x

#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Troublemakers: The Story of Land Art

Watch
4K Watch Movie
Start your 30-day free trial

Download
Magnet

Download
Torrent

(266) 6.5 72 min 2015

Troublemakers: The Story of Land Art is a movie starring Vito Acconci, Carl Andre, and Germano Celant. Set in the desolate desert spaces of the American southwest, the film unearths the history of land art during the tumultuous late...

Starring: Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Germano Celant, Paula Cooper

Genres: Biography, History, Documentary

Director: James Crump

x

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio
Subtitles
Quality	480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres	Biography, History, Documentary
Director	James Crump
Writer	James Crump
Stars	Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Germano Celant, Paula Cooper
Country	USA
Runtime	1H 12M
Description	Set in the desolate desert spaces of the American southwest, the film unearths the history of land art during the tumultuous late 1960s and early 1970s. Troublemakers is ultimately a story of renegades and firebrands all willing to risk their future careers on radical change and experimentation-a marked contrast to the hyper-speculative contemporary art world of today. Featuring rare interviews with a veritable who's who of American Art of the twentieth century.

Download biography «Troublemakers: The Story of Land Art»

Blu-ray
13.25 GB

Windows
4.95 GB

Customers who watched documentary «Troublemakers: The Story of Land Art» also watched

20 customer reviews about history «Troublemakers: The Story of Land Art»

3.5 out of 5 stars

Top reviews

Thursday, 25 Jun 2020 18:31

Werner Herzog is one of the most important artists of our times, as well as a major influence on filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg and David Fincher. But despite all this, he is hardly known outside of the film industry, let alone among the general public. For some, this is a shame, but for others, it's a blessing. Herzog is arguably the most important filmmaker of our times. He has a great vision and his films are often among the most powerful and influential films of the 21st century. They are often ridiculed and criticized by many people, but they are also admired by many more. The fact that Herzog's movies are praised by many more than his films themselves (at least in the United States) is testament to his vision and influence. So it is a very strange and unusual situation when we are presented with this documentary on Herzog's work. It is somewhat disappointing, because the documentary was made in an entirely different time period, and also completely different from his films. It was made in 1986, just after Herzog's work had become highly popular in the United States. The story is about his struggles with art criticism. The main character is Todd Close, an English professor who was involved in a group of 'troublemakers' in his youth. In 1980, he was trying to become involved with the group in order to make art. Todd's efforts were eventually rejected, but he felt as if his work was failing and wanted to finally succeed. It's clear that he had some sort of an obsession with art. The interviewees are very generous, so it is very interesting to see them as well as see how different the people who disagree with Herzog were back in the 1980's, and how they were treated. The fact that he was able to be able to interview so many different people is a testament to his power. If he was able to get interviews from the likes of Peter Sellars, then he must have been successful in getting some of the other famous critics of the time to also talk to him. What is most interesting is that Todd had a good idea of what he wanted to do with his art and why he wanted to do it. He was inspired by art from his youth and believed that his work had been appropriated by others. In the documentary, we see that he is able to accurately document his life. He gets interviews from his friends, his students, his neighbors, his family. In addition, he has conversations with people from the film industry and he is also able to interview many famous people, including the famous French painter Georges Seurat. His style is clear, even when it is not described. This is because his style is in his films. His films are very much the films of the filmmaker himself. This is something that I think is quite important to see. You are able to see the filmmaker's style and the film itself as a character. It is clear that Herzog was a brilliant man. I would not like to say that his style was the most important thing, because there are so many other things to admire about his work. But his style, and the way he uses it, is incredibly important. It is evident in his films and in his work. I am also impressed by how his work was able to be made by his students and the people who were not very talented, but did good jobs. I thought that this was a very strong example of how people can be helped by a teacher. It is a very good documentary, and it's a great documentary that should be seen. It is so different from the way people have talked

Sunday, 07 Jun 2020 10:55

Not the most interesting documentary I've ever seen, but I enjoyed the movie because it's so good at telling the history of the art. The director's narration is well done. As a viewer, I found myself replaying the film from time to time, wondering what might have happened if I'd seen it before. I found it quite interesting to learn that many people who might have a problem with the artworks can't help but think that the people who made the artworks are out of touch. If you like art, you'll like this film. I liked it a lot.

