Overall, this is a very interesting documentary that is very well done. It has a message about patriotism, and it touches on issues such as the war that was fought during this time period. The documentary itself is very well done, and it touches on topics such as the importance of love, faith and the work of the state and the churches. Overall, this is a very well done documentary that is well worth watching.
Wednesday, 15 Jul 2020 08:43

I am a longtime fan of Kiarostami's films. While I did enjoy the brilliant Moulin Rouge, I was slightly disappointed that the movie itself was limited to the year of 1968. This, however, is not what the film is about. It is about the international friendship of two young art students, one a relatively minor player in art history and the other the principal artist of a new museum in Paris. The two share a love of art and the desire to discover the work of their idol, Gauguin, which they both feel is lost in the country. The main theme of the film is the notion that art is a common product of social, cultural and economic changes, but that it remains important to the general populace and art, at least for its own sake, has to be accessible to the masses. This, the director asserts, is the fundamental problem of contemporary art: despite the fact that it is becoming more and more global, its true essence remains to be seen by the masses, who are not aware of the elements of beauty that are still hidden in the art. The friendship of the two young men is the most fascinating aspect of the film. The parallels between their political ideologies and their art are intriguing. However, the first time I heard the title "The Painter" I was more interested in watching some art film, especially one starring an American actor. Nevertheless, it is an interesting movie, and I encourage the viewer to take the time to watch it. The real highlight of the film is the discussion between the two young men. I was very moved by the conversation, which shows the true essence of friendship. You can tell that Kiarostami loves his subjects. I believe that this is one of the main reasons for his popularity, but I also believe that this is the only reason. I do not believe that his other films are that good. I believe that his other films have their own meaning, their own purpose, and that they are highly personal. I believe that his films are the best movie I have ever seen. My opinion is strongly based on his works. When I saw another film by Kiarostami I noticed that the first and the second episodes of the film were the same. Kiarostami's films are superb.
Friday, 19 Jun 2020 10:59

I saw this documentary at the Toronto Film Festival and it was really inspiring. What a movie! The concept of this film is that everyone should know what has been happening in their countries during the past 10 years. We, as a culture, have become a nation of people who have forgotten who we are, and are only focused on what is happening in the Middle East, and have forgotten the things that actually matter, like the people and their communities. The documentary is filled with all kinds of facts about the events that have happened in Iraq. I was really impressed with this documentary because of how well it was organized, and because of how passionate it was about the issues. In a country like Iraq where it's incredibly difficult to get to school and have a chance to do anything, it's really important to know that these events in Iraq have been happening for the past 10 years. These events are connected to the Middle East. There are two ways to look at this: the people in Iraq are suffering from these events because of the people that are living there, and the people in Iraq are suffering because of the problems that are happening to them. The documentary gave me a new perspective of how important these events are to the people of Iraq, and how important it is to know what is happening in the Middle East. I think this documentary shows that it's important to know the facts, and to do research to get a better understanding of what is happening to our own country.
Thursday, 11 Jun 2020 05:09

"The Fatherland" is the seventh in a trilogy that also includes "Saving Private Ryan" and "Saving Private Ryan: The Making". After "Saving Private Ryan" they did not direct another film together for over a decade. This film was directed by Tony Kushner and the cinematography is the work of Hans Zimmer. The director used a fairly interesting plot, based around the same group of soldiers during the first World War as the first two films. However this time they followed a group of soldiers from the beginning of the war and never once showed the part where they were in France. They show a lot of bloodshed and bloodshed and we never get to know why. The first act is good but is basically a very slow film, during the first act we see soldiers practicing in the woods and talking about war. Then the second act is good, but it is basically the same as the first, no action, no dialogue, no "enemy in the woods" section. The third act is good, I do not like war films and am not into war documentaries, but I was impressed with how the director used sound to create a world in which we can be immersed in. I think the third act was good because it was about war, we see the brutality of the war, and the bloodshed, and the deaths of the soldiers and how the survivors are changed by the war. However it is a long film, the entire film lasts almost 2 hours. I am not against long films, but I do not like documentaries that go on forever, but it felt like a lot of the documentaries were extended versions of the first two films, and because of this I found myself annoyed with the directors too many, if they had not directed a third film, I would have found this film tedious, and boring.
Friday, 24 Apr 2020 03:51

I really enjoy reading this sort of stuff, but this film makes me shake my head. It is almost a commentary on the way Westerners see the world, as the narrator does, and even his recollections of the 20th century seem to fall a bit out of sync with the rest of the documentary. The vignettes of "the great Russian artist" paint a rather distorted picture of the artist who was no more than a rock star. The documentary tells the story of the artist as a solitary artist, but in his youth he was a talented and ambitious writer, who was just caught up in the excitement of the Soviet Union. He's been silent about his time in the USSR, and there seems to be an assumption that his childhood and youth were pretty ordinary, so it's difficult to see how he can be seen as a "true" artist. I'm not sure that this is a fair criticism of his life, but it's one that has been used in the past to denigrate Russian artists. This film is not the sort of film to help that understanding. I found it a bit upsetting that the narrator, who is himself a Russian, is so open about his country, and it may be an attempt to show that he doesn't know much about it. I would have liked to see a more scholarly approach to the Russian artist than this documentary suggests. And I am reminded of the old saying that a painting is a painting, a human being is a human being, and a good documentary is a good documentary. I don't think the documentary had to be a documentary. I think it could have been an art film that was completely free from the social conventions of the era in which it was made. It could have been a film about the Soviet Union, or about the Russian artist, or about the people who lived in the Soviet Union. I don't know.


Write a review