#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch King Georges

(448) 6.8 77 min 2015

King Georges is a movie starring Nicholas Elmi and Georges Perrier. Documentary about Philadelphia restaurateur Georges Perrier and the closing of his iconic restaurant, Le Bec-Fin.

Starring
Georges Perrier, Nicholas Elmi
Genres
Documentary, Biography
Director
Erika Frankel

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
Director Erika Frankel
Writer Erika Frankel
Stars Georges Perrier, Nicholas Elmi
Country USA
Runtime 1H 17M
Description Documentary about Philadelphia restaurateur Georges Perrier and the closing of his iconic restaurant, Le Bec-Fin.

Top reviews

Tuesday, 07 Apr 2020 23:48

In both the French Revolution and the French Revolution, the original French title, "La Galette de Saint-Denis," is the more contemporary and informative of the two titles. In France, the film was actually shot in 1984. The plot centers around the life of Henriette Galette, the first woman to hold the title of "King of France," who in 1818 became the first queen of the French monarchy. She was born Henriette de Lassigny, and later, "King of the French." Henriette was a gifted artist, and this history of her life and art is based on historical documents. She was born on September 23, 1761. At age eight, she was married to Joseph de Moles, a friend of the French royal family, and the two had three children. When the 1818 revolution broke out, Henriette had already fled to England, but she was discovered by the government and sent to prison. She spent three years in prison, and was forced to learn how to read and write French. While incarcerated, she discovered that the French Revolution was being carried out by her father, who had been assassinated as a revolutionary leader. Henriette went to court to make a complaint, but was informed that no man could make a complaint, so she was held in jail until she was twenty years old. There, she learned that her father had been assassinated because he had grown too proud to be a revolutionary leader. One year later, on October 30, 1820, she became the first queen of France, and she was coronated on December 12, 1821. After her coronation, Henriette fell into poverty. She had no wealth, and no education. Her three children from her marriage, Lucie, Henriette's eldest daughter, Jean, and Catherine, her youngest daughter, were poor and had to work in their father's stable. They were both either sick or disabled. Her daughter was paralyzed from the waist down. As she grew older, Henriette began to feel that she had been cheated. Her health was failing, and she became interested in painting. She was also interested in the life and poetry of the past, and she started to write poetry, which she made a book of, "The Story of Henriette de Lassigny." In 1825, she gave birth to Louis-Joseph, who died of anemia in the early 1900s. She had a daughter, Marie-Claire, who died a few years later. These facts are based on documents and historical documents. The documentary also explains that Henriette is a hero of the French Revolution because she acted as an agent for her family and helped them escape from the prison to freedom. The documentary is good in showing how her life changed after her coronation. This documentary has historical significance because it gives an account of the historical events that led up to her coronation, and it also shows the events that led to her death, and the acts of violence and the overthrow of the French monarchy. The documentary is accurate in showing the part of her life that the documentary focuses on. She was a great woman who made her accomplishments her life. However, the documentary does not cover everything about her life. There is a lot of research into her life and accomplishments that is not included in the documentary.
Monday, 06 Apr 2020 01:10

Watched this documentary about Georges DuBarry. I'm a big fan of his songs, and I was shocked by the things he did to get his songs heard. I really liked the man, but I can understand that people wouldn't be so welcoming to his "gay" lifestyle. Georges certainly had problems. And I was disappointed with the music he produced. I could understand the arguments Georges makes in his "homosexuality" song, but I didn't hear any music of the bands he had recorded. The documentary is really great. I could understand that not all people would like this story, and some of the songs Georges produced were a little embarrassing. But, it's really interesting. Even if you don't like the music of Georges, you can still learn a lot from the man. There's no "gay" music, but you can listen to the albums from the early years of his career. And, if you're a fan of the music, the movie is also great. It's really a wonderful tribute to a true American icon. He truly was a great man, and it's good to know his story. The documentary itself is very well done. Some scenes are hard to watch, but I don't think it really detracts from the quality of the film. This documentary also contains some great interviews with people around Georges, such as David Duchovny and some others. There's some very touching moments in the movie, but I'm not sure if this is a documentary for everyone. However, if you're a fan of Georges, you have to watch this movie. It's very heartwarming, and is an inspiring story.
Saturday, 04 Apr 2020 19:02

