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

Ver Seberg

Seberg is a movie starring Kristen Stewart, Yvan Attal, and Gabriel Sky. Inspired by real events in the life of French New Wave icon Jean Seberg. In the late 1960s, Hoover's FBI targeted her because of her political and romantic...

Genres
Drama, Biography, Thriller
Director
Benedict Andrews
Starring
Jack O'Connell, Yvan Attal, Gabriel Sky, Kristen Stewart

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Drama, Biography, Thriller
Director Benedict Andrews
Writer Joe Shrapnel, Anna Waterhouse
Stars Jack O'Connell, Yvan Attal, Gabriel Sky, Kristen Stewart
Country UK, USA
Also Known As Vigilando a Jean Seberg, Seberg - Contra Todos os Inimigos, Seberg Contra Todos, Seberg - Nel mirino, Jean Seberg - Against All Enemies, セバーグ, Against All Enemies, Seberg: Más allá del cine
Runtime 1 h 42 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 Inspired by real events in the life of French New Wave icon Jean Seberg. In the late 1960s, Hoover's FBI targeted her because of her political and romantic involvement with civil rights activist Hakim Jamal.

Top reviews

Monday, 15 Jun 2020 17:20

I'm not sure what it is about Lars von Trier that always makes him so enigmatic, but I do know this: He is quite possibly the most un-empathetic director out there, ever. I'm not a fan of his other works, which is a big bummer because he has a terrific body of work to his name. The film does start out with a very good (if flawed) premise, but it gets lost in the middle of the film, and does a horrible job of making its purpose clear. It just doesn't have a central focus. The story goes for a long time with a bunch of characters trying to find out who is responsible for a plane crash that killed a number of people. But when you see the first couple of minutes of the film, you will probably agree with me. It's completely pointless. So I'm not sure why this film is rated as high as it is. I thought it was pretty good. I really do. I can't believe I've never heard of this film. There are some good things in it, such as the music and a nice feel-good ending. But the ending is very weird, and it's a shame that they didn't stick to a better ending. The whole film is really self-contained, and while I didn't mind that it was somewhat self-contained, it just didn't work. I think this film is about the death of a large number of people in a plane crash, but it's really about a man and his actions, not the event itself. If you really want to watch this film, you should. I definitely would recommend this film to anyone who likes Lars von Trier. I just really don't like his other work.
Thursday, 11 Jun 2020 13:11

Even though it's been three years since the end of the Iraq war, Michael Moore still seems to get paid handsomely for doing this sort of documentary. He's still at it. What he makes of the Iraq war is a matter of some debate. But he does an effective job of painting a picture of a country in chaos, where all the actors are no longer responsible for their own actions and where the country appears to be headed in the direction of a dictatorship. Iraq was never really a country, Moore points out, but a collection of armed groups who set out to take over the country. The impression that emerges from Moore's film is that there is a deep unease in the country. It has been several months since Saddam's regime has been overthrown and people are still dealing with the effects of that event. I saw this film on its original release and I'm not sure how much more I can say without giving away plot points. But I can say that Moore's point is made: Iraq has always been a country that fought in wars but has never been able to lead a normal life. Moore's film provides a documentary portrait of a country in turmoil. It's not as dark as we might expect. Moore's film has a more or less upbeat tone, but there's a decent amount of darkness. Moore does a great job of showing the state of the country. There's a sense of growing instability in the country, but it is also very apparent that life is still very much a way of life for a lot of people. The place is extremely poor and people are still dying of cancer, tuberculosis and various other diseases. Moore's film paints a very bleak picture of the country, but it does present an optimistic view of the situation. He also tries to portray the country as having had a better year than most of the rest of the world's nations. In this view, Iraq is actually a bit better off. There's a sense of peace and prosperity in the country, something that is rather different from the reality that the majority of Iraqis see. Moore does an excellent job of showing the contradictions of the people. He shows us how Iraqis try to live their lives but fail miserably at doing so. He also shows us how Iraqis are often caught up in their own expectations, unable to move forward in their lives because of the terrible events that are happening around them. The movie ends on a pessimistic note. Iraq has fallen into anarchy and there are still forces that want to prevent Iraq from moving forward. The movie does an excellent job of showing the chaos that is gradually taking hold. It's also interesting to note that the movie is not entirely positive. While there are moments of violence and murder, there's also scenes of people relaxing, getting dressed up and just living a normal life. In my opinion, this is a great movie. It's certainly worth seeing. The acting in the movie is excellent. I have to give credit to the lead actor, Armie Hammer, because he doesn't play the hero or the sidekick that Moore has been so good at. He's more of a character. Armie's performance is quite good. In my opinion, he really steals the show. Michael Pena, Billy Bob Thornton, Bill Pullman and Ed Harris all provide good support. The direction is also quite good. Director Moore seems to have a knack for telling a good story. The story itself is more or less what you would expect. There's a lot of drama in the movie. I've never really liked Michael Moore but I thought that he was able to pull off a very good job here. I didn't find the movie boring. The audience is left with a good feeling in the end. Moore's film is definitely worth seeing.<
Sunday, 31 May 2020 20:04

