#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch The Kingmaker

(784) 7.6 101 min 2019

The Kingmaker is a movie starring Noynoy Aquino III, Benigno Aquino, and Corazon Aquino. An extraordinary look into the controversial political career of Imelda Marcos, this documentary tells a cautionary tale of a powerful female...

Benigno Aquino, Corazon Aquino, Andres Bautista, Noynoy Aquino III
Lauren Greenfield

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 Lauren Greenfield
Writer Lauren Greenfield
Stars Benigno Aquino, Corazon Aquino, Andres Bautista, Noynoy Aquino III
Country USA, Denmark
Also Known As Kungamakaren Imelda Marcos, Imelda Marcos, kuninkaantekijä, Ważniejsza od królów, 大權在后:前第一夫人伊美黛, Kungamakerskan
Runtime 1H 41M
Description An extraordinary look into the controversial political career of Imelda Marcos. As the former first lady of the Philippines, Imelda Marcos is best known for her opulent lifestyle, but it was her behind-the-scenes influence of her husband's presidency that rocketed her to the global political forefront. A journey through the Marcos family's long history of corruption, extravagance and brutality, this documentary tells a cautionary tale of a powerful female leader whose questionable sense of reality divided a nation.

Top reviews

Wednesday, 08 Apr 2020 06:27

I was one of those people who said that the Civil War was all that mattered. I had not seen any documentary that showed what a real war is, how devastating it can be, how life-giving it can be, how it makes the lives of the young, who are forced to fight, so much easier, as well as the families and loved ones of those who die. I had heard that the Civil War is "over" with now. I had seen the movie "The Birth of a Nation," but as a huge Civil War fan, I knew that I would not like the movie because of the portrayal of the Union. I had not expected to like the movie, but I was very impressed. The war is shown in an honest way. We see the people living on both sides, some that were enslaved, some that did not, and some that fought against the Union. It was clear that it was a human war, not just a "War of Northern Independence" as we hear in the movie. I thought the best part of the movie was when they showed the Union and the Confederate general Robert E. Lee and how he fought against the Union and for the Confederacy. It was very moving. I will watch it again, especially when I am going to the Civil War site. I was so impressed with the movie. It showed the harsh reality of the Civil War, how the Union was victorious, how the North won the war, but there were so many children that died. The movie also showed the difference between the North and the South, the white versus the black. The movie also showed the slaves. The movie was very inspiring. The portrayal of the Civil War as a human war and how it affected people was very real. I also liked the way they showed the war between the North and the South. The North won the war, but it was because of the Union, and the South won because of the Confederacy. The movie was very well done. I highly recommend it.
Sunday, 05 Apr 2020 15:19

In the absence of any serious international war, how can the world be prepared to fight a war with an ally if their leader is evil? How can a country that's a superpower be so concerned with their borders and citizens that they don't care about civilians? The film answers these questions in "Kingmaker," the first nonfiction account to take a close look at the politics of American policy in the Middle East. The movie doesn't go into a great deal of detail, but it provides a comprehensive survey of the key events in the Middle East. The movie starts with the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, followed by the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This analysis reveals that although the Bush administration has committed itself to the goal of "regime change" in Iraq, they are actually planning to destabilize the country, to take over government institutions, and to use Saddam Hussein as a pawn to topple the government of Egypt. The invasion of Iraq is arguably the biggest example of U.S. imperialism since the French colonial conquest of Algeria in 1830. The film also reveals that the Americans and the Brits were complicit in Saddam Hussein's regime. For example, the Americans were the ones who initiated the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military was fully involved in the genocide of the Iraqi people. The U.S. government, with the support of the British and French, was responsible for the destruction of Iraq and for the war in Afghanistan. The movie also reveals that the Bush administration was directly involved in the decision to invade Iraq. A good movie would have been a great relief from the horror of 9/11, but the Bush administration has proved itself to be so far removed from the historical record that the movie is worthless. The movie was produced by two Americans, F.D.R. himself and Robert Redford, and it's an important document of the history of American policy in the Middle East.
Thursday, 26 Mar 2020 17:25

In this hour-long interview with several important people in the US and abroad, Robert Greenwald tells a compelling story. To tell the story of an attack that took place some time ago in the United Kingdom, he would have to tell the story of many Americans who have come home, their families, their friends, and even their enemies, to see this story, while he wouldn't have much time to tell his own story, which is why he is doing this interview. I knew about the Iraq war for many years, but I've never really been interested in politics. However, this film changed my perspective. I had never heard anything about the Iraq war until this film. I was shocked. I never thought that this country would be involved in war, especially with the declaration of war against Iraq. However, I wasn't really aware of the problems that the people there were facing. In this film, Robert Greenwald tells the story of the war in Iraq and what caused it. The interviews are from various parts of the world, and he answers questions from different parts of the world. These are the people that Robert Greenwald has interviewed. They tell the stories of the people in Iraq and all the problems they face. However, the people in the interview are very passionate about the war in Iraq. I think it was important for me to know the people who were in Iraq. For those who are interested in seeing this film, I highly recommend it. It is very well done and I found it extremely important. I would say that this is a great film, and it should be watched by everyone. It is important that we all know what is going on, and that we all have an opinion. It is very important that we all have the power to speak up for ourselves. If we don't, then the future is going to be very scary, very violent, very scary, and very sad. We should all be very aware of the dangers that we face, and I think that this film is very important in showing us what is going on. I would also like to talk about the film's subject matter. The film focuses on the war in Iraq, but it also talks about the war in Afghanistan, and many other things. It is a great film, and it should be watched by everyone.
Wednesday, 25 Mar 2020 23:30