Sunday, 31 May 2020 16:00

The movie itself is quite interesting. The making of this movie is fascinating. And if you are interested in the subject of land art in general, you should watch this movie. If not, well. there are better movies to watch. But if you watch this movie, you will understand why people are interested in this subject.

Saturday, 30 May 2020 08:33

The documentary does have a couple of really interesting aspects to it. First, a group of early 20th century artists and their histories and issues are explored. The documentary is not quite as good as its title suggests. I think that the documentary is not a total disaster. It does bring to the viewer some new ideas about the artists who made the Land Art. It does also bring up some old issues about the artists that were making Land Art. However, it really does lack the proper analysis that the title promises. Also, it seems to be rushed. While some of the interviews are interesting, they are never really extended. This documentary is just a very superficial look at the art world and how it was being done and who was doing it. It does not really offer much insight into what the artists were trying to achieve. Also, the documentary seems to be completely biased towards the artists that were doing Land Art. It is all about the art and what the artists were doing. For instance, the documentary gives a lot of credit to "Bacheys" who were in a very loose relationship. This just seems to be a common complaint about the documentary. In general, the documentary is not very good. It does lack the depth of analysis that the title promises. Still, it is a worthwhile documentary to watch. It does offer some very interesting insight into the art world and how it was being done. However, it is just a very superficial look into what the art world was doing. It does not really offer much insight into the artists that were doing Land Art. Still, it is still a worthwhile documentary to watch.

Thursday, 28 May 2020 19:18

I found this film interesting. I was expecting more from a documentary on the origin of rock music. I was more interested in the life of its creator, Jim Morrison. It's a good documentary and as a fan of rock music, it is one of the best I have seen. It does a good job at conveying the ambiance of the band's origins, their success, their unpopularity, and of course, the confusion they were in. A must-see!

Tuesday, 26 May 2020 10:21

Movies like these (some of which I am a fan of) like the Bush administration, so the exposure is better and better. And of course this one is no exception. But it does have its problems. I think the story was pretty good. There was a lot of history and it's not just the Bush administration. I liked how they made the movie a little better than if they had made it a documentary. The main thing that I did not like was the accuracy of the content. Like when they said the main thing that was wrong about the administration was they tried to sell us the war in Iraq. I think this was more like a left wing argument because I don't agree with that at all. But if they had tried to make the movie more factual I think that it would have been better. Overall I think it was a good movie. I would watch it again and maybe I would see it again because of it's historical value.

Saturday, 23 May 2020 13:38

I have seen all three of the "What did they do in the 70's?" movies in my life. The other two were simply great, but none as great as this one. It is really a deep look into the art world of that era. It is a documentary, not a documentary on the art world, but it is very interesting in that respect. It is not a movie, it is a look into the art world, and it is not for the faint of heart. It is pretty serious, but very entertaining. I liked it, and would recommend it to any film lover. I loved the interviews with some of the greatest artists and the places they visited. I liked the original music used in the film, it was cool. The documentary is worth seeing, but do not expect it to be an Oscar winner.

Wednesday, 20 May 2020 16:56

Land Art is an amazing documentary. I am a veteran from the Vietnam War, and I saw it during my tour in Vietnam. The documentary was really moving, and it taught me a lot. I learned so much, and it was very moving. I learned about the difference between art and artifice, about how valuable the difference between the two is. I learned how special art can be. I also learned about the importance of art and the beauty that can come from the fact that we are all connected. It's about how powerful and beautiful art can be. The documentary really made me think about the way that we make art, and it made me feel that I should be more appreciative of the things I have in my life. The documentary is really good, but it could have been better. The only thing that I really didn't like about the documentary was that they didn't explain everything that happened in the past. They didn't explain how much influence the government had on art, and how the Vietnam War affected the culture. The documentary was made in 2007, and it just seems like it wasn't that big of a deal in the 80s. They could have really done a great job of explaining things like that. I think that they could have done a better job, but they did a great job. I really recommend this documentary. It really teaches you about the importance of art.