Well, I like Martin Scorsese, and I also like documentary-style, multi-generational interviews. The reality is that this film does tell a compelling story, with a lot of truthfulness and humour. It's also a bit of a boring film, in that it's fairly episodic, so it's hard to really understand what's going on with everybody. I think there are a lot of small bits of truth and "right-on" psychology going on in this film, but they aren't really explored enough to make a better story out of. There's an interesting contrast here between the beauty of nature, and the horror of the human mind. We see the catastrophic effects of man's "pet project" in nature, but also the healthy changes that humans do to the natural environment (what we call "conservation") and in human psychology. In other words, the psychological effects are far greater than the effects of man's destruction of nature. On the other hand, there are many insightful bits of psychology that the film doesn't do well with. One really interesting, but buried moment is the distinction between the differences between white trash and poor, working class people. I thought it was a great moment to have, but it was mostly pretty obscure. Also, I found that it wasn't really that interesting of a topic. The other point is that the film isn't very unique. It's basically a "conservation" documentary, but it's basically about conservation in nature, and it's basically about white trash. It's definitely more about conservation than about white trash, but the film isn't really that original. It's very easy to see that Scorsese is coming from the same place that others have been before him. All of the characters in this film are about the same as the characters in any other Scorsese film. I also think that the emphasis on the white trash crowd is rather cliched. It's an interesting idea, but I felt that it was just about setting the bar too high for the white trash people. Also, the "white trash" part isn't really relevant to the real story. I think that the white trash people are the major protagonist in the story, and the focus of this film. The real story isn't about white trash people, it's about human psychology, and the psychology of the white trash people is even more interesting, in that it's far more interesting and fascinating than anything that might happen to them. Overall, I think that this film is interesting. The psychological effect is well-explained, and the human psychology aspects are explored well. There are also a lot of interesting bits of psychology that are buried within the film, that add to the complexity of the story. It's also interesting to see how people deal with being around "pet projects". I wouldn't call this film a masterpiece, but I'd certainly say that it's a good documentary-style film. I would recommend it, but I don't think that it's much different from many other good documentaries, in that there's a lot of background and story that you don't get a lot of time to get really absorbed in. I didn't hate it, but I think that this film is more of a disappointment than a great film. I give it a 7/10, but the biggest problem is that I didn't really understand why the main character was as stressed as he was. There is no obvious reason.
Tuesday, 31 Mar 2020 14:12

Clueless, screwed-up - and a deeply disturbed individual who despite all his bumbling and maiming, still managed to be charismatic, witty, and talented. "Georges" should be available to buy on DVD, but in fairness the inclusion of the footage from the premiere of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1968) has an adverse affect on the impact of the film - two-thirds of it filmed on the stage where Georges was played by the late legendary Edward G. Robinson (see the comment by Pat Sullivan in the "Deadhead" section of the "X-Box" section of this site). I didn't know Georges well, having only seen a few of his films (i.e., "The Gold Rush" and "The Jungle Book"). Anyway, "Georges" is truly one of the very best and most beautifully constructed American films I've seen in a while. And then there's Jane Fonda! The attention to detail in this film is amazing - the casting of all the supporting roles, with the exception of the chief villain's role, is spot-on (including Andrew Gower's performance as the villain's on-screen assistant); the casting of the California desert locations in the opening credits, and of "The Gold Rush" itself (as well as for "The Jungle Book" and "A Horse Named Charlie"), are also perfect; especially the commentary track by "Wolfgang Petersen" with John Huston is a tour-de-force of storytelling insight, and of a human being who, despite all his flaws, tried to give his life the best he could. And he succeeded in the end. A star-making performance by Fonda, who once again shows the power of being unafraid to confront her demons and succeed at the end of her acting career.
Saturday, 28 Mar 2020 09:25

As a long time fan of Australian cinema, I had never heard of the films of Clive Bunting before watching this documentary. Bunting is perhaps the most notorious of the silent movie directors, and he was a major influence on many of the directors who would later make the silent film revolution. There is an evident passion in his films, and he is clearly the "father" of the silent film movement. The documentary is fascinating, but I was more interested in Bunting's directing style. There is a definite sense of mood to his films, with a slightly quirky style, a style that is not easily accessible to the mainstream audience, but which definitely makes his movies stand out in the scene. Bunting was one of the first directors to use sound during his silent films. Unfortunately, with such a heavy budget, many of the silent films of the mid 1800's were shot with a hand held camera and was difficult to edit. In Bunting's films, we are able to hear the actors dialogue. There are a number of great early silent films, but I can think of few that were shot with a hand held camera, and the problem of removing the sounds is another factor that slowed the pacing of the film. Bunting did not choose to take away the sounds when he first filmed his films, but then slowly began to use the sounds extensively. He gradually incorporated the sound effects, and they appear in almost every single Bunting film that is known. I was surprised to see how many of the contemporary filmmakers interviewed in the documentary were vocal about their memories of Bunting's direction. I will not mention all of Bunting's films, but there is a couple of standouts. In his "The Horse And His Boy" (1906), we can hear the horses neighing through the silent film. Bunting also used several locations in Australia. While most of the shots were in rural areas, he did take shots in towns and cities. One such shot is in the same town, Melbourne, where the movie opens. Bunting never filmed in such a large city before, but he did put shots in the city of Melbourne. In "The King Of Spirits" (1913), we can hear the dogs howl, which is reminiscent of the film "The White Dog", in which two dogs, a boxer and his manger, walk through the grass in a village. Again, Bunting used a few locations in Australia, but he was able to create many scenes in rural areas. The Man With Two Brains (1919), is a beautiful film with a quiet, somewhat surreal look. There is a fantastic soundtrack that matches the mood of the scene. We can hear a wide variety of instruments, and hear these scenes in the background of the movie. The film also has a beautiful look that is reminiscent of Bunting's "Sleepy Hollow". A typical Bunting film was "The Clansman" (1921), which was not an independent film, but was Bunting's first movie and, most importantly, it was his first movie to be released in colour. This is a fantastic film, and probably one of the greatest silent films ever made. It is a film that has influenced many other filmmakers, but it was not known at the time, and I hope it is not forgotten. The documentary is amazing, but not for the history buffs. If you are a Bunting fan, I recommend this documentary to you.
Monday, 23 Mar 2020 15:33

