#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Félicité

(1009) 6.4 129 min 2017

Félicité is a movie starring Véro Tshanda Beya Mputu, Gaetan Claudia, and Papi Mpaka. Félicité sings in a bar in Kinshasa. When her 14-year-old son has a motorcycle accident, she goes on a frantic search through the streets of...

Starring
Papi Mpaka, Véro Tshanda Beya Mputu, Gaetan Claudia, Nadine Ndebo
Genres
Drama, Music
Director
Alain Gomis

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 Drama, Music
Director Alain Gomis
Writer Olivier Loustau, Delphine Zingg, Alain Gomis
Stars Papi Mpaka, Véro Tshanda Beya Mputu, Gaetan Claudia, Nadine Ndebo
Country Lebanon, France, Germany, Senegal, Belgium
Also Known As Felicidade, Felicite, Felisite, わたしは、幸福(フェリシテ)
Runtime 2H 9M
Description Félicité sings in a bar in Kinshasa. When her 14-year-old son has a motorcycle accident, she goes on a frantic search through the streets of Kinshasa, a world of music and dreams. And her path crosses that of Tabu.

Top reviews

Sunday, 05 Apr 2020 01:14

Why is there such a shortage of new film (or film-making in general) directors/writers/producers/screenwriters/screencasters in France? That's why I decided to write this review.I don't really know why. I saw some of them at the Baftas and other festivals here and in Europe, but I have a feeling that none of them really took a serious interest in what I wrote. And also, why can't French film makers make films? Not only that, but why can't they just put some effort into it? Because French film-makers are still focused on making films for their own consumption and no one wants to have to watch a film by a person who is not interested in making films for his/her own consumption and then making a film about it. And I am talking about Francois Ozon, Fanny Ardant, Bertrand Tavernier, or Darlene McCall - the names are no longer recognizable. A few years ago, during the Cannes Film Festival, I met with some talented French film makers and they told me that they were still concerned about making films because they were still interested in them. They still wanted to make films and they still wanted to be filmmakers. They were serious about making films and they wanted to make them well. So why in the world don't they make films? It doesn't seem that they're interested in making films. I am not saying they should stop making films.I'm saying that they shouldn't put so much effort into making films. It's as simple as that. But why does nobody want to make films anymore? Is it really that hard? And I'm saying this from the point of view of a very professional filmmaker, as I was already acquainted with several of them at the Baftas. A couple of days ago, I watched a very good film by Damien Dahan (who I saw at the Cannes Film Festival) and I really appreciated his work, as well as his directing and his acting. But I really think that a great deal of effort has to be put into making a film, and that a lot of effort can be put into making a great film. I would really appreciate any comments, criticisms, and advice from French film makers in general. I would be very grateful if you can point out any particular films that you think are good or that you have seen. As a French filmmaker myself, I would be very grateful if you would tell me what you think of my film, my directing, and my acting.
Saturday, 04 Apr 2020 04:03

What if any movie has the power to influence the hearts of its audience? A film like "Solitary Man", a true story about the impact a rock musician can have on a quiet town in the heart of Scotland, certainly has. A music festival - quite unlike any I have ever experienced - is taking place on the remote Scottish island of Paisley, in the summer of 1982, with just the right amount of snow and rain to keep the crowds in check. The music festival, run by a producer named William Braithwaite (Christopher Eccleston) has been the most successful one in a long time, but despite this success, there is a sense that something isn't right with the town. Most people seem to leave Paisley after a day, or a couple of nights, without a word to anyone. Some have been kidnapped. Others have been locked up in the local jail. The locals have told the story of William Braithwaite's secret prison and have made his jail their own - but will this help to bring him out of his prison and into the town's good graces? Who will pay him a visit, and what will happen to them when they come? "Solitary Man" is one of those movies which, although seeming like a very low budget film, has an aura of quality which makes it extremely difficult to look away from. We are given a sense of the dramatic tension and drama as well as the characters' tension and drama, and this quality is so effective that we find ourselves constantly watching the events on screen. The performances by the entire cast are brilliant, from the small cast to the big ones, but the biggest part of the movie's impact is due to the performances of the main characters. Christopher Eccleston as William Braithwaite is simply great, while Christopher Eccleston as the townspeople are amazing. Their performances are believable and it is obvious that they have been acting on a fairly large stage. If you have ever been in a music festival and seen the people get so close to one another, it is this film which has made you feel like you were actually there. In "Solitary Man", the tension and drama is there, and it is clear to see that the actors are being able to "relate" to the characters in their scenes, as if they are actually there. The mood of the movie is very good, the music, as always, is a big part of it, and there is also the fact that "Solitary Man" was based on a true story, so everything is genuine. "Solitary Man" is a movie which I would recommend to anyone, and
Friday, 03 Apr 2020 12:57