Wednesday, 20 May 2020 11:00

The real show stopper in this documentary is the piece of film which is supposed to be the film shown at the Sundance Film Festival. It's not even the film of the festival. It's the same film with different names. The real deal is this, everyone in the documentary has a different idea about what's the real deal. Some think the festival is a scam, some think it's a celebration of art, some think it's about gay life, some think it's about art. Well, it's all about art. So, if you want to know what the real deal is, this is the film to see. You might like it. Or not. Personally, I didn't, but it's a good documentary to watch.

Friday, 15 May 2020 11:17

This documentary is not bad. At first I was disappointed that it had only shown the actual paintings that were done by the artists. After seeing the paintings more than once, however, I can see the point of showing them. The problems, though, are that the film only shows the paintings done by some artists. So there is no way to know whether it is a good thing or not to see the paintings of the other artists. A better documentary would have shown all the paintings. This is an important part of the art history. But if you like to see only the paintings done by a few artists, you will enjoy the film. I will recommend it to people who are interested in the history of the art. It is also a good introduction to the techniques of painting.

Thursday, 07 May 2020 08:55

The Land Art (and more broadly the work of artists) was a topic of fascination for me for many years, and the subject matter of this documentary was just the right vehicle for the story. The subject matter is indeed fascinating and relevant, but the way the film unfolds the actual history of this subculture is a bit on the slow side. There are a number of segments which are useful for the viewer but a number of others which are largely a waste of time. The majority of the documentary focuses on the practice of Land Art and the reaction to it. One aspect which I enjoyed was the account of how and why the Land Art movement began and the attempts to integrate the art into everyday life. Unfortunately, the idea of how the art was incorporated into everyday life is not explored. I am not aware of any work by the producers that examines this aspect. Other segments, such as the most serious, feature the efforts of the artists to avoid punishment, or to pay off their debts. However, this segment is not particularly compelling and could have been edited down to the point where it does not detract from the documentary. Another segment which is generally positive is the treatment of the artists and the case against them. This is a problem. First, the nature of the artists is rather unusual. The Land Art scene is not generally known for being particularly progressive in that it encourages the acceptance of different sexualities, and they were not particularly active in sexual relations. The reason for this is that it was a time when the current conservative attitude toward sexuality was well established. Furthermore, the artists were frequently involved in criminal activities. The group is generally described as a "mob" but I would not describe it as a "mob". It is clear that this group of individuals is not representative of the larger community, and this is reflected in the documentary as well. The documentary also displays a number of episodes that are too often harsh. The hostility shown toward the artists by the police, and the attempts to make the artists public enemies, are particularly damaging. The last segment of the documentary, which is the most positive, portrays the attempts of the artists to preserve their work in the face of other possible problems. This is also problematic. The artists were involved in a long-term period of creation and sale of their art, which often goes against the practice of the modern artist. This is portrayed in the documentary as if they were successful in preserving their work in spite of such difficulties. One can only hope that the future will not be so bad.

Thursday, 30 Apr 2020 14:00

Based on the story of the 1981 Land Art exhibition that was destroyed by local authorities, the documentary takes us through the case, highlighting what happened during the course of the event, and how the townspeople of New Albany tried to stop it from happening again. I was interested in seeing what people thought of the art, and how it was viewed by the locals. The film is a bit slow in some parts, and the sound isn't very good. The cinematography is very good though, and the music is pretty good, which makes the film pretty interesting.

