Anschauen The Public Image is Rotten

The Public Image is Rotten

The Public Image is Rotten is a movie starring John Lydon, Michael Alago, and Martin Atkins. The story of PiL, the groundbreaking band form by John Lydon after the collapse of The Sex Pistols in 1978.

Running Time
1 hours 43 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary
Director
Tabbert Fiiller
Actors
Michael Alago, John Lydon, Martin Atkins, Ginger Baker
Country
USA
Year
2017
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

After the breakup of the Sex Pistols, John Lydon / John Rotten formed Public Image Ltd (PiL) his groundbreaking band with which he has pursued creative freedom ever since. He kept the band alive ever since, through personnel and stylistic changes, fighting to constantly reinvent new ways of approaching music, while adhering to radical ideals of artistic integrity. John Lydon has not only redefined music, but also the true meaning of originality. Former and current band mates, as well as fellow icons like Flea, Ad-Rock and Thurston Moore, add testimony to electrifying archival footage "including stills and audio from the infamous Ritz Show". With his trademark acerbic wit and unpredictable candor, Lydon offers a behind-the-scenes look at one of music's most influential and controversial careers.

Comments about documentary «The Public Image is Rotten» (22)

Gerald photo
Gerald

As a person who has worked in the media and is personally involved with media ethics, I found this film very helpful and informative. I think it was a good balance between factual, opinions, and opinion. I agree with the portrayal of the current state of journalism, but I would have preferred a more thorough examination of how the current situation has affected the profession, the media, and the public. Also, I think the presentation of the news is a major factor in this film. A great deal of the movie was based on interviews with media people, who are also featured in the film. It was great to see some of the people in the news. The film did a good job of showing the transition from a news outlet to a major news organization. It was great to see some of the personalities in the news business. I would have liked to see more interviews with the media people and media ethicists. I think the film is worth seeing.

Anthony photo
Anthony

This is the documentary that people should see. It is one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time. If you have never seen a documentary before, I highly recommend that you watch this. It is so beautifully done and there is so much insight and information. The subject is so fascinating and it is well thought out. The documentary is very important because it exposes how the media manipulates us and how we end up believing what we are being told. I think this documentary is one of the most important documentaries that you will ever see. I give it a 9/10.

Carl Perry photo
Carl Perry

This is a very powerful documentary. It makes you think about the way we see things. It's not about the bad guy, it's about the way we see things. It's a very honest documentary, and it's a must see. It's really important for all people. A lot of people don't know the facts about the Holocaust, or they have a negative view about it. This documentary will change your mind. It's not just about the Holocaust, it's about everything.

Kathryn photo
Kathryn

This documentary offers a pretty decent look at the art scene in Amsterdam. The filmmakers go from gallery owner to gallery owner, but never downplay their opinions on what the art world is like. On the surface it's all about the artwork, but we also get to see how people react to it and what they think about it. It's nice to see the diversity of Dutch art and the amazing creative talent that exists here. It's also nice to see that people from all walks of life can come together to appreciate the art world. I really enjoyed it. I think it's one of the best documentaries I've seen.

Janice M. photo
Janice M.

I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was a great movie, and really well done. It's also a bit depressing, but it's a lot better than some of the reviews here give it credit for. It's not a comedy or a drama, it's a documentary about the Hollywood blacklist, about the many cases of blacklisting in the US. The movie is well made, and the interviews with the victims of blacklisting, and their families, are really interesting. There are many clips from the movie, which I recommend you to see, especially for the people who have no idea about the blacklisting, or about the victims of the blacklisting. I personally recommend this movie to anyone, because it's a great movie. And for those of you who are looking for something a bit more sensational, I think you'll be disappointed, because this is a really well made movie. I give this movie a 9 out of 10.

Bobby Hansen photo
Bobby Hansen

There's a huge difference between having an open mind and being brainwashed. It's a tough pill to swallow, but there are people out there who believe that the press is more important than the truth. When it comes to the former, it's up to the individual to decide what he or she wants to believe. For the latter, it's up to the masses to decide what to believe. There's a reason why so many journalists have suffered such a fate. They're just doing their jobs. What we see here is the self-serving motives of some media executives and the desperate actions of others. The latter is certainly a topic that has not been adequately addressed. This film is not meant to be a documentary, but a character study of how a journalist and the media industry have become tainted with corruption. "The Public Image" is a well-made documentary that can be viewed by anyone with a critical mind. It's not a film for everyone, but it should be seen by everyone who wants to know more about the corruption of the media.

