Anschauen Nureyev


Nureyev is a movie starring Siân Phillips, Dick Cavett, and Margot Fonteyn. This striking and moving documentary from BAFTA nominated directors Jacqui and David Morris traces the extraordinary life of Rudolf Nureyev. From his birth...

Other Titles
Nureyev: Lifting the Curtain, Nureyev: An Orgy of One, Nureyev. Il mondo, il suo palco
Running Time
1 hours 49 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
David Morris, Jacqui Morris
David Morris, Jacqueline Morris
Siân Phillips, Richard Avedon, Dick Cavett, Margot Fonteyn
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

This striking and moving documentary from BAFTA nominated directors Jacqui and David Morris traces the extraordinary life of Rudolf Nureyev. From his birth in the 5th class carriage of a trans-Siberian train, to his dramatic leap to freedom in the West at the height of the Cold War, and unprecedented adulation as the most famous dancer in the world. The film highlights Nureyev's unlikely yet legendary partnership with Margot Fonteyn and charts his meteoric rise to the status of global cultural phenomenon. Nureyev's life plays out like the sweeping plot of a classic Russian novel. His story is Russia's story. Blending never-before-seen footage, with an original score by award-winning composer Alex Baranowski and spellbinding newly choreographed dance tableaux directed by Royal Ballet alumnus, Russell Maliphant, Nureyev is a theatrical and cinematic experience like no other. This is a portrayal as unique as the man himself. There will never be another Nureyev.

Comments about documentary «Nureyev» (14)

Howard Medina photo
Howard Medina

I think that it is a fair statement that R.A. Rahman has lost his audience to various Hollywood-type and pop-songs-and-composers. The movie is not the best-picture-of-2016, but it is a nice alternative. Besides the movie has a good cast. The movie has very good songs and also nice stories. The reason why I would recommend this movie is the nice plot. I can say that this is a perfect thriller and a good movie with a beautiful cinematography. Watch this movie if you are bored and have time to waste.

Deborah Perez photo
Deborah Perez

Boris Zemskov's documentary on the Russian composer Sergei Prokofiev tells us that the man who "made a name for himself as a piece-per-tricking, tone-deaf and blood-pumping connoisseur of sexual perversity, having the very worst of it - was also a fabulist and "pimp" of the highest order." Zemskov tells us that in his youth Prokofiev used to have as his host at his chateau a man called Givi who was a prolific purveyor of crude pornography. Eventually Givi - a teacher - became a "kiddie pornographer" and Prokofiev's stardom began to fade. It was only Prokofiev who managed to keep his talents in good grace, and in spite of that first one of his successors who said to him "You're a good composer" and then asked "Why?" Prokofiev answered "Because I am a good painter." His interviews with Prokofiev's surviving students will help viewers in understanding the composer's life and work. Zemskov was the Director of the Moscow Academy of Sciences and a former student of Prokofiev and it is a pleasure to see him make this work.

Steven S. photo
Steven S.

When I first heard of Ilya Ehrenberg's "The Black Watch" I had never heard of it. Well, I am a movie buff, and I am never satisfied. Sometimes I get "caught" with the latest biz movie that is not good enough for me. "The Black Watch" is a good movie, but not good enough to be on my list of top 10 best movies ever. The movie is not as good as "Romeo Must Die", but it is still worth watching. The movie's story is like a long poem that could have been told in the style of an epic poem. There are great scenes and some of the acting is very good. The movie was shot in Bulgaria, and the music was composed by a good composer that should have been chosen for "The Black Watch". The movie could have been better if the director had been more focused on a simple story. The directing is not bad, but the movie is just not good enough to be on my list of top 10 best movies ever. The music was good, and it had an "ancestral feel". I think the best part of the movie was the ending. My vote is 7.5/10

Bobby photo

There are a lot of strange events that happen on the streets of Moscow, Russia. But as a documentary, it's not interesting enough. As a documentary of an event, it's a good one, but it's not amazing.