Monday, 27 Apr 2020 17:18

Director and filmmaker Andrew Kolodny, author of "The World's Most Unforgettable Places" and the film "Troublemakers" has a lot of facts to show that just about every country in the world can claim, but he is also able to show that there is so much more than what we are often led to believe. I would recommend this to anyone who is curious about what the United States has in its history. Kolodny starts by saying the U.S. was born in 1776 as a slave and that has been a part of our history. His book also tells the story of the land and the artists and craftsman who created it, and how they were able to live in a free country. There are many facts and details to show that the United States is an amazing country, but in my opinion it is a country that is still struggling with a lot of things. Kolodny begins by saying that for a while, slavery was a very minor issue in the United States, and he describes how it was because of an overrepresentation of poor white farmers, and also the influx of immigration. He then goes on to talk about the building of the transcontinental railroad, and how it changed the American landscape. In fact, he gives a lot of examples of where the U.S. has been a land of opportunity for a lot of people, but there have also been other things that have been brought up. For instance, he talks about the fact that the South started the Civil War and was able to stop the Union, but that these wars were only on paper, and that many people fought to preserve the system that was being developed by the wealthy, and that these wars were essentially acts of hate. He goes on to talk about the Immigration Act of 1924, and how people came to the U.S. to become citizens, but that when they arrived, they were able to build new life and live in a country that they believed in. The next subject of his talk is how he was able to get financing for this documentary, and it was given to him through a Kickstarter campaign. The documentary includes interviews with the people involved, the people involved with the documentary, as well as a lot of footage from the documentary. In fact, the majority of the film was actually taken from the documentary, and Kolodny gave it to the people he interviewed, and they were able to give the film some real life, although it was recorded over a long period of time. He said the film has received a lot of criticism, but he does believe that the criticism is mostly coming from the right wing. He said that there were a lot of people who were upset about the fact that they had to edit out certain things, and that there were those who did not want the film to include the opinions of those who were offended by the film. He also said that the focus of the film was primarily on the people that were impacted by the film, and that the film is not about a few artists or a few individuals. He said that it is about a country and how it was able to be a land of opportunity for people from all walks of life, and that this is a very difficult country to be in and that this country does not come across as a very nice country. He ended his speech by saying that if we want to go forward as a nation, we have to change our politics and stop electing politicians who care about the rich and powerful, and that this is the reality that we are going to have to face.

Saturday, 25 Apr 2020 08:21

I was lucky enough to attend a screening of Land Art at the San Diego Film Festival last night. I was really impressed by the film. Land Art is about a group of New York artists who collectively made art in India during the 1950s. They spent the majority of their time travelling in an attempt to find a way to bring art to India. Some of the art they made were hand-painted by Indian artists in New York. The documentary focuses on the different ways the group came to terms with the changing circumstances of the U.S.A. This documentary really gives the viewer a look at the group's relationship with the American people. One thing that I really liked was that they were really frank about their feelings and their internal struggles. This documentary really made me appreciate the creativity and talent of the artists. Land Art is one of the best documentaries I have seen this year. The acting was really good, the subjects were really interesting, and the story of how the artists met and fell in love was really interesting. Land Art is a good documentary. It is a must-see for people who appreciate art.

Tuesday, 21 Apr 2020 10:08

The documentary has a really good look at what the film makers went through to get this film made. The film makers are in an 'interview' session where they talk about the filming and how they went about it. They talk about how they actually had to go in and check out the locations for the film before filming, and how they got approval for the film. They also talk about how much they had to pay for the movie. We get to hear the stories of some of the places they were going and how much they paid. In my opinion it is a really good documentary that tells us about the whole process of making the film. They talk about how they got the approval to film in Cambodia, how much they paid for it, and what they had to deal with when they went in there. Overall, it is an interesting documentary and I really enjoyed it. I think it was really well put together. The people who are interviewed are a bit hard to believe but they do give the story. The filming is in Cambodia, so I was not surprised to see a lot of places that were used. I think it is good that they filmed in Cambodia because it was an interesting experience for them. I think it is great that they filmed in Cambodia because the people are really good at telling stories about the Cambodian people. It is a bit hard to believe that they are all from Cambodia. The story they tell is really good and it gives us a real feel for what they went through. Overall, this is a good documentary that I recommend. I think it is a really good documentary.

Sunday, 19 Apr 2020 20:53

At the beginning of the film, the director shows us some information on the history of land art. It's a fascinating history, showing us how art came about and how it affected people. The story of Land Art is great. The story of the artist and his methods is fascinating. The film has many interviews with artists, mostly from the 20s, 30s and 40s. They talk about their methods and how they grew and were influenced by their art. A fascinating documentary. Recommended.