Judith Brown photo
Judith Brown

This documentary follows two friends who make art. The films is a journey of discovery, questions, and discussions that the filmmakers attempt to answer. The problem is that they start with a lot of questions but don't explain why the questions are being asked. The film is nice, but has many missing information.

Helen photo
Helen

I just watched the film last night and I must say that this film is really very interesting and the documentary is well worth watching. It shows us that the idea of getting rid of your identity is a very interesting subject to investigate and is the subject of the film. The documentary was very well done and made me very interested in the subject of identity. The film is very interesting because it was made by a person who has been an academic and is very well known in his field. The film starts off with him being a professor and then he is interviewed by a man who is a former professor and he explains to him that he has decided to make a documentary about his own identity. He then starts his interview and he explains to him that he is a professor and that he is a very famous academic and he wants to make a documentary about his identity. The documentary is really interesting because it is very interesting to learn about how people actually think about their identity. We then go into the past and the present and we see the whole story of how people are changing their identity and how people react to this change. I really liked the documentary because it was very interesting to learn about the idea of identity. I think that this documentary is very interesting because it is really interesting to learn about the concept of identity and I think that this is a very interesting subject to explore and I think that it is very interesting to watch.

Barbara R. photo
Barbara R.

The subject of the film, who we are, what we do and how we do it is fascinating. Most of us believe we are really good at what we do. There is an embarrassment of sorts that we hide behind that makes us think we are just fine and fine and so forth. It is a highly psychological and a psychological shame that we hide behind the masks that we have bought from the cultural fountains of the past. The sad part of this is that the masks are now beginning to look more and more absurd and we are beginning to really want to break out of them. When it is our turn to reveal the truth to others it will probably be the most honest, authentic, honest, honest and honest thing we have ever done. I was really moved by the honesty in the movie, but it is also an issue that we are facing. The truth is not always pleasant, but it is truth, regardless of what the circumstances are. The topic was all-encompassing, but I felt that the film was not as well developed as it should have been. I also felt that the film seemed to be about human nature, which is good, but it was a little too wrapped up to be really compelling. Overall I thought that the film was very powerful and inspiring. It is a great way to take a person to an open mind.

Joan Lynch photo
Joan Lynch

This documentary is a must-see for anyone who has a high opinion of Michael Moore. I was fortunate enough to catch it on a rainy afternoon and it was so refreshing to hear Moore's opinions on his life. The documentary is about Michael Moore's film "Roger & Me" and it gives the viewer an insight into what a "citizen journalist" is. The documentary shows Moore going through various stages of his life and giving us a personal insight into his views and opinions. The documentary also shows what a "citizen journalist" is and how Moore was able to make such a good documentary. If you are a fan of Michael Moore's work, then this documentary is for you. It's definitely worth a watch. 9/10

Grace Robertson photo
Grace Robertson

After the success of "Pulp Fiction", Quentin Tarantino decided to make another movie in which he'll have some kind of cast. Well, in the hands of this genius director, this kind of cast is impossible. All that I have to say about this movie is that it is very different than "Pulp Fiction". This film is more about the director's personal life, a little bit about the director's life and an incomplete outline about his life. The movie is an introduction to the director's life, and the movie is divided into two parts. The first half is a documentary about his life. The second half is about his personal life. The second part is more about his personal life than his personal life. For instance, one can see how he spends his time and how he plans to spend his time, what he does with his time. All that is very interesting, and not even a little bit boring. The movie is very entertaining and the first half is very enjoyable and entertaining. But, the second half is a little bit boring. It's about how the director, and to a certain extent, the writer, have to live their personal life. And there are many questions about the director's life, about his personal life and about his life. So, for me, it is not very entertaining. I have to say, the first half is very good. The second half is less entertaining. The first half has more interest, it's more interesting, but the second half is less interesting. In my opinion, it's about as good as the first half. To finish, the movie is interesting, but it's not very entertaining.

