#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Citizen Jane: Battle for the City

(608) 7.0 92 min 2016

Citizen Jane: Battle for the City is a movie starring Thomas Campanella, Vincent D'Onofrio, and Mindy Fullilove. Writer and urban activist Jane Jacobs fights to save historic New York City during the ruthless redevelopment era of...

Mindy Fullilove, Vincent D'Onofrio, Alexander Garvin, Thomas Campanella
Documentary, Biography, History
Matt Tyrnauer

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, Biography, History
Director Matt Tyrnauer
Stars Mindy Fullilove, Vincent D'Onofrio, Alexander Garvin, Thomas Campanella
Country USA
Also Known As Kampen for New York, Citizen Jane, ジェイン・ジェイコブズ ニューヨーク都市計画革命, Untitled Cities Documentary
Runtime 1H 32M
Description Writer and urban activist Jane Jacobs fights to save historic New York City during the ruthless redevelopment era of urban planner Robert Moses in the 1960s.

Top reviews

Sunday, 28 Jun 2020 18:51

Lest anyone think this is a documentary on the The Philippines' campaign for the Rizal Memorial and Heroes' Memorial, I would like to point out that the movie is a political expose on how the Philippines' national election was handled and on how that might affect future elections. The movie's title comes from a symbolic poem, the Battle for the City, which was allegedly written by the late general Ferdinand Marcos (the same name he chose for his own presidential library and presidential residence, while he was still president of the Philippines). It is said to have been first published in 1975, but it was not until 2005 that it was published as the first of three volumes of the Philippine Revolution Archive. The Battle for the City was an attempt to overthrow the Marcos regime that took place in 1972. It was the worst incident in the history of the Philippines, and it is estimated that at least 200,000 people lost their lives. The movie is a historical document and a political one as well, as it attempts to show how the Rizal Memorial and the Heroes' Memorial were constructed and who financed the project. In other words, the movie examines the elections as well as the politics behind the elections. This film is a good example of how the politics of the country and the Philippines, during the decades of dictatorship, shaped the national and international perception of the country. One thing that has been often mentioned in the movie is the alliance between Marcos and the Japanese government during the war in the Philippines, which brought him to power. This alliance had a negative effect on the future of the country, and was used to convince the world that the country was not democratic. The movie shows how these events shaped the country and how, at the end of the movie, it was revealed that the Philippines was the only country to have its independence from Japan. This is a documentary that needs to be seen to understand how the country was ruled during the times of dictatorship.
Thursday, 11 Jun 2020 00:53

This is an important documentary that attempts to educate the public about the historical significance of the Westport, CT incident that occurred during the Boston Massacre in 1770. A doctor, a historian and a filmmaker each offer their own unique perspective on the significance of the Westport Massacre. These people had been researching the historical events surrounding the massacre for many years and bring their knowledge to bear on the film. The film does not have the interest and feel of a regular documentary. Instead it is an intimate look into the minds and perspectives of these historians and film makers. They discuss the history of the Westport Massacre and its role in the history of America. The topics discussed include the historical significance of the Westport Massacre and the impact it had on the American Revolution and World War I. The film does not present all the facts in detail but rather leaves the viewer with the opportunity to take in the significance of the events. One of the most fascinating things about the film is that the three experts are completely separate from one another. The three people are, in essence, completely different people with different perspectives. They also don't necessarily agree on everything and this is the key to the depth of the film. Each person brings their own interpretation of the historical events and the film is one of those rare documentaries that both gives an objective view of the historical events and also leaves the viewer with an interpretation of the historical events. This film was a part of the Boston Documentary Festival and was an excellent choice for a documentary that focuses on the Westport Massacre. There was no footage from the actual massacre and some of the participants in the Westport Massacre did not appear in the film. If you are interested in the history of the Westport Massacre or the history of the Boston Massacre, you will love this documentary.
Monday, 08 Jun 2020 10:07

This documentary looks at the battle of the image. In the late 90's the digital age began to change how we communicate. Now people are not just communicating digitally, they are talking to each other digitally and communicating digitally. The term "cyberbullying" was coined. But what does it mean? Where does it come from? How does it affect the individuals involved? The film explores this question from the perspective of a community whose culture is changing, from the technology and entertainment industry. I would say that this film is an improvement over the typical popular documentary. The film is informative and insightful and it is well edited. But I feel that there were too many questions asked in the film and not enough answers given. The biggest drawback I found in the film was the overuse of the word "bullying." What exactly is bullying? Why is it bad? What are the consequences for the individuals involved? What is bullying and what is its definition? I also felt that the film went on too long. I think that I could have left it in more than two hours but I still felt that there was more that could have been said. Overall, I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to know more about the changing image of media and what is bullying. However, I believe that it could have been better. The documentary is excellent in both its story and its editing. But I think that the question that needs to be asked is what does bullying look like? What are the consequences? What are the consequences for the individual who is involved? For the families who have to deal with this?
Wednesday, 20 May 2020 14:38