Marilyn Duncan photo
Marilyn Duncan

I really enjoyed the film because it shows a great social and political debate in the Soviet Union. The film is a summary of the tragic events in the USSR. It shows how the US was influenced by this tragedy. The US and the West made different decisions. The Soviet Union made decisions that should have been followed by the West. The West did not follow their own advice. The film is a really good example of how serious and dangerous the problems in the USSR are. The film is about people who were directly involved in the events, people who lost their lives in the events, and people who were misled by the US. The film is very serious, but very entertaining. It shows the truth of what happened in the USSR.

Billy photo

Tariq Ramadan's presentation is what I remember about the film. The way he chooses his subjects and looks at the world around him, the way he paints a picture of the things he's heard of or seen, the things he can see, the people he talks to and their perspective on these topics, all these make the film one of the best I've seen, even if the subject matter and acting aren't the best of this year. For me it's the way he's able to bring out the emotions and ideas he's got, including the different angles he brings to it. He shows that terrorism is an issue that's affecting everyone, even if it's different people in different places. He shows that terrorism isn't just something that happens to Muslims in the name of Islam. He shows that there are people who think the entire world is full of Muslims and Muslims who think the whole world is full of people who hate them. He shows that sometimes they can work together to fight terrorism and sometimes they can fight against terrorism. He shows that sometimes it's wrong for one group of people to try to take the power away from another group, and sometimes it's even right. He shows that when people are arguing with each other, they often end up getting nothing done. He shows that when people get into arguments, then it's easier to end them. He shows that sometimes you can't just let people argue. Sometimes you have to speak up and fight for what you believe in. He shows that even when you have the most powerful leader on the planet, you still need to keep your mouth shut and stick up for your beliefs. If someone doesn't listen, then that's the end of you. And sometimes the reason you're not listening is that they don't like you. That's what the film is about, especially since we're seeing it with Tariq. He's not perfect. He's got a bad attitude and sometimes he can be very aggressive. But he's a lot more than that. He's very well balanced and he's very principled. He's never offended anyone, and when he's speaking, he's always trying to do something positive for the people he's talking to. He's really a really good guy. He's like a child in many ways. I think the way he's able to bring out the emotions and the ideas he's got, the way he shows the world from his perspective, the way he presents the world from his point of view, it's really special. I don't think there's any other film in the world that's had something to do with terrorism and international terrorism, and also not only that, but it's something that affects a lot of people, even if they're not Muslim. That's a really important part of the film. You don't need to be Muslim to be affected by it. And sometimes it's not about what you believe in, sometimes it's about how you react to what's going on. It's a really important film, I think. I wouldn't say it's for everyone, but if you like documentaries, you should watch it.

Deborah photo

Nureyev and Lebedev are very rarely given the attention they deserve in their respective fields. The story of Nureyev, the revolutionary, is not shown as a fun, funny documentary but a serious biography. The story is not about Nureyev, but about the revolt against Soviet communism, an uprising that forced the Soviet government to end its support for communism. The Communists, who are really hated, were the real villains here, and that is where the story begins. It is this uprising that would ultimately bring down the government. This is something that is never done very often, although it has been done a few times. To me this is a pretty good documentary about one of the most important events in history. Most of the other documentaries focus on the communist side of things, but this shows just how vital and pivotal this uprising was. The camera stays focused on the revolution, staying at Nureyev's house, going to the apartment where he grew up, and the many places where the rebels fought against the government. In doing this Nureyev's life has never been shown as a fun documentary, but a serious look at the uprising. As a result, the story of the uprising is shown through a different lens. Instead of being just a story about the uprising, we are given a look at the lives of all the rebels who fought the government. Even though the revolution was pretty weak, it did have some profound effects. The government was still being supported by the people who were supposed to be the opposition, and this does not change. In fact, it becomes more important than ever to keep the people in power. It is pretty clear that this was a much more serious uprising, and the rebellion became more important and important. This gives this documentary a very gritty look at what was really happening during this time. It is very convincing and convincing is something that the government was not willing to give to the people. They did not want to do it, and the government knows that this revolution is far more powerful than their small power base. What does change is the people. The rebels were dying, but it was not because of a revolution, but because of the old-school system. The government knew that the revolution was going to be stronger than their power base, so they made the government more powerful by forcing it to give more power to the people. This is why the rebellion and the revolution are so important, because these revolutions should be something to remember. There were some amazing revolutionary films during this time period, and the ones that were most important are, of course, the ones that were created by Yuri Chebygin. There are some good documentaries, but there is not much to say about the best documentaries of all time. If you like documentaries and history, then this is definitely the one for you.