Danielle Hudson photo
Danielle Hudson

The Public Image is Rotten is a documentary that follows the career of Canadian actress Melanie Lynskey. In a career spanning nearly 30 years, Lynskey has been in many different roles and she has appeared in more than 50 films and television shows. Her film credits include The American President, Vampires, Zombie, The Human Centipede, and The Talented Mr. Ripley. Lynskey was a favorite of many critics, but her acting was criticized as too old fashioned. This documentary looks at Lynskey's career and her life. The film follows Lynskey from her early days in Canada as a child, to her early adult years as a successful actress. In this documentary, Lynskey is interviewed by Robert Siegel, who was one of the producers of the documentary. He is also interviewed by Julie Daniels, who is Lynskey's co-star in the television series The Talented Mr. Ripley. This is a very good documentary, as Lynskey is interviewed about her career, her children, her relationship with her father, and her relationship with her husband. The film is not only a look at Lynskey's career, but it is also a look at the difficulties that young women faced in the 60's and 70's. Lynskey's career was a great success, but her life was not. The film is very informative and entertaining. Lynskey's life was full of troubles and many people saw her as an old-fashioned woman. However, Lynskey was the queen of her era, and she managed to have a great career. Lynskey was very successful and did not have to deal with the problems of the 60's. She made a lot of money, but she was still a young woman in the 60's.

Timothy Delgado photo
Timothy Delgado

The Public Image is rotten, at least in part, because it's so popular that it's become an icon of the punk/hardcore scene. Because it was so successful in capturing the magic of punk and the true essence of punk culture, it has become a cult figure in its own right. With that said, I still found it entertaining and I liked it quite a bit. Like the Public Image, this documentary (which is loosely based on a true story) is well done, with interviews with the main characters (including new singer-songwriter Seth, who also appears in the film) and with folks who are related to the main characters. The filmmaker also includes scenes with fans and other punk rockers. The film really does focus on the story of the main characters, including the reasons for their feud with the other bands they banded with. The film also tries to get a more objective view of the subject of punk rock, although it does a good job of explaining the reasons why bands like Mud, the Sex Pistols, Blondie, and Limp Bizkit had problems. The reason, as the documentary suggests, is that they were perceived as being too extreme and too out of touch with the rest of the world. In my opinion, that's a bit overblown. There's a lot more to the story than that. For example, I've never been a big fan of the Sex Pistols, but I found them to be excellent musicians and performers. Even though they were on the verge of becoming a punk band themselves, they still found ways to create music that was hard to hear on the radio. They were also influenced by the Sex Pistols, but when they found themselves in a difficult situation, they tried to work out their problems on their own. Similarly, the Blondies started as a punk band and eventually found themselves in a difficult situation. They tried to work out their problems on their own, but that didn't work out too well, and that's what they ended up with. The reasons for the feuds are pretty much the same, but I think the two guys from Limp Bizkit are the most sympathetic and the most likeable. Overall, this is a well made documentary, with interviews with people who are more or less connected to the story. It's quite entertaining and gives a good look at the history of punk rock and the early punk scene.

Sarah Jordan photo
Sarah Jordan

I liked this film a lot. It was very insightful about the issues that plague us, and the people who deal with them. The interviews with the people who are affected by these issues are very powerful and very emotional. The film also touches on the concept of the social media, which I think is a very important concept for this discussion. For example, we hear about how the internet has changed the way people interact with one another. This is a very important topic to discuss, and the people who are affected by this topic are very interesting to hear about. The social media industry is a very important topic to discuss. This film is very good because it shows us what's wrong with the social media industry, and it does so in a very honest way. It doesn't sugar coat it, and it doesn't try to be the next big thing. This is very good because it shows us the problems that people face, and it doesn't try to make us feel good about ourselves. I think this is a very good documentary that people should see.

Amanda photo
Amanda

I was shocked at the low rating this movie has gotten. It's no Oscar winner and I can't even say I think it's a good movie, but it was interesting. You get a lot of information on the basis of the documentary, but you also get some great interviews with people involved with the project. It's really good stuff. I don't think it's a great movie, but it is interesting.

Peter P. photo
Peter P.

