Become an eyewitness to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This stirring 2-hour film will bring the Founding Fathers to life as you witness the struggles and the miracles that produced the Constitution of the United States and the freest nation on earth. Filmed on location at Independence Hall; Williamsburg, Virginia; and other historical sites, it dramatically chronicles how America became a nation. It is exciting drama of the best kind-fact, rather than fiction. "It brings the history books to life," writes one reviewer. "Dramatically moving, and visually handsome," says another. Officially recognized by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, who cited the film as being "of exceptional merit." . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A More Perfect Union: America Becomes a Nation
It showed the process it took to write the Constitution of the United States.
You may also like
A More Perfect Union: America Becomes a Nation torrent reviews
Susan S (kr) wrote: Some really funny moments.
Dennis N (ru) wrote: Really Bad movie. The movie reminds me of a over-used sitcom plot that just takes forever to resolve. I love Rachel Leigh Cook but she didn't do it for me in this movie. There whole realationship in the movie felt forced and unreal with absolutely no chemestry between the two actors. The ending was cheesy and unessecary just like the rest of the movie. Avoid this movie unless you like chessy predictable Rom-Com's.
Marty D (mx) wrote: Daft as hell but entertaining.
Todd S (de) wrote: The ninth step in recovery is apologizing to all those you've hurt with your drug addiction. When three members of a rehab group fail to complete this step, they are met with a strange consequence. For them, the day they were supposed to complete the ninth step keeps repeating. Movies like Repeaters, are why I watch independent films. I'd never heard of the film, the cast, or the Director, and in fact, this movie isn't even available in the U.S. I saw it as one of my suggestions on Netflix streaming and figured, what do I have to lose? What I found was on of the smartest, most original stories in years. Repeaters isn't just a weird science fiction movie or a drama about addiction, it's both, and it's a whole lot more. Fusing elements of action, drama, and science fiction, Repeaters will have you on the edge of seat craving for more. Words can not express how well written this film was and how it will give you a full range of emotion in just ninety minutes. As for the cast, I'd never heard of any of them, but they were terrific, especially Richard de Klerk, who played the most deranged member of their little group. He really connected all the elements, showing a range that most actors today can't even dream of attaining. Repeaters is a tremendously written roller coaster ride of emotion, with some outstanding performances, and stunning conclusions, and for that it gets labeled as one of our can't miss movies!
Anthony F (us) wrote: classic Pitch Black Riddick. If you enjoyed the first movie you will like this one.
Ronil C (kr) wrote: A model gay film. Loved the story. The ending was disrupt. couldn't understand the climax. But loved overall.
Jehangir A (nl) wrote: Drama that is morally questionable in some areas but a good ending!!
Nuril B (us) wrote: one of my very favorite movies! i know the story pretty much cliche. but the movie is so fun and trashy, but i love it anyway.
Joshua L (au) wrote: great movie about family
Dickie L (es) wrote: As far as mainstream German comedies go, this thankfully isn't as broad as it could've been, and for a 90s comedy about the clash of straight and gay cultures, its actually pretty even handed. It has a fairly decent laugh quotient and characters that are easy to spend time with.
Codie E (jp) wrote: There are quite a few nice touches in this film, for example, hearing an uncovered Beatles song and the performances of Robbins and Turturro but these is just pretty poorly made and the whole other plot with the girls and German guys is completely pointless and time wasting. One thing i really did notice watching this though was Foster; a rare actress that no matter what the quality of the film is nothing less than terrific in her own performance.
Grayson W (us) wrote: Throughout the movie I kept thinking of how cool everything was and how much they managed to make out of their small budget. Simply by using good direction and editing they made something really unique, interesting and powerful. Clearly a comedic parody of movies like 2001, Carpenters Dark Star becomes something much more memorable than what you'd expect.
AW C (it) wrote: Slow and tired performances and story make it occasionally gritty, but it still can't shake boredom.
Daniel O (ca) wrote: A sweeping, yet hollow epic. Incredible visuals with a mostly mediocre story.
