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

Ver Karl Marx City

Karl Marx City is a movie starring Christa Epperlein, Petra Epperlein, and Uwe Epperlein. A filmmaker journey through the former East Germany looking into her father's 1999 suicide.

Petra Epperlein, Michael Tucker
Uwe Epperlein, Volker Epperlein, Christa Epperlein, Petra Epperlein

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Petra Epperlein, Michael Tucker
Writer Michael Tucker, Petra Epperlein
Stars Uwe Epperlein, Volker Epperlein, Christa Epperlein, Petra Epperlein
Country Germany
Also Known As Karl Marx Stadt
Runtime 1 h 29 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 A filmmaker journey through the former East Germany looking into her father's 1999 suicide.

Top reviews

Wednesday, 24 Jun 2020 16:55

Paul Allen is a hotshot entrepreneur who may be the next Steve Jobs. He is the poster child for the Silicon Valley phenomenon. One day, he will decide whether or not he wants to be an artist, or he will choose either of the two paths: software or advertising. This documentary is a fascinating glimpse into the man behind the empire. While this is an informative documentary, it is also a bit predictable. The film is about Allen and his business, and then it is about his evolution. This is a bit of a 'message film'. It is very similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, in that Allen's story is revealed through interviews with the other participants. Allen and his wife are interviewed, and they give some insights into how their marriage has changed. They have become very different people, but they are both the same person in a way. The film focuses on his early days as a musician, but also looks at his artistry and career. The film shows his early work in movies, his development of the first Apple Computer, and his rise to become the most valuable company in the world. The film is surprisingly short. It is a simple narrative, but there are some really fascinating moments. One of them is when Allen describes how he changed from a ten year old to an adult, and then he shows how he then changed from an adult to a teenager. The video clips are also very entertaining. The documentary is edited very well. It is informative, but it also is very funny. The interviews are interesting, but they are also very funny. Allen is very self-deprecating, but the film is also very funny. The only real disappointment is that the film is only 86 minutes long. A few things could have been edited out. The film could have been longer and edited in a more interesting way. Allen's personal life is also a bit of a story, and this is the main focus of the documentary. There are some really interesting interviews with his daughter and son. The documentary could have focused on them. They are really interesting characters. The interview with his wife, though, is very interesting, but it is also a little dry. There are also a few things that I did not understand, like why Allen became the first Apple Computer. That was never really explained. It also was not explained why he became a billionaire. I am not sure how the documentary would have been better with more interviews with the other people in the company. Allen's early life is a fascinating story, but it is not a very interesting documentary. The film is a bit of a message film, and that is not the best word to describe it. The film is mostly a collection of short stories that are interesting, but there are also some interesting aspects of Allen's personal life. I am not sure if it is worth the money to see this documentary, but if you are in the mood for a good documentary, then it is worth the time. I would not say this is a must see film, but it is worth seeing.
Tuesday, 23 Jun 2020 03:40

Greenspan and Sandler have something of a knack for bringing in both the young and the old to their movies. For this particular picture, they do it again. The young and old are both in high spirits. GRAVITY was obviously made with a lot of passion and energy. But you don't see that in GRAVITY CITY. It has a very low budget and it is in no way a Hollywood production. And it is very hard to tell that. It doesn't look like one of the "Lucky 7" movies. There are no slick production design, no Hollywood star power, no cars, no cars, no cars. No stars. And it is a very low budget picture. But it is so incredibly earnest. There are no funny moments. But there is no silliness either. The passion that the two actors show for their roles is palpable. The older actors don't have a lot of screen time, but they're always effective. Both actors have a good voice and a good sense of rhythm. They make you feel that you're watching an old-time Hollywood production. A production that could have been made by any number of actors with a lot of enthusiasm and money. But it's not. GRAVITY is in many ways a film for the younger generation. It was made with a great deal of love and care, and it is a wonderful example of how art can be made today. It's also a very important document for all of us who've had to endure a lot of disrespect from our parents and teachers. But it's not a movie for the "older" generations. GRAVITY has some of the best music ever put on film. I'm not sure it was ever recorded. It is a real treat. But it is also a very earnest film. It is not an especially well-made film. It is low budget. It is an earnest film. It is a good film. It is an important film. It is a documentary about one of the most important films ever made. It is about life. It is about music. It is about youth. It is about a city. It is about the power of music. It is about a great artist and the power of music. It is a great documentary. And it is a great movie.
Friday, 22 May 2020 00:18