In his usual manner, director Andrew Adams has created a stunning visual masterpiece of the human soul in the form of "The Kingmaker," a four-hour documentary that exposes the failures of the military and the chaotic, but still influential, CIA in the pursuit of world domination. "Kingmaker" is a series of interviews with those who were part of the various attempts to overthrow the governments of Iran, Syria, and Iran-Iraq-Kuwait. We learn the methods used by the CIA in bringing these regimes to heel, and we hear how CIA officials justified their actions as part of the "lessons learned" of their previous experiences. "Kingmaker" is a powerful and penetrating examination of the CIA's (and other intelligence agencies') use of violence, murder, and espionage in pursuit of regime change. This is a major contribution to the growing body of work documenting the CIA's involvement in regime change in other countries, most notably Libya and Cuba. Adams shows us how the CIA took advantage of its access to highly placed intelligence officials, and how its operatives routinely engaged in the types of activities that led the CIA to engage in the overthrow of governments. Adams also takes us on a personal journey to learn more about the CIA's most important role in the events of the Middle East. Adams' subjects include former CIA director William Casey, the former head of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Bob Baer, a CIA officer who was responsible for the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of Libya's ruler Muammar Qaddafi, and the late Philip Agee, a former CIA officer who was responsible for the overthrow of the Syrian government. These individuals reflect upon the various ways in which the CIA chose to engage in regime change. Their insights about the CIA's actions are reflected in their own unique way. Adams also makes the point that the CIA was more concerned with "waging war" than it was with promoting democracy. This is certainly the case with the people who made the decision to topple the government of Iran and Syria. Adams' argument is clear. The CIA pursued a policy of promoting violence and regime change in the Middle East, and it did so through its proxy organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The CIA also instigated the overthrow of the governments of Iraq and Libya. The directors of the CIA and the State Department, under pressure from the White House, decided to initiate the overthrow of the governments of Iran and Syria. The program was initiated not by the CIA but by the White House. "Kingmaker" provides an excellent window into the CIA's failures in the Middle East and its attempts to overturn the governments of Iran, Syria, and Libya. This is a powerful film that will be of great importance to anyone who wants to learn more about the CIA and its practices. It is the best documentary I've ever seen about the CIA's involvement in regime change in the Middle East. It is important to understand the CIA's "lessons learned" in order to appreciate what the CIA did in the Middle East. Adams' film is also a valuable book that anyone can read. I highly recommend it.
Sunday, 22 Mar 2020 16:00

Martin, here in the US for the first time since 2008, is giving a lecture about this film and the saga it has become, as a turning point in Hollywood's "right-wing" effort to rewrite the story of Queen Elizabeth I. By focusing on the marriage of the young William and the late Jane, and the disaster that it was, the film makers managed to land a few hits with their one liners and entertaining visual stories. However, it would be a crime to overlook the great political (and even moral) implications of the Kingmaker itself. In a nutshell, it was a moment in British history where a tiny group of men, led by Lord Lancaster, the puppet leader of the House of Lords, rose up against the strong hand of Parliament and the reigning monarch. Lancaster's main argument is that King James VI of Scotland is too decadent and decadent, and thus, should not be allowed to retain the crown. His methods are brutal and ruthless: if a woman is found to be unfaithful to her husband, the king has a good chance of getting rid of her and marrying her off to some other man. Even more, if a man is found to be unfaithful to his wife, the king can turn him into a "macho" killer. After one such man was executed for his sexual "adultery", James II declared war on the Scots. As a result, the King of England had an opportunity to rule England. Unfortunately, he did not. The situation was so desperate that Lord Lancaster (played brilliantly by Hugh Bonneville) had no choice but to go to war with the Scots. This is where the film really got interesting, as Bonneville and two other men, one of whom is played by Paul Bettany, the other by Sir Ian Holm, get to speak for the "pro-war" side of the lobby. They are not afraid to speak openly about the injustice of war. The audience can see the disgust and humiliation in the faces of the leading members of the "pro-war" lobby, who have had their careers ruined and careers destroyed by the war, by having their men dishonorably executed by the king and then being forced into service under his command. And when one of the leading members of the pro-war lobby says that the "whole thing was a mistake", the audience is just as shocked and disgusted. These men are speaking out against a war that would have killed millions and taken hundreds of thousands of lives, but instead, they are fighting for the war they have been promised by their king. Instead of going to war for England, they are fighting for the king's honor, which is the same honor as fighting for the king's army. The film would have been better served if it had allowed the audience to see that this argument was the core of the pro-war lobby's argument. Instead, the film dwelled too much on the personal flaws of those involved, which made it a bit boring and unfocused. And if that weren't bad enough, the film was given a director who did not care about historical accuracy. Perhaps the best scene in the film was the screening of the original Kingmaker, which has been in the public domain for years. The audience is treated to a whole-screen "overhead shot" of King James II, in full military regalia, standing behind the royal family, with all of his men standing in his army, and the royal family smiling in the background, surrounded by their army. The audience is treated to the same scene, except that the King of England and his army have not gathered, as they have with other movies, at the end of the war. In fact, the film even shows the king sitting on the throne, and his troops sitting in the background, and the people laughing and cheering. This is simply not right. You can't have a war movie without a war scene. I felt that the filmmakers were trying to play on the audience's emotion. They were trying to make us feel sad and angry and disappointed. In a way, that was successful, but that wasn't the only reason why this film was a failure. The film makers should have made the film a bit more objective. It would have made for a more true to life, and less

Write a review