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

Ver Rapid Response

Rapid Response is a movie starring Stephen Olvey, Terry Trammell, and Mario Andretti. In 1966 Medical student and racing fan Stephen Olvey gets the opportunity of a lifetime when he is asked to volunteer at the Indianapolis 500 on...

Roger Hinze, Michael William Miles
Mario Andretti, Bobby Unser, Stephen Olvey, Terry Trammell

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Roger Hinze, Michael William Miles
Stars Mario Andretti, Bobby Unser, Stephen Olvey, Terry Trammell
Country USA
Runtime 1 h 39 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 In 1966 Medical student and racing fan Stephen Olvey gets the opportunity of a lifetime when he is asked to volunteer at the Indianapolis 500 on their medical team. What started as fun insider view of a sport he loved quickly devolves before his eyes as he sees the level of medical support given to the drivers, whom he has befriended, is terrifyingly non-existent. After feeling helpless at the scene of what turns out to be a fatal accident. Dr. Olvey sets off on a mission to build a team to apply science to transform motorsports from the most fatal form of sport to one of the safest. Over the next 30 years they succeed and the science that they develop influences modern trauma medicine and the passenger cars we drive today. This is the story of the most fatal era in Motorsports and the Indy 500 doctors who pioneered safety and helped the drivers to cheat death.

Top reviews

Monday, 29 Jun 2020 18:35

The Fire Within is the third documentary from director/writer/producer Greg Phillips and he has done an excellent job with the subject matter. This is a slow paced, but captivating documentary that explores the personal issues of the mentally ill. They do not show any of the emotional reactions that these individuals have to their condition. Instead they focus on the mental and emotional effects that the illness has on their loved ones and on society. There is no perfect resolution to the illness. However, Phillips makes the viewer feel for these individuals. He is able to show how the illness affects the family, how it affects the patients, and how it affects the patients. He is able to show the progress that these patients make in the end and at the end he doesn't ask any questions about the conditions that these individuals are living with. Instead he simply asks questions about their health and to give him a more objective view on the subject. The Fire Within is a thought provoking documentary that is well worth watching. It is hard to talk about mental health conditions without describing the symptoms. It is hard to talk about mental health without explaining what the symptoms are. The Fire Within is able to show the symptoms without making them too obvious. The Fire Within is not a documentary that shows how these individuals are feeling or how the disease affects their families. Instead it makes you understand the personal issues of these individuals. The Fire Within is not a documentary that shows the disease progression. Instead it focuses on the personal problems that these individuals are facing. It is very difficult to explain how mental illness affects the individual but it is very easy to see that the effects are not always bad. The Fire Within is a very good documentary. It is one that you should watch. I give it a 7 out of 10.
Sunday, 07 Jun 2020 06:50

The story of the Trolley Murders has been told in so many different ways that it is hard to sum it all up in a short space. I have decided to take the easy route and attempt to present the gist of the Trolley Murders and the killings that led to them. The point of view is from the point of view of one man and his family. In a way that is quite refreshing, as there have been too many movies made that try to show the point of view from the police, witnesses and even the people themselves. I think that this approach is really refreshing and I am glad that it is still a thing in this day and age. We are presented with three men in their twenties who are all a little different, and I think that this will give the viewer the impression that the movie will be about one man's perspective. But we are also presented with the perspectives of two other men, and the story is told from the point of view of one of them. We have been presented with the killers motives, we have been presented with the crime itself and the police response to it. It is a very diverse perspective and is a very interesting look into the mentality of the killers and their actions. The movie is told in a nonlinear way, as we see things from the murderer's point of view, the police view and the police response. It is important to note that it is not a documentary or a narrative. We follow the story, but the story is told in a nonlinear fashion. It is told from a point of view of a single man. But it is not a straight line of the murderer's story, it is presented in a nonlinear way. I think that this style of storytelling is very effective and I am glad that it is still a thing. I think that the main reason that I have liked this movie is that it is an extremely good representation of the Trolley Murders. I think that the movies that have come out in the past 5 years or so have not really told this story, and it is refreshing to see something different. I also think that the fact that this movie was made in the 90's has made it even more important to get it out there. I would definitely recommend this movie to any fan of this subject and I would also recommend it to anyone who is looking for a movie that is very well made, well written, well acted, well directed, and very well made. I would also recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in the Trolley Murders.
Thursday, 21 May 2020 06:32

There are some powerful testimonies from survivors of the 9/11 attacks, some of them from the military, but there are also others who can easily be identified as being among the common people. The military is shown to have supported the idea of a more aggressive foreign policy, but is shown to have, in their opinion, too much restraint and that the US would have gone to war, if it had been in their control, had the war not been the direct result of 9/11. It is interesting to see how these two viewpoints can be reconciled. We can also see how 9/11, through the media and TV channels, is the main source of information for the average citizen. This is shown not just in the testimonies, but in the way the media is presented to the public. We can also see how 9/11 is the focus of the US political system, even if we are not shown much of the political aspect. There is an interesting contrast between what the news media is said to have been doing when the attacks happened and what it is doing now, and what the news media is said to be doing when 9/11 was happening, but what is not shown. The news media is presented as being totally neutral, and that this is reflected in the way the media is shown to the public. I also liked the way the film was presented. The film is presented from the perspective of a journalist, but also shows us how the American people feel and are, with some personal stories. I would recommend this film, because it gives an in-depth look into the issues of 9/11, and how the media and the American public reacted to the events. I would not recommend it for the viewer who is not already familiar with the issues.
Wednesday, 13 May 2020 04:10