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, a group of intellectuals and businessmen, led by John Maynard Keynes, set up a Foundation for Economic Education in response to the bitter and sometimes violent recriminations from both political parties. The groups' aim was to produce a research paper to set out the state of the art in economics in Britain and America. It was to be entitled, "What Is Capitalism?" And, indeed, the three leaders of the group were, as is the case with most works of history, leftwing liberals. Keynes, the founder, was an opponent of the Tory party, and his beliefs were that the only way to establish a stable economic system was by a competitive market economy. Keynes, his closest friend and collaborator, was an advocate of Keynesian economics. Their work is a powerful argument for the kind of economy that the Third World desperately needs to create. For the British economist, the system must be based on private property, so that production can be done efficiently. On the other hand, the American and French leaders, like many of the other characters in this film, argued for socialism, and many of them were all-around socialists. The British members of the group were all very pragmatic people. For Keynes, the only way to win elections was by stimulating demand and spending. The problem was that Keynes's economic ideas were not mainstream in Britain at the time, and he needed a partner in his efforts. So, in 1935, Keynes and one of his colleagues, James Mill, began to recruit American businessmen, to work on a book which would be called "The American Economic Journal". The book was an attempt to reform the economics of America. It was the brainchild of the American economist, Irving Fisher, who had a great deal of success in the early 20th century. Fisher, a native of the American West Coast, was convinced that the system of public ownership and regulation of the economy was the way to achieve a balanced system. Fisher was also convinced that the system of government control in Britain was a dangerous and inefficient institution. Fisher had gone to America in 1931, and in the early 1930s, had brought to the attention of the leaders of the American economy a piece of paper which outlined the kind of economic system he wished to see in the US. Fisher was a supporter of a laissez-faire capitalism, and the British intellectual would eventually see his ideas realised by a group of American businessmen who set up the American Economic Journal in 1936. Keynes and Mill were both convinced that a laissez-faire capitalism was the way to achieve economic stability, and the way to win the American elections. Unfortunately, they failed to come to a consensus on which system to favour. Some left-wing liberals wanted the market system, and others wanted state ownership of the economy. Keynes and Mill were split. Keynes, who was an all-round socialist, wanted to leave the market economy alone, while Mill was a realist who thought that the whole system had to be reformed. The film shows both sides of the argument, but the end result is that neither side of the debate is particularly well represented. To an American, the film makes it sound as though the American Economic Journal was a secret society, and that it was dominated by the likes of the Koch brothers and Michael Moore. This is not the case
Thursday, 02 Apr 2020 16:07

I went to see this movie because it was on the news and I have always been interested in Marx and the Bolshevik Revolution. What I got was an interesting film that gave a lot of good facts and information about the people and society in the time that Marx was alive. But I also saw it as an opportunity to tell the audience that it is not always the Russians who were the victims of the Bolsheviks. In fact, the Bolsheviks had only one goal: to break up the Soviet Union and make Russia a country in which the rich and powerful could live in the shadows and not be in control of the people. The film didn't say that the Russians were the main victims but it did say that their history and their culture was destroyed and their lives were in danger. There is no doubt that the Russians suffered greatly in the Soviet Union. But the film did not mention that it was the Russians who were the real victims of the Bolsheviks and that they were the ones who lost their culture and their way of life. The Russians were the ones who suffered the most in the Soviet Union. I think that the only reason that the movie was made was to make money. It was like an advertisement for the Russian movie industry and it was not the most important reason. I would like to know why this movie was made and how it was going to be rated by the critics. I believe that a film like this should be made more often in order to get more people to see it. Otherwise, the people who like the movie will be the ones that will complain and will demand that they get their money back. I give this movie a 7/10.
Thursday, 02 Apr 2020 14:59

The infamous Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman is in the early stages of his career, when he was working as a composer and screenwriter. At this stage he is also a self-professed Marxist who teaches in a Marxist college. This is the best I can say about this documentary. It's mostly about how he felt about Marx. But the film doesn't even tell us anything about his thoughts on socialism or the other socialisms of his day. It seems that the director is more interested in what the Marx-critics think of Bergman's films than what Bergman thinks of them. The best part is the film's discussion of Bergman's films. The best of the best are mentioned, but he also has some of the worst of them. He didn't even give his opinion on the best one. One of the worst ones is, of course, "City of Joy." It's basically a review of Bergman's "The Seventh Seal." One of the better ones is the discussion of "What's Up, Doc?" And then there is also a discussion of the one that is most probably his favorite. "The Seventh Seal." That's the one where Bergman criticizes Hitchcock. Bergman criticizes Hitchcock for being able to make films. Bergman claims that Hitchcock was always able to use the camera to create great effects. He also says that Hitchcock's films are great because he can always keep his audience entertained. Bergman doesn't really explain anything about these films, and he doesn't explain anything about Bergman's philosophy, either. What we do get is Bergman's insight into cinema, his thoughts about the importance of art, and how he felt about it. We also get a look at the many other films that he has directed, like "City of Joy" and "The Virgin Spring." He doesn't give any examples of how they are good, but he does say that they are good for the same reason that he likes them. Bergman talks about his favorite films of all time, including "The Seventh Seal" and "Gandhi." It's hard to tell if the film is any good. It has the same formulaic plot as "City of Joy." It has the same music, and the same actors, and the same good-looking guy. The only difference is that the "city" in "City of Joy" is a real city and not a theater. "City of Joy" was made during Bergman's lifetime. It's his farewell film. The only thing that I really enjoyed about "City of Joy" was that I got to hear the original soundtrack. In this film, we are given a new soundtrack. That's really the only reason that I enjoyed this film. The film is OK, but it's not very good.

Write a review