#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Amy

(46487) 7.8 128 min 2015

Amy is a movie starring Amy Winehouse, Mitch Winehouse, and Mark Ronson. Archival footage and personal testimonials present an intimate portrait of the life and career of British singer/songwriter Amy Winehouse.

Mark Ronson, Russell Brand, Mitch Winehouse, Amy Winehouse
Music, Documentary, Biography
Asif Kapadia

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 Music, Documentary, Biography
Director Asif Kapadia
Stars Mark Ronson, Russell Brand, Mitch Winehouse, Amy Winehouse
Country UK
Also Known As Amy: Az Amy Winehouse-sztori, Eimija, Amy - The Girl Behind the Name, Amy (la chica detrás del nombre), 艾美懷絲, Amy: The Girl Behind the Name, Untitled Amy Winehouse Documentary, Amy: Το κορίτσι πίσω από το όνομα, AMY エイミー, Ejmi, Raw: The Amy Winehouse Story
Runtime 2H 8M
Description A documentary on the life of Amy Winehouse, the immensely talented yet doomed songstress. We see her from her teen years, where she already showed her singing abilities, to her finding success and then her downward spiral into alcoholism and drugs.

Top reviews

Thursday, 02 Jul 2020 17:37

What would a rock band be without "Lead Me on, My Pretty, Will You Come Along With Me?" Not that they needed that kind of song in the first place but to have this tune being played in a rock concert in a few weeks' time is unbelievable! And the music video, which was quite good, was more than the music. With a title like "My Pretty Will Come Along With Me" you would think there would be some sort of porn element to it but there wasn't, it was all the songs played in the same sequence. The casting was perfect and they did a good job of making sure the boys looked like they really wanted to do the movie. What really touched me was the text that the boys had written up and the actual text that it was written out to. The writing and delivery of the text was so engaging and was much more than I expected. The actual writing on the outside of the boys' faces was quite clever and so I can see how that actually gave them a competitive edge. There were also some cool flashbacks that were shown during the movie. As the movie progressed I didn't know what would happen next. The movie just kept going in a rather normal way. I can't really say that I enjoyed the movie but I can say that it was pretty damn cool and it had me in tears! I really hope that there is a sequel to this movie. I don't think that I will be the only one that wants to see it and I would like to see the movie because it was an eye opener to me about how much money and power the music industry has on the music industry!
Saturday, 13 Jun 2020 02:34

One of the worst things about an amateur biography is the need to paint the hero or the villain, and Mary Evans and Mel Brooks didn't try to do that here. They were based on the real people. The film makers did a good job in showing us all sides of the band. I'm sorry the story wasn't better written or shown but who cares, you're never going to hear about the backstabbing until you watch the movie. I loved Mary Evans, I thought she was so good. There's a scene in the movie where she's lying to her dad about playing drums. She was the lead singer and she's telling him that she is an advanced guitarist who is supposed to take her stage time in Europe, but she's not a professional drummer. She's being forced to lie about it and when she admits that she doesn't really know, he asks if she can explain it in one hour. He's a little silly but hey, so is she. This is a movie about Mary Evans. Her only motive was to get a break from her husband, so she could go and play drums. If she was gay, or something, the movie would be about her. The movie did a good job showing the addiction of Mary, the relationships, and the difficulties. I think the movie got better and better as it went along. I thought it was moving and it was well-filmed and the soundtrack was good. The thing that I hated about this movie was the portrayal of the band. Mel Brooks played the villain of the story and showed us the true character of the band, Mel Evans, who was a real person, and a real musician. I think the movie was done well. I loved Mary Evans.
Saturday, 06 Jun 2020 07:39

This documentary, which takes a single night to tell the story of a musician and his family, has been written in a way that allows the viewer to take in the experience without having to read subtitles or consider more abstract points of view. With this in mind, the documentary manages to evoke both sympathy and dismay with this artist, whose music could easily become the soundtrack of the modern day, yet seems at times far removed from any sort of mainstream popularity, and an unexpected reflection on the way artists deal with the pressures of success. The most striking example of this is of course the album that I believe defines this artist's career, his album entitled "Supernova." In this album, Richard Stanley does his best to show how a young man grows up and comes to understand the limits of success, and how his maturity comes at a price. It is through his connection with his mother, played with such talent by Gina Philips, that the viewer is finally able to feel some measure of sympathy for his situation and his music, while also getting a clear sense of the place he occupies in the history of popular music. A central point of the documentary is the most mundane: that we should always respect the lives of the people we come in contact with, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. This documentary may be quite long, but for that is not a reason to criticize it. No, the film does so in order to focus on this single night of Richard Stanley's life, and show the impact it had on him, his family, and the people who listened to him. It is a surprisingly powerful, and very entertaining, piece of work. This film, though relatively short, shows us the impact that a single night in a musician's life has on us, and, in doing so, gives us the power to have empathy for a musician whose music has been acknowledged by many people who have never heard it before. Though I have not personally met anyone that does not appreciate Richard Stanley's music, I believe that he has made a significant contribution to the music industry, and I can only hope that he will continue to influence the people around him. This is a movie about one single night that in a few words, states clearly the importance of art.
Saturday, 09 May 2020 02:21

