#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch What You Gonna Do When the World's on Fire?

(610) 6.8 123 min 2018

What You Gonna Do When the World's on Fire? is a movie starring Judy Hill, Dorothy Hill, and Michael Nelson. What You Gonna Do When The World's On Fire is the story of a community of black people in the American South during the...

Starring
Ronaldo King, Judy Hill, Dorothy Hill, Michael Nelson
Genres
Documentary
Director
Roberto Minervini

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 Roberto Minervini
Writer Roberto Minervini
Stars Ronaldo King, Judy Hill, Dorothy Hill, Michael Nelson
Country France, Italy, USA
Also Known As Che fare quando il mondo è in fiamme?, Ka darysi, kai pasaulis degs?, What You Gonna Do When the World's on Fire, Co zrobisz, gdy świat stanie w ogniu?, ¿Qué vas a hacer cuando el mundo esté en llamas?
Runtime 2H 3M
Description What You Gonna Do When The World's On Fire is the story of a community of black people in the American South during the summer 2017, when a string of brutal killings of black men sent shockwaves throughout the country. A meditation on the state of race in America, this film is an intimate portrait into the lives of those who struggle for justice, dignity, and survival.

Top reviews

Saturday, 11 Jul 2020 05:48

Watching "When the World's on Fire" was like watching a documentary on the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. There was a constant stream of perspectives and stories that I didn't expect to hear about 9/11. The story of Salim Muhammed, an Iraqi man whose life was destroyed by Saddam Hussein, who is now recovering in a British hospital, is really the central focus. Salim's story is one of untold brutality. He's in a wheelchair, but he carries on with his job as a street sweeper and his son's dreams. When we first meet Salim, he is at the end of a long, long and difficult journey to find refuge in Britain after being kicked out of Iraq. Salim's story also takes us on a journey to the home of the son of the American diplomat that Salim fled to. The viewer is taken on a journey to understand what motivates the young man, and why it is so important for him to reach out to the man he never knew, and help him to be able to work again, after a long and tough trip to Britain. Salim, now a struggling actor and a Briton without a home, is welcomed by the British people and gets a chance to share his story. The story of Salim's struggle in Iraq and his struggle to be able to start over in Britain is a difficult one, but the powerful message of his story is to never give up. I was in a very unusual situation with Salim, but I don't think any other person could have been in a similar situation as I was. It's sad to see how much things have changed for Salim. Salim could have been a better person, but that is a reflection of a much larger issue. It's important to stand up for what you believe in. People can never give up, and it's important that we stand up and show that we can be different, and that it is possible. It is difficult to change things, but it is possible to change things if we are willing to try. If you watch "When the World's on Fire" you will learn something, but I can't emphasize that enough. The stories, the perspectives, the struggles, and the emotions that Salim and his family are living through are enough to keep you interested in the film. It's a film that shows that we can change things, and I will encourage anyone to see this film.
Thursday, 09 Jul 2020 10:36

The title of this documentary refers to an article which appeared in the New York Times. It was entitled 'A new American mood,' and it is a beautiful poem, perhaps more appropriate than anything written by Ferris Bueller, for describing the mood of the people at that time. This film is about the New York Stock Exchange, and about the various students and public officials who were students at Columbia in the 1970s. Their stories, which are pretty similar to those of the other people in the movie, are as good as any that you could find about Columbia. However, when you get down to it, they are not the same people. The people who are interviewed are also pretty different. One thing that makes the film fascinating is that you can really tell who the interviewees are by looking at them. If you are a student at Columbia, then you have the personality of the interviewee, which was reflected in the many images that the movie shows. The same is true for the other people interviewed. For example, one interviewee, Margaret Mason, was a real newspaper reporter. She had a story about the history of the New York Stock Exchange and she wrote a book about the history. However, another interviewee, Oded Rabinovich, was a lawyer who worked for a company that specialized in securities. He wrote the film's summary, which describes his background. However, you will also see that he was not an academic who was a great historian, but a lawyer, a journalist, and a leader of a class that talked about issues in the 1970s. Another similarity that you will notice is that there are some similarities in the personalities of the people interviewed. For example, one of the people interviewed was John Kellogg, who was the Treasury Secretary, and the President of Columbia University. As a student at Columbia, Kellogg could not help but be a student of financial and economic issues. This does not necessarily mean that he was the most intelligent man in America, but it meant that he was not the least intelligent. Kellogg also wrote the financial and economic history of the world, and it is fascinating to learn that he had a similar outlook to the people interviewed. Another person interviewed was another student, the Vice President of the Columbia University News Corporation, Joseph Verbano. Verbano was a lawyer who was a leader of the Columbia students. This was a time when law schools were becoming more and more diverse, and Verbano made the News Corporation an institution that included diversity. You can tell that Verbano was the person who talked
Sunday, 05 Jul 2020 18:20

A good documentary, with excellent balance in both an A and B scale. The highlight of the documentary is a discussion on the theme of climate change, by Kenji Lopez-Rivas, which is truly a mind-blowing talk, and not to be missed. I love the concept of a "clean energy revolution", a "peace revolution", and the evolution of a millennial society. I am so pleased that we have a film made to tackle these issues, and I also loved how the subject of climate change is presented and researched. Unfortunately, it is what happened with many of these documentaries, that makes the difference. The amount of time spent on climate change, and the amount of time devoted to the funding of this documentary, are both very poor. It is absolutely shocking that the core subject of this documentary is spent on the vilification of carbon emission, and how it has cost lives, and endangered health, in the US, which is the biggest emitter of CO2. Unfortunately, in my opinion, that is where the majority of funding of this documentary goes. This is not a politically-correct documentary, which does not do justice to the topic at hand. It has a lot of facts, which is what one would expect from a documentary about climate change, but they were quite misleading at times. I believe that it is good to look at the global scale of the problem, but if they are talking about the United States of America, as in this documentary, it is not a very good representation, which is why I do not believe the title of this documentary was appropriate.
Monday, 22 Jun 2020 10:18