Denise N. photo
Denise N.

I don't think there is an obvious connection between V.I. Lenin and V.I. Stalin.Lenin may have invented Bolshevism, but Stalin had to get it, as a Comintern member, from Lenin. It's really a question of balance of power and not having enough control. Trotsky is very good but the details are very incomplete. Lenin is one of the most impressive leaders, but Stalin is more evil and his methods were obviously more sophisticated. But I would like to think Stalin had a lot more power. You could say he made Lenin look bad, but in reality it's Lenin who has to do that. I think this documentary was very good. The photos are very good, although some of the people they featured were not really good people. Some of the interviews with Trotsky were interesting, but some of them were not very well-researched. Overall I'd give this film 7/10.

Elizabeth Lucas photo
Elizabeth Lucas

This documentary is a far more informed approach to the Islamic State, than most of the other media sources and reports out there. The use of both primary and secondary sources are a welcome addition, to a complex and complex problem that has received very little attention. The Islamic State has now been called "the most effective state on Earth". A group of the world's most skilled and innovative scholars, experts, academics and technocrats, have been tasked with a task: to describe, in one speech, the power of ISIS. One of the greatest strengths of this film is that it uses primary sources from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, for those who have not already been exposed to them. The commentary is also done with the help of experts who, as we see, are part of a group that has been given a special mission and is supposed to be the experts on the matter at hand. It is worth noting that the Iraqis are doing the same, with a different format, to be able to emphasize their point. The goal is to give a balanced perspective of the situation in Iraq. The film also has some very interesting commentary about the nature of the Islamic State. The most important takeaway is that, while the Islamic State may be a new phenomenon, its ideas and capabilities are still being researched and developed. This is not a new phenomenon in the Middle East, and this is why the group needs more research. In the end, the film is not about ISIS, but the rise of ISIS, and the Western media's misinterpretation of the situation. Watch this film to have an informed discussion about the subject at hand. It is an interesting and balanced documentary.

Shirley Beck photo
Shirley Beck

The film is called "Taking The Heat" and it is the story of two hard core Russian musicians who take the titular heat for refusing to stop playing their music and even for refusing to cooperate with an unjust government. It is a brilliant political documentary, highlighting the failings of the Russian legal system, and how the legal system punishes and suppresses a citizen's right to a fair trial, regardless of what they do. The documentary is still a great film, but at times it feels slow and somewhat overly dramatic. There is a lot of criticism of the legal system, but it is never a cheap shot, and the film does not accuse any individual of being a criminal. I give it a 7 out of 10. It was an excellent film and a documentary should be judged on the same level.

Randy Silva photo
Randy Silva

A talk show host and his adult daughter's relationship is the center of this documentary. The daughter is very open about her relationship with the host. The director of the film, Natasha Ross, is a music critic for the New York Times. She also produced the music video for Aaliyah's "Wonder Woman" and is the former co-producer of The Rolling Stones' video for "Brown Sugar." (The documentary focuses on their relationship but does not say whether Aaliyah had any involvement in the production of that video.) The family's musical taste is eclectic and includes songs by people like Elton John, Elvis Presley, Diana Ross, and Sheryl Crow. The hosts also appear as an extended family, including the mother, father, and other adult children. The goal of this documentary is to show the problems of modern family. The mother (Nishina) is a single mother in her early thirties, who struggles to support herself and her daughter. She is also suffering from drug addiction, alcohol abuse, and a miscarriage. The father, an ex-military officer, is an alcoholic and frequently flies off the handle. The daughter, who has Down syndrome, has difficulty adjusting to adult life. The father often appears to be making excuses for his daughter. The daughter does not understand why her father would act this way. The daughter also needs some form of discipline, such as an occasional tutor. On the other hand, the father seems to have a great deal of control over the daughter. The daughter also needs to take responsibility for her actions. The mother and father also seem to be avoiding each other. The father seems to enjoy sleeping with his daughter-even though he is in the habit of cheating on her. This movie shows what we can learn from family relationships.

