#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch A Beautiful Planet

(1188) 7.4 46 min 2016

A Beautiful Planet is a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence, Samantha Cristoforetti, and Scott Kelly. An exploration of Earth and beyond as seen from the International Space Station. Narrated by Jennifer Lawrence.

Jennifer Lawrence, Samantha Cristoforetti, Kjell Lindgren, Scott Kelly
Toni Myers

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Documentary
Director Toni Myers
Writer Toni Myers
Stars Jennifer Lawrence, Samantha Cristoforetti, Kjell Lindgren, Scott Kelly
Country USA
Also Known As Ένας όμορφος πλανήτης, El planeta más hermoso
Runtime 46M
Description An exploration of Earth and beyond as seen from the International Space Station. Narrated by Jennifer Lawrence.

Top reviews

Monday, 13 Jul 2020 18:58

I agree with the comment above, and feel the need to correct that I was under the impression that this film was an HBO production and that it was being shown at some random time on HBO. This is not the case, but rather is a PBS production, and is called "A Beautiful Planet." It was actually shown in October, and I caught it on the day I could, as it was on at 7PM local time. My general impression is that the film is pretty good. I had not seen the BBC version, which I haven't seen, so I can't compare. The first thing that strikes you is that this is a documentary, so there are no real actors. There are still very few actual voices, but that's to be expected in a documentary. And I'm not sure why it's called A Beautiful Planet. I'd go with A Beautiful Earth, but that is not a great term. There is a lot of dialogue, but most of the dialog is about the human aspect of the film. There is also a lot of talking about the various topics discussed in the film. Some of these topics are obvious: like how much we have polluted the environment, how we have degraded the environment, and how we have already destroyed some of the planet's great biodiversity. Others are more obscure, like how we as humans have made the planet's climate more unstable by polluting the atmosphere with more and more pollution. But that's the way it goes. It's all very political, and not always entertaining. For example, the film sometimes feels that it's trying to hard to make the message about global warming more clear and realistic. If this was a documentary, I think it would be easier to understand, but I understand that this is a political documentary, and it has to be political in order to be effective. I also think that some of the topics in the film are a little too serious. One example is how we have turned the climate crisis into a global emergency, and another is how we have turned the environment crisis into a human crisis. But again, this is all political, so it doesn't matter. Overall, I think the film is a good one, and it's not the best of its kind, but still a very good documentary.
Tuesday, 07 Jul 2020 00:04

I saw this at a screening in Los Angeles and thought it was well done. While it didn't entirely resolve my issues with the Book of Revelation, it definitely changed my opinion on the issues it raised. The title seems to be based on the book itself, and I really think it was used more as a stand-alone film, so if that's what you're looking for, go for it. The only part I didn't like is the way the kids talk about the movie. They seem very interested in it and are super interested in it, but it's still a movie. They don't speak about it as anything, just as something that they're watching. When they get to talking about it, it's about the movie and it's their perspective. I'm not saying that's bad, it just seemed like they were trying to say the book of Revelation is a movie. You can tell that's what they were doing from the start, but the director didn't go for that. The movie isn't really about anything, just a collection of things that the kids saw. There's no attempt to focus on one of the themes, because it isn't there. But there are several times when they talked about the movie, and it felt very natural. They don't talk about the movie as anything, just something they're watching. I also felt the movie was incredibly different than what I had expected. The director is going from the book to a different world, where everything is different and they have different beliefs. I'm glad the director stuck with that. I didn't think it was a bad choice at all, and the director really pulled it off. I also loved the song at the end. I have never been a huge fan of the genre of folk music, but I thought it was very effective. While I'm not really a huge fan of the genre, I thought the music fit the mood perfectly. I also loved the kind of acting, especially from the kids. It was like a documentary on the experience of being an outsider in a family, and the way the parents acted seemed genuine. I don't know why I just didn't like it. I have a lot of feelings on the book of Revelation. I think it was very dark, and it was more about what was happening in the world than what the Bible said. But it's still a good story, and I think the director pulled it off. I liked it, but I'm not sure it's the best movie I've seen, but I definitely think it's better than I expected. I was very impressed by the acting, but I didn't really get a feeling of love from the movie. It's not that it was too dark or too lovey-dovey. I didn't feel like I was in love with the movie, it just seemed like a different place and time. I'm not really sure what I like about it, but I liked it, and it made me think.
Monday, 29 Jun 2020 23:12