Overall, I'm not a huge fan of biopics, but this was really well done. It's really interesting to see how the changes in social consciousness has impacted the evolution of American society. In many ways, this is the most accurate portrayal of how the world has changed in recent years. In this case, the primary focus was on the social change of the 60's and 70's. The documentary isn't too long and there aren't a whole lot of voice-over narration (which I was very happy about), but it is a well-told story. The way the footage is presented is just as it was in those years. There are several interviews with people that the film targets to. As much as I liked the style of the film, I was disappointed with the pacing. For a biopic, it's long. I don't really mind a biopic that is much longer. It helps the story to stick more to the subjects' lives. This film does that. I think it is very important to give the subject of the documentary something to talk about. The story focuses on how much time they have in which to think about things. It is interesting to see that both people that were in the movement in the 60's and 70's and people who were in the movement in the 80's and 90's have a similar perspective. It really does make the film interesting. The issue of the time frame is a little awkward, but I guess that is the film's purpose. I would say the pacing is perfect. In some ways, the film is too long. The film does get a little drawn out at times. I was very glad that the film ended with all the interviews. I was very interested to learn more about the women in the movement. I think that the film did a very good job of portraying how much the women in the movement were important to the movement. Overall, I give this film a strong 7/10. It is very interesting, well told, and is well presented. I would definitely recommend this film.
Tuesday, 21 Apr 2020 23:16

It's kind of cool to see a movie that has a very well-rounded and well-developed story that is actually an interesting and compelling story. This movie tells the story of women who fought in the American Revolution (the movie does not take place in the French Revolution, but in the American Revolution, i.e. the French Revolution). This is a movie that is very well-made and that is based on fact. I really loved the way the movie explained the whole story, and it actually made sense, as opposed to all the Hollywood movies that make you think about the movie before you see it, and make you go and find out that the story is not true. There are many people who have not heard of the story of the American Revolution (the American Revolution) and they would not understand it, but they would still be able to understand it. This movie is very interesting and very well-written. The history of the American Revolution is told in a very well-paced way, the film also tells the story of the women who fought, the men who fought, and the people who were either part of the American Revolution or were born in America. This is a movie that shows the love and passion of these women, and how they suffered, as well as the love and passion of these men who were fighting for their country and the respect of their countrymen. It shows the love of these women for their country, and the love of these men for their country. It also shows the passion of these men, and the love of these women. I think this is a very well-made and well-written movie. I am not saying that I loved every single thing that this movie had to say, but I definitely enjoyed it. This movie is definitely not a movie that I would recommend to all people, but it definitely is a movie that I would recommend to people who have never heard of the American Revolution.
Tuesday, 21 Apr 2020 22:49

This documentary was directed by Leigh Taylor-Johnson (of Reel People fame) and filmed in New York City. He and his wife Elisabeth Paltrott (of the best-selling girl power book series "Boys" and "The New Girl") are a pair of New York-based, feminist activists and documentarians who have been involved in many political campaigns over the past decade. Their last project was a documentary about the campaign of then-Congresswoman Mary Jo Kopechne (D-AZ) to pass a women's right to choose bill. They were well aware of the difficulty of producing an all-out feminist documentary, but decided to focus on Kopechne's candidacy and the issue of the right to choose. The documentary opens in 1993 with a brief discussion of the fact that Kopechne would not be able to vote, because her marriage to a man was out of order. The film follows the two women throughout her campaign. They discuss Kopechne's record and how it may have affected her support from the LGBT community and among the population as a whole. They also discuss Kopechne's political positions, including a move to the left on civil rights issues and a move to the right on abortion. The film does not focus on any specific candidate, but instead focuses on the issues of abortion, gender equality and abortion access. There is a significant emphasis on the marriage between Kopechne and her doctor, Dr. Edward Szabo. Their conversations were very personal and their views on the issues are echoed by others in the audience. The first half of the film deals with Kopechne's campaign and her relationships with other candidates, but as the campaign goes on, the film shows how much the campaign affected Kopechne's personal life, which included the birth of her first child, an illness, a divorce, and the death of her mother. The film also shows the impact of the campaign on her marriage and how the campaign affected her personal life. The documentary ends in 1996, after Kopechne lost the election to state Senator Terrence Henry. Kopechne was on a career downward spiral and was disinherited. A lot of the interviews with Kopechne are so touching and personal that you would have to be pretty down on yourself to not be touched. This film was a personal look at a very important and controversial issue, but it also had a lot of hard truths. It's a very compelling documentary and well worth seeing.

Write a review