This film is a portrait of a story told in many languages around the world. These are the stories of the world's most famous musical composers. And how they create and execute their works. The characters are known to the viewers and their stories are told, with some historical background and a glimpse at their lives before they became famous. There is one story of how Georges' family life began. They had so little money and he did not have a decent education. That had already changed after he became famous. Another story tells of the times of 1930s - 40s when he became a popular singer in Poland. He was influenced by the fashions of the time. The story of Georges and his music, after decades of working in obscurity, is great. The music and the stories are incredible. The filmmakers are close to the music and the composers. They explain the pieces so clearly. There are lots of interviews with musicians and composers. They give some old and new music and present a brief biography of each composer. This film is a must see for music lovers and people interested in the history of music. It has been a long time since I saw such a good documentary. I was particularly surprised by the story of Fernando Veloso, I think he was one of the best composers of our times. I think he could make us think about our life, because he had this idea of how we should live and what we should do in our life. I have some hope for our future, if we listen to his music. He has many small songs in many languages that are good. I hope he will do a lot of great work in the future.
Monday, 23 Mar 2020 14:43

What an astonishing film, based on the autobiography of America's greatest comedian, James Carville, who has written and told this story, and on its improbable, inspiring and definitive vision. The fact that America has given a lifetime of bravery to any politician who wants to use its voice, its institutions, its funding, its energy, in support of its President to carry out his agenda is a remarkable achievement. The film is about the political career of Donald Trump and the likely electoral victory he could have had in the 2016 US Presidential Election, as the first Republican nominee in US history. It's a story of his rise to power, his rise to the presidency, his setbacks and his development of a massive, bigoted and delusional candidacy that managed to outsmart the political establishment in both parties. He had to get all the many elements of the media industry and the movie-making industry to play along with his campaign and to give him as much power as possible, to shape the public perception of him. How did he get that much power? The strength of the film comes from the interviewees, each of whom describes their most memorable and essential role in Trump's rise to power. This is also a documentary on a unique and unique person. The interviewees are experts in their fields, who offer a fresh perspective on the subject that is unique and no-one else has mentioned. It also reminds us of the true hero of this story. James Carville describes himself as a cross between Joe McCarthy and the Wizard of Oz: the one who shapes the media and defines how politics is done. He then discusses what a very unusual role he had and how he played it brilliantly. The film is well edited and superbly produced, and it is well done with beautiful photography, a witty and humorous script and interesting interviews with some of the key figures. Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton had many ramifications for his career, but nothing that came close to the consequences of what he's seen in his political career. In the film, he talks about how it's his ambition to win the Presidency in the US Presidential Election that motivated him to become more confident, self-confident and proactive. It is also his desire to be the centre of attention, which led to his incessant attacks on the media and his attacks on his opponents. In the film he talks about his career and career highs, his personal highs, his career lows, his career regrets and his career successes. The only one who is not in the film is Donald Trump himself. There are only three people who have never spoken in the film, because the conversations about Donald Trump were so brief. One is Oprah Winfrey, the legendary and brilliant political personality who is critical of Donald Trump. Another is Steve Bannon, a Republican strategist and the former leader of Breitbart, a website which has a very small audience. The third is Dan Quayle, who had a one-time business relationship with Trump and whom he considered to be a very good friend. In a rare interview, Donald Trump himself speaks briefly and candidly about his politics and his career, but is not recorded. His speech is on average more than ten minutes long and the subject matter is difficult for a business man who has run for President. Although it's an interview with Donald Trump, it is a very different interview. It's almost a documentary about a different Donald Trump. He is a brash, arrogant, ignorant, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, authoritarian, egotistical, sexist and greedy character. He is not credible as a man, and he is not credible as a presidential candidate. That's why it is so difficult for him to come up with a rationale, to present a vision of his presidency. So when he says it's not about being President, it's about being President. He is very insecure, and we see in the film his narcissistic, egocentric, self-centered personality as the justification for his own ambitions. The interviewees describe him as a sociopath who doesn't appreciate empathy and doesn't want to understand other people. The film shows how he


Write a review