A deadpan perfectionist in an age of cynical trickery and broken promises, Michael Rosenbaum's incisive and intelligent criticism of Hollywood and the process of transforming a dream into a true catastrophe is worth watching. An unflinching examination of one of Hollywood's biggest bad actors in the 1970s, Rosenbaum unflinchingly chronicles the sometimes insufferable journey of Dan O'Bannon, the former journalist turned star-puppet who transformed himself from an actor in Hollywood's cult of personality, to a "rogue agent" who waged war on the studio system, and earned the ire of the studio bosses who eventually dumped him. O'Bannon isn't just a star; he's a genius, a genius of pure cinematic artistry who got his start as a filmmaker, which he could only do because of the dedication of his agent, Sam Spiegel. For all its flaws and smarts, this film is one of the few films that explores the relationship between the powerful and the powerless, the power of money, and the power of dreamers. We get to see how O'Bannon's career could've turned out had he gone to the rival studio in New York, instead of LA. In the process, Rosenbaum provides an unflinching portrait of a man who spent his career pursuing the "crazy dreams" of others, instead of actually doing anything with the self-imposed dream of becoming a Hollywood star. "I'm very sorry, but you can't be a movie star. You can't make movies. You can't act. You can't do any of those things," O'Bannon says in the film's opening scene. "You can only do art. You can only do movies. That's it." Rosenbaum has made a career out of deconstructing the rules of the Hollywood system. He's done it with Robert Altman's "The Player" and Peter Bogdanovich's "The Insider," among others. While Rosenbaum may have a particularly harsh view of the industry, he's willing to make the movie about Hollywood itself. O'Bannon wasn't just a good actor; he was a good actor because of what he saw and believed in, and because of what he believed in, and because of the choices he made and the advice he received. Rosenbaum makes a powerful argument that the system is broken, and that it's time for Hollywood to do something about it. The film also makes a powerful case for the importance of the press, the role that independent films can and should play in changing the system. And Rosenbaum uses the film to examine the movie industry itself, the industry's use of our "consumer" mind, and the film's (and the public's) growing isolation from the real world.
Saturday, 23 May 2020 17:42