I just saw this film on HBO last night. I must say that I really liked it. I was disappointed that it did not do so well at the box office. I must admit that it is a bit slow at times, but it was very interesting and very insightful. I found it very intriguing that the chief concern was the efficiency of the Secret Service, which is supposed to be at the very top of the hierarchy. The Secret Service was built on intimidation and fear, but the new Secret Service Chief, the General, showed the best efficiency and efficiency in dealing with those that the men could not deal with. This movie is about the Secret Service, and it is important to understand that it is a union, but the unions are here to help protect the rights of the workers, not to protect the unions. You will also see that there are a lot of special interests that are out to protect the unions. There are a lot of people in the business who are anti-union, and they also do not want to have to pay taxes to help pay the workers. The biggest union in the country, the International Association of Fire Fighters, has been lobbying the government for a tax deduction for union dues. That is why you see so many unions trying to defeat President Clinton. And that is why union members are more concerned with keeping their job than the safety of their employees. A big part of this film was about why unions should be in favor of stricter laws, but also about what happens when unions are just more concerned with their members than with the protection of the employees. I also learned a lot about unions and the rights they have to protect their members, which is something that most people will not learn about. I also learned a lot about a Republican Congressman from Illinois, who was very supportive of union rights. He introduced the legislation that would have made the Secret Service more efficient, but that is just another example of why unions should be more concerned with their members than with the protection of their employees. I also learned that the President of the United States is a Democrat. So, I also learned that Republicans support unions, and that is another reason why unions should be in favor of stricter laws. I think that the Secret Service is a very important job, and I think that unions should have more of a role in protecting the employees, rather than the unions. I think that the Secret Service is a big part of protecting the country, and I think that they should be more concerned with the safety of the employees, than the union.
Wednesday, 22 Apr 2020 15:41

First I'll just say that this film has been a very pleasant surprise. I'd read about it on a few websites, and I saw a couple of reviews that indicated a low level of interest and negative reception. After watching the film, I found that the positive reception to this movie was due more to the fact that I had never heard of it, and the fact that the reviewers weren't familiar with the subject matter. In fact, I was shocked to learn that this movie was a documentary about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I was so unprepared for this that I started to think that this was a fictional account, and not the real story. The first half of the movie is fascinating, but I was left with a sense of disconnection. The film gives the audience a sense of historical context and the issues of time, place, and political strategy. I wasn't at all sure where it was going, but I did find myself glued to the screen. While the subject matter is well-known and well-documented, the film never drags, and the narrative style is expertly controlled. The imagery is strong, and the documentary style keeps you engaged throughout the film. I had no sense that the story was biased, and the script is compelling. In fact, the film is a work of art. As a documentary, I would recommend it. But as a movie, I can see why some viewers would be disappointed with the lack of narrative style and the lack of context. My recommendation is to go in with an open mind, and allow the movie to tell you a story. You will be surprised at what it is, and how much it matters.
Wednesday, 22 Apr 2020 12:05

Dangerous Territory is a documentary about a group of filmmakers working on a project called "The End of Civilization", which aims to create a documentary on a concept in three decades, that would be a truly apocalyptic society. The world will be gone in one day and this concept is their first attempt. The movie shows them trying to reach this goal, at some points, it feels as if the movie is trying to be a propaganda for the movie itself, showing things and stuff, making the audience think they are witnessing a documentary. But the real story is the attempts they make to reach the goal of the project, the other parts of the film is their way of trying to get people to watch it. This movie is well made, the story is well presented, the acting is also very good, and the subjects are well made, but there are a few aspects of the film that are wrong. The biggest thing is the story itself. It is clear that the filmmakers want to make a movie, but they still don't know how to do it, they are unsure how to get the audience to watch it. That doesn't help this movie much at all. I don't know what is the reason for that, but if you watch it, you will find that the film doesn't deliver what it was supposed to. A lot of time is spent on the elements that are supposed to make this movie interesting, but they all seem to be very simple. They are done in a way that they are pretty obvious, that's why I don't recommend watching it. Another thing I didn't like is the scene where they are all hanging out in a room. That is supposed to be a great part of the story, but it feels like a lot of time was spent on them, but nothing else was shown. Also the scene where they talk to the narrator, that part is supposed to be very interesting, but it was done so bad that it doesn't even feel like it is funny. In the end, it was a good movie, it is well done, but it doesn't give you what it is supposed to give. I would recommend it to people who want to watch something with more original ideas, but if you don't want to waste your time, watch it anyway.

Write a review