First and foremost, I thought this documentary was great. I thoroughly enjoyed the content. The lead was especially likable and I have to admit I was very attracted to his writing style. I think he does a great job of keeping the focus of his writing and the narrative line of his characters, while managing to retain a sense of humor throughout. I did have a few complaints, however. There is a lot of narration throughout this documentary. It is somewhat distracting, but I understand that the time is being used to convey a feeling and provide context. However, I found that the narration was not accurate and did not provide the audience with a clear sense of the feelings the filmmakers are trying to convey. For example, in one scene, the reporter was telling a story about how he wanted to get into the music industry, but had not succeeded. He had to give up his apartment, his job, and some of his friends. I think the narration made it seem as though he had fallen behind in his endeavors and was just trying to catch up. I would not have been upset had the narration not been so intense and had he not had to give up his apartment, job, and friends. I would have appreciated if the narration would have remained as brief as it was throughout the whole documentary. In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed this documentary. I felt that it was honest and had an excellent balance of many different emotions. It would have been great if the narration were cut down, as it distracted from the main narrative, and it made it harder for the audience to get into the film. I think this is just a minor issue, however, and I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys documentary films.
Friday, 19 Jun 2020 12:02

Before I go further, I just want to say that there is a lot of information on this website for a long time, so I don't know why I didn't read this before. So, the movie had some information that I was expecting, such as the fact that some things are not in order. But what was really unexpected was the part that "brainless", which was based on the fact that everything we see has a "second effect", when the brain cannot take in a whole lot of information, and therefore does not have the same effect. There are some scientists who are saying that this is a new theory of evolution, but I think it's not. When I saw this movie, I thought that it could be like an experiment, where one person watching a whole movie would be stimulated, but this is not true. In my opinion, this movie should be evaluated more than the facts, but not as a scientific documentary. The facts are interesting, and the idea is really cool, but the movie is too long. I think that they should have cut the movie by 20 minutes. Also, they should have edited the movie to be shorter. For example, I have seen this movie about 5 times, and I'm glad that I watched it. I think that the movie could have been much better if they had cut some of the movie. Another thing is that there are some mistakes in the movie, such as not mentioning the fact that some people got out of the lab without a bag. Also, I think that there is no way to get out of a lab with a bag, and there was a point where I thought that they tried to get out of the lab, but this didn't happen. And I also thought that they should have cut the scenes with the man in the submarine. Lastly, I don't think that they could have made a good movie if they cut the "short" parts from the movie, such as when the boy takes the balloon, and he says: "It's a real balloon", or when the boy talks about the smell of death. In the end, this movie could have been much better. I give this movie a 6/10.
Thursday, 11 Jun 2020 15:28

From a design perspective, this documentary series of moving images is another example of documentary film-making. It focuses on a single story about a single individual in a single year. It also explores a very broad range of issues. From the economic crises that swept through Greece in 2011 to the effects of climate change, global warming, and war. The point is, the series could be considered a video blog. It explores a variety of subjects. It takes a look at a particular issue or group of subjects from the perspective of the director. It is like taking a look at an ongoing conversation among a group of people. It doesn't just cover a single issue, but it is also concerned with social issues, religious beliefs, music, and environmental issues. As a film-maker, it is a very interesting perspective on the world we live in. But the main question is, what is the difference between a documentary and a video blog? And it can be seen as either a blessing or a curse. For example, I have never seen a documentary about the workings of the Vatican as that video blog might be, but as a film-maker, I am still interested in this subject. The subject matters, so I am curious about how they will tell it. It may be hard to tell, as there are so many images and stories involved in a single project. This is a movie that shows the working of a single person, but it is not a documentary. As a film-maker, it is a movie that tells a story, but it isn't a documentary. So is it a blessing or a curse?
Saturday, 02 May 2020 15:41

This is the first feature film directed by James Cameron, the director who brought us the blockbuster movie, "Titanic" (2001). In "A Beautiful Planet" we get an inside look at his production of "Titanic", a historical epic epic, set in the 19th century, about the sinking of the Titanic and the plight of the passengers and crew, in what is known as the worst maritime disaster in history. One of the most entertaining aspects of the film, is the filmmaking of James Cameron. The dramatic camera-work and editing, is seamless, the editing and framing of scenes and the shots, is very tight, the film is set to a 3D in 2D effect, which is a good thing. The musical score by John Williams is well done, I think it should have gotten an Oscar for best film score, it has a lot of power and emotion, it is very effective. The actors are also very good. Naomi Watts is very good as Rose Brody, she is an accomplished actress, so this film was a major success in the Academy Awards. She was nominated for her work, but was not able to win the Oscar, so she is a great actress. The other actors are good as well. The visual effects and special effects in this film, are good, but the special effects are not up to the standard of the great special effects used in Titanic. The underwater shots, is really well done, but not as good as in Titanic. Overall, this is an enjoyable movie, with good acting, directing and special effects, but the special effects are not up to the standard of the great special effects used in Titanic.
Wednesday, 15 Apr 2020 10:03