This film is interesting, if you don't expect it to be. It tells the story of an odd couple who own a car wash, the wife of the deceased man is a pro-gun control and pro-gun violence woman. She even advocated for the use of automatic weapons in the movie! I can't imagine why she would want to commit suicide, but she did! Also, she used to have a long term relationship with the deceased, but she ended that relationship because of the death of the man. That is what I got out of the film, her psychotic tendencies. Yes, her and the film suggest that the woman is a big proponent of gun control. In the end, I got the feeling that her motive to commit suicide was to commit suicide. But the rest of the film isn't that interesting, except for the bad guy. His character is hard to connect with. He is very passive. He just sat back and watched. This character was not likable. He just showed up, and that is about it. That is not an interesting role for someone to play. His role was very uninteresting. His death is very important, and all I heard was the news reports of him being a gun owner. I couldn't connect with his character. The girl who plays the girlfriend, did a good job. Her character was very interesting. Her job is to be this gun enthusiast who is a gun lobbyist. She is very outspoken about gun control. Her boyfriend is also a gun lover. When her boyfriend is killed, she is on a mission to lobby for gun control. It seems as if she didn't really care about the guy she was with, but the guy she was with cared about her. I think the characters in the movie were made to look bad. They are portrayed as gun nuts. I really didn't feel like the guys they were playing were bad. It was a very bad movie. I don't understand why anyone would make a movie like this, but it is still interesting. If you are an average movie viewer, you will probably like the movie. The acting in the movie was decent, but not great. I don't understand why the director would make this type of movie, but I have seen worse. The violence is not that graphic, and the violence is not that gory. There are some scenes where blood is shown, and I don't know if it was necessary to show blood. Overall, the movie is not that great, but it is interesting. It is worth watching.
Friday, 15 May 2020 21:17

A lot of people have complained about the plot, but this film is really about the value of "being a "star" in an era when all of our celebrity was centered around the wealthy. What about the people like Gary Sinise? Frank Sinatra? Martin Scorsese? And this film is in the tradition of "American Beauty" that have all taken a person's life and tried to put them in a different light. Did they always have to change the character to do so? Because I think that what makes a good actor is to be able to portray a character with a heart, a soul, and an ability to look at life and think about it. Steven Spielberg made "Saving Private Ryan" a great movie that had a heart and a soul. Or how about John Grisham, a man who did a story about a man who was a so-called "gentleman". But he was just cruel. I thought he did an excellent job with this movie. He did a story about the best of humanity, and a human being that loves everyone. Maybe the director did not have enough respect for John Grisham, but that is the reason why I like his films. One thing that made this film great, is the characters that we follow. We follow two men, one a so-called "celebrity", the other a "gentleman", who somehow come to live in the same building, and that is the only reason that we watch this film. That is what made me want to watch this film more than anything else. To see how much of a human being these people really are, and how many people this is to have, because it is not just the case of getting to a rich family. It is a human being who has to suffer because of what his father has done. It is a human being who will become someone, not because he is rich, but because he is trying to love and help others, and that is what this film is about. I think that many of these movies like "The Seventh Seal", or "Wall Street", or "From Here To Eternity" where we follow characters in their lives, and how they work, are about the value of being human. And not just the "money". I think that being a human being is what it is all about.
Friday, 17 Apr 2020 07:25

The story of U.S. District Judge, John Douglass, is told in flashback as he struggles to handle the onset of Parkinson's disease. Douglass is an emotionally confused man, who makes statements that seem to be ambiguous and not real. It's not until later in the film, as the film opens up to reveal what he thinks about the film, and his life, that we really begin to understand the man that Judge Douglass is. Writer/director, Kenneth Lonergan, (The Departed), plays the role of Douglass with equal parts of mental instability, confusion, and confusion. Douglass is a former Hollywood star who, after falling from grace, finds himself in a life where he's no longer the high-flying producer he once was. However, Douglass is torn between keeping his relationship with his long-time wife, or making the decision that will change his life forever. While watching the film, it is difficult to be certain of the true thoughts and emotions of the character that we see. The film's message is clear: to keep your life simple, as it will change, and only you can decide how to do so. The film gives the audience a sense of hope and encouragement as the story progresses, especially as we see Douglass trying to make the right choice. Lonergan takes the viewer through the good and bad of Douglass' life and the life he once led. The acting is uniformly great. Christopher Walken is fantastic as Judge Douglass, as is Jessica Chastain as his wife. Vincent D'Onofrio also shows up in a small, but memorable role. It's a shame that the film only had a short running time. This is an excellent film that I hope people will see. It will make them think about their lives, and what it is to choose to live the life that we choose to live.


Write a review