Edith N (mx) wrote: Freedom Is Different Things For Different People Okay, let's get this out of the way right now. This film was not plagiarized by Charlie Chaplin. A lawsuit was filed, but so what? As the audio essay included on the Criterion DVD points out, Chaplin was also sued by someone who claimed that his experiences in a mental hospital was the basis for [i]Modern Times[/i], and no one believes him, either. Yes, there are a few similarities, but only a few. By and large, they are two very different movies, not solely because this one is the story of two people, not just the lone Little Tramp. Besides, if you're looking at Great Themes of the 1930s, you're going to encounter plenty of works about the dehumanization of the Little Man because of industrialization. It was a theme which had been building for some time, and it's one which hasn't exactly gone away. In fact, there isn't even any evidence that Charlie Chaplin had seen this movie until the lawsuit; it's almost certain the suit was a publicity stunt by the original studio. mile (Henri Marchand) and Louis (Raymond Cordy) are fellow prisoners in France. They become friends, and they escape together. I kind of missed how they were separated, but anyway, Louis ends up building a career for himself as a phonograph manufacturer. He has a large factory, and he's covering up his questionable past. Eventually, mile ends up as a worker in Louis's factory without knowing that it is his friend who is in charge. He sees Jeanne (Rolla France), a young woman who also works at the factory, and he falls in love with her. And, yes, he and Louis encounter one another again and continue their friendships, with Louis even agreeing to help mile meet up with Jeanne, whose uncle is some sort of executive at the company. But all is not well, because a group of people from their past recognizes Louis and decide to blackmail him in exchange for not revealing his secret to the police. Comedy, I think, is much more personal than tragedy. What makes people cry is universal; what makes you laugh is within you. That's why there are so many different kinds of comedies, or anyway that's my guess. It's one of the reasons I am less inclined to pick on people for not liking comedies I love. (Though one of the reviews of this movie that's up on the site at the moment is a negative review by an obvious troll, so let's discount that!) This movie is funnier than the French "comedy" I watched yesterday, but I don't think it's as funny as Chaplin's take on the same theme. And of course, in the end, that's what we judge comedies on most. The cinematography of a comedy may be excellent, the costumes superb, the score one of the best ever written. But if it doesn't make you laugh, well, that's death for your enjoyment of the movie. Dramas are easier; it's okay if they don't make you cry. Though of course, the plots of dramas have to make sense, and comedies don't. It's nice to see a French comedy that doesn't rely on true insanity. The Japanese take a lot of grief from Americans for being weird, and it's true that there is a major cultural gap between the US and Japan. However, we actually derive more of our culture, from a historical perspective, from France, and I don't even know how it's possible for their films to be so different from ours. I have speculated before that France has been about experimental film pretty much as long as there has been film, and that it has included fiddling with plot. It is true, as I said, that the plot of this one isn't revolutionary enough to justify the plagiarism suit. The jokes are not even always clever; many of them are the sort of jokes that everyone makes in this kind of comedy. And, yes, it's worth noting that I liked it better than most of the more original French comedies I've seen. But that's another one of those things which makes me wonder about my own limitations as a critic--if I were capable being broader-minded, would I like French cinema better? The movie concludes on the note of idealism which seems to be one of the two choices in this kind of movie. The phonograph factory becomes so automated that it's supervised by two guys who technically spend more of their time playing cards than actually working, and that means that everyone else has the time to do whatever they want, aided by the profits they have as stockholders in the company. (Which they are because of a wacky but satirical sequence involving wind.) This is the dream of automation; eventually, we hope, no one will have to work and machines will produce everything we need. I read something not long ago about how freedom means knowing that you don't actually need to make a living. Only in order for the stock of the factory to be worth anything, someone has to keep buying the phonographs. We can't all coast as stockholders; it's easy to say that not everyone needs to make a living if you can afford not to work yourself.
Kris C (br) wrote: The poor die from starvation. The poor die in combat. What for? The profit of the few. More brilliance from Pudovkin, one of the Soviet silent masters
Grant K (es) wrote: A surprisingly mature, heartfelt film with beautiful cinematography and a brilliant cast. Greenfield, here playing against type, is fantastic.
Muffin M (ru) wrote: The Penguin and Rupert Thorn are ciminal cohorts with a scheme to sell illegal weapons? But there's a new super hero in Gotham City who has other plans for the evil entrepreneurs - Batwoman! With high-tech gadgets and powerful punches, Batwoman proves to be a formidable crimefighter - the only problem is that the Dark Knight has no clue who she is! And when Batwoman crosses the criminal line, Batman must identify whether or not this new player is really an ally! starring the voices of: Kevin Conroy, Kyra Sedgwick, Kelly Ripa, David Ogden Stiers, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. , Hector Elizondo, Kimberly Brooks, Elisa Pensler Gabrielli, Robert Costanzo, Bob Hastings, John Vernon, Eli Marienthal, Tara Strong, Kevin Michael Richardson and Mathew Valencia,directed by Curt Geda and Tim Maltby.
Matthew W (us) wrote: Terrible direction mars this picture. The acting is the best of the bunch up to the point but too much flash over substance and yet another disjointed story create a haphazard affair. There are so many disappointments for characters and story integrity, too many under-utilised character stories and too much compromise to the story itself.This could and should have been a much better and grander affair. The story really lacked the drama and emotional impetus in its crowning moments, due entirely to a lack of build to them and with the opposite effect it had fun in all the wrong places, the story itself naturally has its comic moments, instead the jokes were left to simple shock and awe tactics, cheap laughs.
Matthew B (de) wrote: No thanks, Dave seems unbearable.