The Spanish photographer Guillermo Navarro, who was the subject of "The Illusion of Life", "The Celluloid Closet", and "A Night at the Museum", is famous for his work on fairy tales, in particular a couple of myths involving princes, princes, and princesses. The myth of the Prince of Darkness, which explains why some children become morbidly ill from eating the prince's forbidden fruit, and why those who become princes are destined to be evil, and therefore cannot see the light. This myth was the source of a fantastically melodramatic poem by Luis Patino, who also adapted it into an operatic play. I'm not sure whether or not Navarro is really the prince of darkness, but I think he's the prince of Fairy Tales. Well, the Prince of Darkness was a boy born into a noble family, so he is the prince of darkness. This is a fabulous story, with clever and subtle characters, and a clear image of the middle-class world of 19th century Spain. The words are often, but not always, dark. Navarro is the Prince of Darkness. Navarro is an excellent and talented storyteller. Navarro writes fantasy stories. A man who has the power to turn the darkness into light is a powerful ruler. But the Prince of Darkness is not a good or noble person. He's a vile man who would never hesitate to do anything to have his way. The prince of darkness wants to be king. So Navarro had a very difficult task in the beginning of his story. The prince of darkness wants to be king, but he doesn't know what he wants. He wants to be a ruler. But he's the wrong man. He has the power to turn the darkness into light, but he has the power to do it badly. He turns the darkness into a light. The story ends with the prince of darkness, or his wife, turning the darkness into light. He's not the Prince of Darkness. He is not the hero of the story, he's the Prince of Darkness. Navarro is a wonderful storyteller. He is talented in telling fantasy stories and he is also a good writer. The movie is filled with magical touches. For example, when the prince of darkness goes to the village, he does not come with a sword or a badge. He comes with a bag, an umbrella, and a coat. When he passes the village he appears to be the prince of darkness. But it turns out to be nothing. Navarro also knows how to use the music. The movie was always played with the Spanish version of "The Voice of the Lord", which was also popular
Thursday, 02 Apr 2020 12:55

Film-making is difficult. Some films get made simply for the sake of being made. Other films are produced in order to tell a story. What kind of film-making should one ask, exactly? It is difficult to answer this question, as we are drawn into a world that is foreign, mysterious, and entirely strange. This film, "Félicité" by Claude Chabrol, could be called "abstraction" film-making, and it is what I like to call "cultural abjection." This film is about how a kid named Maurice (Nicolas Riel) spends his time after school telling stories of imaginary friends. His parents (Francois Duhamel and Sophie Marceau) are extremely agitated about Maurice's strange behavior. When his parents eventually catch on to Maurice's stories, they find a long way to go in order to understand the boy. What the parents don't know, is that their son's behaviour is only the surface of a deeper story about a girl named Isabelle (Karin Roeg). Maurice must have told Isabelle of all his stories in order to get her to fall in love with him. Because she is a very unique individual, Maurice must tell her of the stories as well. Maurice has been alone for a long time, and he comes to understand that he has missed many of the important things in his life. He is lost, he is bored, and he has decided to tell his stories to try to "unlearn" his life. Maurice does this with Isabelle, but it becomes clear that he will always be alone. When Isabelle goes missing, he discovers that she is missing. Maurice goes to the police to try to find her, but he is told that they have already given the woman's name to a friend. Then Maurice tries to find Isabelle. But when he finds her, he realizes that she is not what he thought she was. "Félicité" is about a film-making made with a specific story in mind. There are many other films made with the same kind of story, but this one, which tells the story of Maurice's imaginary friends, is a different one altogether. The other films I've mentioned are documentaries. "Félicité" is another kind of film. As you know, there are documentaries, and then there are films. Films have two different types of viewers. Some film-goers want a documentary to go down in the memory forever. Others want to see a documentary that they can immediately share with others. I'm in the middle of the second category, and I can only say that I had a very interesting time watching this film. This is
Tuesday, 24 Mar 2020 19:45