Sunday, 29 Mar 2020 12:22

I saw a special screening of this documentary at the PULSE film festival in Santa Monica. It was a joyous occasion. I would recommend this to anyone who likes to take a look at art history in Los Angeles. I was never really into the art scene, but I have enjoyed the work of some of the people who were interviewed. It is not the best documentary I have ever seen, but it is a good one. There are a few times when you might want to turn it off and catch a better show. It is more like a documentary of art history than an art show.

Sunday, 29 Mar 2020 10:41

I feel that Land Art has a lot of misconceptions about its work. The first part of this documentary (based on the first-person essay by a painter) is very enlightening. And the second part, about the relationship between the US government and American artists, is more than a little shocking. I think that the most important part of this documentary is the last 10 minutes, where it gets very personal. I was impressed by the documentary's ending and I think that it's the most important part of the documentary. I don't think that the documentary is a masterpiece and I can't recommend it to everyone, but I certainly enjoyed it and I would recommend it to my friends.

Sunday, 29 Mar 2020 09:23

Landon Wilson (Jon Bon Jovi) was a 19-year-old Native American warrior in the American Civil War. He would have been one of the last to be killed, but he took his own life in the wilderness, which was near what is now called Death Valley National Park. Landon Wilson was one of the most famous Confederate generals during the Civil War. Landon Wilson was the man who would lead the Confederate armies to victory over the Union. Many people would think of Landon Wilson as the great General of the Confederacy, but he was really a more of a popular figure than a great leader. In fact, most historians agree that he was not one of the great generals, but he was very popular among the Confederate army. He was a man who believed in the rule of law and didn't have a problem with the secession of the southern states from the Union. But he would later be the object of many people's hatred and they would label him as a traitor. But he was not that. Many of the people who hated him also hated him for other reasons. One of the most common of those reasons was that he was the general of a division that was composed of soldiers of African-American descent. The fight was raging in the south, and there were many Confederate soldiers who were mistreated and abused by the southern blacks. It was a story of a man who went from a background of slavery to a slave-owning white supremacist. And it's hard to imagine how many people would hate a man like that. Jon Bon Jovi's performance as Landon Wilson was great. I thought he was the perfect choice for the role. He was very charismatic, which is one of the main characteristics of a good leader. The story was also very interesting. It focused on the African-American community in the south during the Civil War. It was really a fascinating story about what happened during the Civil War. But the story was also told from the viewpoint of a white supremacist who believed in the rule of law. The author is also interested in the period before the Civil War, when the black population in the south was also very poor. The movie also focuses on the relationship between the white settlers and the black population. The movie's plot focuses on one of the conflicts between the white settlers and the black population in the early 20th century. But the most interesting part of the movie was the way the writer and the director did this movie. It's very easy to look at this movie and not understand why the writer chose to make this movie. But the director, the cinematographer, the writer and the actors made the movie look really great. I think this movie was really good. It was also very entertaining to watch. It was also interesting to learn about the life of Landon Wilson, and about the tensions between the African-American community and the white settlers. The movie was good and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in American history or the history of the civil war.

Sunday, 29 Mar 2020 04:13

I enjoyed the documentary for a lot of reasons. I liked that they talked to the artists and explained how the art was made, and I liked that they showed footage from the actual "works". It was fun to see the actual paintings, and I liked how the documentary made me feel like I was there. I also liked the interviews with artist's that weren't featured in the film, like Philip Pullman. I loved the stuff that was shot inside the museum and in the film. I'm not a big fan of photography and I thought it was cool that they used real footage of the artists. I think that the problem was that they focused on the people that they had to interview, and I thought that the subjects that they talked to were just boring. The way that the documentary was filmed felt like they were just making a list of names of people, and you never get to know them very well. Overall, I liked the documentary, but I felt like I was missing a lot of the other stuff that was important. It's definitely worth seeing, but I don't think that it is as great as the documentary was made to be.

See all 20 reviews

Write a review