The first thing I notice about this film is that it is not hard to follow. Even though you have to wait to see a minute of the interview, you know what's going on. The documentary takes a lot of time to get to the point, but does not slow down. From the beginning of the Iraq War, to the most recent news of the current Bush administration. The first part goes into the highlights of the president's first 100 days in office, and the greatest moment of the movie. From Vietnam, to the Gulf War. These are the big moments that are talked about, but they are not the only moments. In fact, there is a whole section in the movie about the things that have happened to George Bush. The guy still doesn't know who he is. For example, after 9/11, the president went to the Bay Area and met with his CIA Director. This is when he started to understand who he was. I think that he has a massive amount of knowledge about foreign policy, but doesn't have the knowledge or the ability to lead it. Maybe it's because of the experience of his father. The way that he talks about it makes it seem like the lack of experience. The other interesting part is the interview with a former CIA Agent, and his thoughts on George Bush. In the end of the interview, I was impressed how well the question and answer is structured. He's the one who has the experience of the White House. And I think that he has a lot to say about how much is he truly a part of the Bush's regime. I think that the best parts of the movie come from the interview with the former CIA Agent. The only thing that really bothered me was the fact that the question and answer were not clear. This does not really affect the movie at all, because you already knew what was going to be said. The documentary shows you the war and the danger of the situation in Iraq. But because of the lack of the answers, you don't understand the importance of the time and place that this movie was created. Even though the answer was almost given to you, you still didn't get the full value of it. I give it an 8 out of 10.
Monday, 18 May 2020 04:18

How to name a film title like this? A search engine made that easy. "The World's on Fire: Apocalypse Now Redux". Please. It's far more complicated than that. If you're looking for a film with large technical merits (or perhaps the technical merits of the film itself), try "Survivor: Extreme Condition". If you want to learn more about the second part of the film, try "Apocalypse Now: Insurgent". If you're after a "catalogue of best flicks" look at "Apocalypse Now: The Blackout and the Color Purple" - not one of those "silly silly titles". Those are also not among the titles. What's important about "Apocalypse Now Redux" is the way it follows the story of the film as an extended extended version. A good film that continues to follow the story has to be "The Room: The Escape" - and this is about the worst. You can't quite tell when the film's beginning is a retelling of the beginning, and when it's the last. The dialogue is incomprehensible - perhaps a reflection of the time, perhaps not. Sometimes the film seems to be giving us flashbacks to things we don't want to see, to things we don't know, and so on. I love this movie - I think it's one of the best - but it's not for me. My wife and I saw it several times in the theatre. It's a terrible film. Sorry - it's not. Just one word for the director, and the actor: watch "Apocalypse Now: Insurgent". It's more than just a sequel to the original film - it's an excellent film. You can't say the same thing about "The World's on Fire". It's a good film - but it's not for me. "Apocalypse Now: Redux" is a "catalogue of best flicks". It's a retelling of the story - not a film.
Thursday, 23 Apr 2020 11:12

The great thing about this documentary is that it includes a significant amount of interviews from the top scientists in the field, and it clearly illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific paradigm of the time. Although I am not a scientist, I have learned a lot about physics and evolution from this film, so that is certainly a bonus. However, I think this film does fall short in several key areas. First, it is entirely superficial, relying almost exclusively on interviews of Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, and a handful of other scientists. The film completely ignores discussions of major contributors like B.S. Newton, Robert Millikan, and Sir Isaac Newton. Instead it focuses on Dawkins, the philosopher, and his views. This also seemed to have a great deal of an emphasis on his "God is not Dead" episode and his contention that he is the one that is actually behind the evolution theory. While I understand Dawkins and the theory of evolution, I'm not so sure what Dawkins thinks about these issues. It's also not clear how much of the claims in this film are fact. For example, if you ask me to believe that the average life span of a giant predatory dinosaur is 130-150 years, I'd probably have to think a little. I wouldn't be so sure of that, however, if you also asked me to believe that the average lifespan of a human is much longer. I've read the books "Origins of the Species" by Stephen Jay Gould, and "The Last Tyrannosaurus" by Elizabeth Logan, and I've seen the Discovery Institute's documentary "Reptiles and Men". These books are filled with discussion of the implications of evolution and evolutionary biology for the future of human civilization, but that's not all they discuss. The last book I can think of that makes a good case against evolution is "Why Evolution is True" by Carl Sagan, which I have not read, but apparently is filled with really good scientific arguments. Again, I'm not so sure how much of these arguments is fact. Even if this movie was accurate, it wouldn't necessarily make a great documentary. The movie was only two hours long, so it would be better if it was longer. Secondly, the film spends too much time on personal interviews of these scientists. I think it would have been better if they had gone a little deeper and interviewed the top scientists in other areas. It also would have been better if the movie focused on their views on evolution. While there are definitely a lot of scientists who are pro-evolution, I think there is


Write a review