While I enjoyed "Singles" more than I did the "Cult Classic" documentary about the Rolling Stones, there's still some room for improvement. This is a fascinating film that uses archival footage, interviews, archival photographs, and archival music to go through the history of the Rolling Stones and their relationship with the fans of the time. It's a fascinating look into the heart and soul of rock & roll and just how valuable it is to have fans. I thought that the documentary was much more entertaining than I expected, and I can see why some of the fans of the Stones didn't like it. It did a great job of breaking down the backstage sides of the band, but I still don't really understand why, because I thought that it was all very controlled and impersonal, even in their love for each other. I guess the documentary makers wanted to do something so deep and detailed that they could go into detail about their love of music and how important they consider that aspect of their lives to them. That's why I say that they did a good job of representing the Rolling Stones in the documentary. I think that they do a great job of taking the archival footage and keeping it as current as possible, but the film still doesn't come across as being very well done. The archival footage from the Rolling Stones' recent concerts were great, but the documentary only gives a little bit more of the interviews and their later career, so it's not as thorough as the interviews. The documentary also doesn't give a lot of interviews with people that were in the band or know of it. It's mostly just music legends. I'm not sure what they're trying to say with this doc, and I'm not sure why it's so slow and not as entertaining as I thought it would be. However, it's still a good documentary. The archive footage is awesome and gives a nice look into the music history of the band and the fact that it was a two year project. It's not the greatest documentary out there, but it's still good and entertaining. 9/10
Tuesday, 21 Apr 2020 10:52

Anna Friel, a New Yorker who came to Hollywood in the mid-1980s to star in a handful of A-list comedies, including the Wreck-It Ralph movie, has stayed the same person in Hollywood. She has won awards for her work, been nominated for her work, and has made a lot of money. She also remains close to her mother, who died from cancer. Her life hasn't changed very much since the 1980s. That's what makes Anna Friel's film, Anna: A New Yorker, so remarkable. It is a telling look at Anna Friel's life, and it is also a teller of Anna Friel's life. Anna Friel's movie has the sort of technical magic that is uncommon in films of this type, but the film is not on the level of documentary work by professional filmmakers like Daniel Berg. The documentary portion of Anna Friel's movie works as a commentary on the lives of Anna Friel and her mother, whose love of the film industry is also an element of the movie. Anna Friel tells of how the film industry makes her mother happy and what a gift that is to her. The film then shows Anna Friel's relationships with other people. She and her sister are shown in flashbacks having a relationship in the 70s. Anna Friel has a relationship with a man and a woman she briefly dated. She also has a relationship with the man who has died, a stepfather. Anna Friel shows the films she has worked on, many of which are named after her work, but the film is not focused on the films. There are also flashbacks to her mother's death. We see Anna Friel's mother's memory and the emotions she feels, such as relief when the cancer is gone, and being sad and relieved that she will be home soon. She also tells of her mother's relationship with the director of the film, Walter Paulson, who died in 2013. The film ends with her making a film with her father, a filmmaker she had a brief relationship with, who has made some films and is dying, so it is also a ending she has not seen coming. The story of Anna Friel's life has the feeling of a documentary, but it is not a documentary in the traditional sense. Anna Friel makes a living by appearing in films. As she says, she is a star. She also said she is a star because she "can make a buck," and this film is a big buck. It is true that the film industry provides Anna Friel with a steady income, but the film industry does not have the prestige and glamor of a university or a film school. The film she makes is of the same quality as it is a huge business. Even though Anna Friel is no longer a star, she still makes good money. She makes a decent living, but she also has a long-term relationship with her mother and a relationship with her stepfather, who has died. She also has a relationship with a friend, Mark Wahlberg. She also has relationships with other people. She is very successful in Hollywood. She has helped make a lot of movies, including the Wreck-It Ralph movie, the movie about a depressed, drunk, depressed woman named Anna. She has also had an influence on the way that these films are made. She has helped create such films as Wreck-It Ralph, the movie that inspired Wreck-It Ralph, the Dark Knight movie, and this film, Anna. She has also changed the way the film industry works.
Tuesday, 21 Apr 2020 10:14

I've been thinking about the "good parts" of 'Atonement' for a couple of days and, after listening to the narration from Mary Harper (the mother of a couple of the kids) it has been made very clear that there are good things about 'Atonement'. I haven't read the book myself, but I will soon. However, one thing that did irk me was the fact that the narrator is totally out of touch with the issues of post-traumatic stress disorder. The narration does a good job of getting her across that it is normal to be in a temporary state of PTSD, however it does a poor job of giving us the details of how it manifests itself. She basically says that it is a bad mood. For anyone who has dealt with it it would be easy to dismiss this as a kind of 'pathetic' excuse for saying that a girl can't handle an experience like her daughter's. However, it also seems to suggest that PTSD has nothing to do with any sort of 'trauma', and therefore it is perfectly OK to not handle the experience of trauma. There is a bit of time spent on discussing the victim's perspective, but I felt that it did not go deep enough. Also, the fact that Harper's mother was told she was dying before she was able to get any treatment from the police, makes it hard to understand how a person who would get hurt during a traumatic event could be OK after it. The narrator's constant references to the good and the bad parts of the 'family' really seemed to be a self-serving ruse. To me, this was inane and could be seen as a subtle way of saying that the narrator doesn't know how much she knows. I do think that it is worth seeing this movie, but it is not the film that I would recommend to anyone who has not read the book. If you want to see a good, insightful look at the way PTSD works, then I strongly recommend 'Atonement' by Christopher Gardner.

Write a review