Gerald R. photo
Gerald R.

Sidney Pollack is the most boring and annoying man alive. His cinematography has zero impact on the story and he seems to want to play up the exoticism of the Russian capital. That may have worked in the past, but the only other movies he's been in are ludicrous! His films seem to be a response to Stalin and his regime. He seems to think that he is Russian. He's really not! A fascinating and fascinating documentary.

Jack photo

Watched a lot of a bunch of Russian documentaries, mainly about Russia, but found this in particular quite interesting. Probably the biggest problem with this movie was the cussing in some scenes, some of it is rather pointless, but not all of it. The thing is, I don't care about the issues raised by the documentary, as long as the Russians (and the Russian public) understand them, they are not lost. This film is an attempt to explore some of the public's reactions to what is happening to the Russian population (the "Russian World") and to this day to my knowledge no documentary or other film has ever come close to showing this from a Russian point of view. The film makes it clear to the viewer how Russia is viewed by the rest of the world, why Russians are more or less hated by many other countries, and that this hatred has been an issue for many years. This is not just a Russian problem, but it is one of the biggest issues the rest of the world has with Russia. There are people in Russia who live as if the West is the enemy and even think the Soviets were the good guys in WW2. The camerawork is well done and provides a nice view of how a documentary in this particular context should look. It is well made and well directed. The only complaint I have is that the film sometimes seemed to become disjointed. It can be confusing sometimes. In addition, the documentary's title is quite misleading as most of the people in the documentary are not members of the population, but rather representatives of the country. They seem to be saying that the whole country is a dictatorship (which is not the case at all) but instead they are saying that a certain portion of the population do not support the government, which is also not the case at all. The narrator of the film seems to be saying that the rest of the people are for a dictator, but he actually is saying that the population is being used by this person. I guess the idea is to make it seem like the people are not opposed to the government, but rather are divided and divided by the government. For instance, the narrator says that there are a lot of people in the city who support the government, but are actually against the government and are making the statement that the rest of the people are supporting a dictator. I can not give the movie a 9 because I do not think that it was all that good. It was an interesting documentary that would have been more interesting if it had been a documentary made by the Soviet government, but in that case it would have been a much better movie, as it would have been much more informative and informative for the average moviegoer, but not so good for documentary viewers. The same could be said for this movie.

Julia photo

Sulitvos's pioneering work as a documentary filmmaker is fascinating. The filmmaker follows his life, from his first scenes as a young man to his first scenes as a senior citizen. The film is a great love letter to the city of Kyiv. It is a city that is still very much a beacon of hope in today's Ukraine. The film is an exploration of the growing pains of the growing generations of Kyiv and how that has influenced the artist's growth, and the actor's on screen journey of growing up. The film is, in part, an exploration of why the aging Kyiv artist/guru has remained so undiscovered. It is an exploration of the city itself, and its inhabitants. As a result of Sulitvos's research into the local culture, the film is both a study of the problems the artist has encountered, as well as an examination of the cultural change and future of the city. The film is fascinating, at times, even overwhelming. The documentary is interesting, but the experience is overwhelming. To fully appreciate the film, you have to put yourself in the place of the filmmaker. This is especially true of the documentary. It is an hour and a half of the filmmaker, by himself. For all of the filmmaker's brilliant work, for all of the work he did, it is very hard to really get a handle on who he is. The documentary gives a full account of the filmmaker. It is very difficult to get a full story of what the filmmaker is about, or who he is. The documentary does not give this full account. It is interesting, but it is also almost overwhelming. The documentary makes it hard to truly appreciate the work of the filmmaker. Even a better documentary, The Age of Hope, with Russell Crowe and Eddie Redmayne, could have done this film justice. I still think that there are other documentaries that are much better, but the documentary is still very good. The documentary captures the beauty of the city, but is also overwhelming, and thus the experience is difficult. The documentary is intriguing, but it is difficult to get a handle on the filmmaker. I give the documentary 7 stars out of 10.