A good way to define this film is in terms of the way a lot of people seem to be responding to it. As you might expect, the casual viewer is going to have trouble distinguishing between what is a real documentary and what is simply staged, scripted material. On the other hand, some people are probably going to have a hard time distinguishing between what is realistic and what is fantasy, and the use of several female performers to add the necessary female element seems to be very much like the way many people are describing the movie as fiction. You'll be hard pressed to tell the difference. If you're a teenager, the obvious contrast to the focus on the overbearing mother is the way the father in the story seems to have no particular interest in the family's fate, whereas the mother seems to be very active. If you're older, the scene with the teenager talking with the mother is probably going to get under your skin. In terms of symbolism, this film is very similar to Fassbinder's "Before Sunrise," which I think I've seen twice and consider to be one of the greatest films of all time. In terms of its overall impact on the viewer, this film is better than the former because there's a lot of symbolism in here, but it is not as good as "Before Sunrise." In terms of its reception in France, I think this film has gotten the most attention. To some extent, this might have been the result of it being released in the middle of the world crisis, which, with the exception of the financial crisis of 2007, is still raging, and the crisis being a political issue. And, finally, this film is a good example of the exploitation of children. Not only is the mother overtly controlling, she is also being portrayed as controlling the children. So, there is a very strong emotional connection between the mother and the children. In many cases, the mother is being the adult who is usually the strongest, and is taking the children into her protective arms. This is not to say that the children are passive victims, but rather that they are being used as tools of manipulation by the mother.
Saturday, 21 Mar 2020 08:51

Fondly known as "The Year of Fighting" in Vietnam, Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies from the seventies and eighties were the formulaic revenge films made by a legend, which was synonymous with some kind of "Greatness" and "Hollywood-ish" portrayal of the "Hero" who has to be pampered by the owner of the theatre he is in. This film does not glorify the "hero", but rather shows the ridiculous lengths these men would go through to get back at their enemies. The film is divided into two parts. The first part "The Rage" takes place in South Vietnam. The second part "Crimson Hearts" takes place in Cambodia. The film is filled with the sights and sounds of the "War" (and its people). The cinematography is very good. The colors are realistic. It's a film full of colors. The first part is entirely shot in colors. We watch Vietnam, Cambodia, and South Vietnam during the opening credits. There is lots of street shooting, assassinations, and the like. In Cambodia we follow the Vietnamese peasants as they go on a "Operation" to destroy the Thai and American Army that are invading their villages and murdering the inhabitants. This film is very brutal. The "War" is so brutal and bloody that the blood and guts that this film shows are like nothing we've ever seen before. You will not see this in other movies. As an action film, this film is good. As a film for a "great" viewer, this film is good. I liked it very much. It's good to see Van Damme in his purest form. When he's not playing a "Hero" or an "Assassin", he's a "Violent Denialist" (laughs). The film has some bad stuff. There are two set pieces that are just horrible. The first is when a couple of soldiers attack an innocent villager and take him prisoner. Their plan is to murder him. In this scene the dialog is terrible and the movie is devoid of any kind of humor. The second set piece is when a group of Vietnamese peasants attack the village of the Vietnamese peasants and try to force the villagers to take the Americans and the Viet Cong prisoners away. In this scene, the Viet Cong are unceremoniously executed by the villagers. They look and act in terrible manners. This film has more profanity than any other Van Damme film. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. It just adds to the realism of the film. But the film is very violent and hard to watch. There are a few scenes that are just not good. For


Write a review