We just finished watching this at the 2014 Baltimore International Film Festival. It's a documentary about one of the most unlikely but most successful cases of a woman's survival. At the time, of course, this case didn't really have a lot of fame, but now we have so many stories of women who died alone. The woman who did not have to fight for her life after being raped. The woman who couldn't leave the house because her husband was out with his friends and he'd shoot her. The woman who didn't have to worry about food, water or medicine because she was pregnant. And the woman who was "just" raped. All the while, we hear stories from the women, the men and the lawyers. It's a little slow at times, but we're getting an idea of the world that the women lived in. You never see any of them - just the women and their stories. As you might imagine, there are a lot of women who gave up. Most of the men who survived were given pardons or parole. And the women, the ones who got off easy, are shown as the exception. They live in poverty, on food stamps, and are only visible in TV news reports. You don't really see that many women in this documentary. I think the point is to show that women are victims of their own circumstance, not the way we would like to think. That is, when you watch it, you think of the women as heroic. Not necessarily. It's more of a commentary on the things we think we know. It's an interesting movie, but I think it could have been a little better. The director never really delves into the reasons why the women didn't fight for their lives. It's as if he just shows a lot of the things that women deal with everyday in their lives. And as you might imagine, he shows a lot of them. In fact, the only reason the woman who survives is even mentioned is because the documentary is based on the fact that she had to get a gun to protect herself and her unborn child. The reason she does not get a lot of attention is because she doesn't really have a very big role. All the other women in the documentary are very minor characters, and you don't really get a sense of their situations. For a documentary, this is probably a little excessive. But I think it's an important movie. And the women themselves are really interesting. There are lots of interviews, but you never get to know the women. We know that they were very fortunate in a way, but there are no details about them. The filmmaker has a lot of them to look at, and they are fascinating. I think the real strength of the documentary is that it doesn't really portray the women as heroic. They are just ordinary people. But it does a good job at showing how hard it is to get by in that situation. We get a sense that they are often denied food and medical care, and they get ignored by the law. You really see the real life of this case, because you see it from the women's point of view. The main question that is asked is "Why didn't they fight?" I don't know. I don't think they were asking that. I think they were asking "What do we have to live for?" And the answer is - a lot. You can just tell that they want to live, but it's really hard to do. I'm not sure that the filmmakers really tried to make it look like that. But it is a pretty compelling film. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in these issues. I thought it was pretty good. The filmmakers did a good job of making it a bit more of a documentary than you would expect. I think the women deserve better than what they have. We should probably just let them die. 7/10
Wednesday, 15 Apr 2020 04:02

Good documentary by director Terry George (Battleship) with this featurette, "What Would You Do?" by Paul Lukas. The director is simply amazed at the number of people he's encountered who have had the same thoughts, and equally astonished that they can also follow this type of life on the planet Earth. We're also shown one "high profile" example, that of the inventor of the lighter, Zalman King (Carl Linz), who found out about the ending of the 1950s oil boom and how much he had to take to keep up with the big ticket items, by living off the land, and flying airplanes. In fact, even before he discovered how little he was making, the only money he ever knew was from his seed business, he was making more than the rest of the country combined, and he thought he'd never make it, but then he saw how much the American consumer wanted, and it actually turned out he was right. The main reason this documentary is so enjoyable, is that the director has a fantastic sense of humor in the whole thing, not the least bit because of the Hollywood movies he's seen in the last several years. He tells us that a movie he's very fond of is a "Twilight Zone" episode about a man who accidentally switches sides and starts a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and the journalist who's trying to make the film more interesting for the public is the same journalist who's been trying to expose the deception of the film makers. I can only imagine what his reaction would have been, and even more I can only imagine the viewer. We see interviews with numerous subjects of this type of behavior, from a millionaire's wife who didn't even know that her husband was cheating on her, to a shy girl who came from a country where she didn't know anyone, to a few neighbors who had a war with their neighbors for reasons they had no idea, and finally to a variety of other subjects. The film is generally very entertaining, and all the interviews are entertaining, but it's the subject matter and some of the interviews with subject matter experts who are most interesting. The subject matter of the "Pluto" film and its director is also very interesting, and I was surprised to find out that the director of that film, Keith Kallenbach (The Contender, The Prodigy), is also the author of this documentary. The documentary ends with a brief picture of the famous author of the "Pluto" novel and the director's own book, and that was one of the main points of the film. The director does a nice job in showing us how much energy and work goes into making a film, but that doesn't really go into details of what goes into making a film. The documentary also includes interviews with many experts in the field, such as Douglas Brinkley, the director of one of the most important documentaries about the Vietnam War, Tom Shafer, the director of documentary "The Search for Excellence," and I especially liked this one because it's in Italian and includes a lot of interesting information about film making. The whole thing reminded me a lot of documentaries such as the one made about a certain research company, but I think George also did a great job in making it interesting and different from other documentaries. The documentary is an excellent documentary, and I enjoyed it very much.

Write a review