The only reason I'm giving this a nine is because I'm a big fan of Roger Ebert and I felt that he gave this documentary an unfair score. It was very well done, the interviews were well done and I think it was very interesting and informative. If you're a fan of Roger Ebert and you want to know how he was, this is the documentary for you. I do have one issue with it though. It was very strange to see how the film was edited. You had the interviews and then a few minutes of the news and then another few minutes of the interviewers and then another few minutes of the news. The news clips were cut out and the interviewers were edited out of the clips. I don't think that's fair. I know that they had to cut the footage to fit the length of the documentary but I felt that it was a little strange. This documentary was very well done and I definitely recommend it.

Rose E. photo
Rose E.

I saw this movie at the Silverstone Film Festival and had a chance to talk to a couple of the filmmakers. The main character, Robert Wiebe, is a TV news reporter who is trying to deal with his addiction to cocaine and alcohol. His job is to interview people who have gone down this road and to bring them to his hotel room to talk about their experiences. The problem is that no matter how hard he tries, he has a hard time getting his subjects to talk about their "pasts". Eventually, he meets up with a couple, a musician and a stripper who seem like they have no problems with what they have done. This is a story that has been told a million times and in the same way. There is a lot of discussion about the drugs and the end of the lives of these people. It does a good job at staying out of the way and gets right to the point of the talk. If you want to see a really good documentary on the subject, check out "Down and Out in Hollywood". If you want to see a movie that deals with the subject, "One Hour Photo" is a much better choice. The only downside of this movie is that there is no way to turn it off. I did not watch this movie until it was over, and I felt like I had to pay the admission price to get the last half of it. At the time, I was not ready to pay for this movie and I was also not sure if I should be watching it. I can say that this movie is a real eye opener for the fans of these kind of documentaries. If you are looking for a movie to see this year, I would recommend "Down and Out in Hollywood".

Benjamin photo
Benjamin

This is a documentary about the show The Public Image, which is a sitcom that ran for 10 seasons. This documentary looks at the show from the start, to the end. The film is divided into episodes, and each episode is told through a series of interviews with the actors and actresses. The interviews are all done by the same person, and the interviews are done in the same way. This is a good documentary for fans of The Public Image. It does have a few things that I didn't like, like the way the show was set up, and the way the actors spoke. The show had a big budget and it was put to good use, but they did a poor job with the filming. It was obvious that they used a lot of video footage. The interviews were done in a very amateur way. It was obvious that the actors didn't have much training, and they had no background on how to use a camera. The interviews were also very superficial. They didn't really ask any questions, or ask the actors to explain the words they were using. This was also a problem with the documentary, as the interviews were done by the same person, who is not a very good interviewer. If you liked The Public Image, you should definitely watch this documentary.

Helen P. photo
Helen P.

No one has ever seen the content of this film but it seems to be fairly well known among the film community. It seems that many people believe that it was more of a public relations stunt for the director than an actual documentary. I can only presume that this is because the director doesn't really do much of any research. The director, Peter Halley, was a writer for the magazine Time, and did a large amount of interviews with various people of the time period. The interviews seemed to be more scripted and less than factual. The style of the film is similar to a documentary but with an emphasis on the people interviewed rather than the actual story. It was apparent that the director did not do much research on the subject matter he was interviewing. There was a general lack of accurate detail and the director could not offer any real explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that certain people were guilty of what he claims they did. He gives them several reasons that seem to contradict the facts and the people themselves. I can't really give away the entire film because I don't want to give anything away. The idea of having one man take on an entire city seemed to be the best one to offer a documentary about the history of sex. If you are going to do a documentary on the subject then at least do a little research before you start filming. If you do choose to film this film then don't expect to get a fair representation. This film was not a documentary.

Kelly Robinson photo
Kelly Robinson

I recently saw the first two seasons of ABC's Scandal, the Emmy Award-winning drama that's the basis for the series Scandal. As a fan of the series, I had a lot of interest in this documentary. After watching it, I was not disappointed. The film is done in such a way as to really push the viewer to the edge of their seat, and really bring the viewer inside the world of the soap opera. As a die-hard fan of Scandal, I was able to give this film a great review. While there are many moments in this film that are truly genius, the film does falter in the finale. Unfortunately, the final sequence of the film just feels like a stopgap measure to bridge the gap between seasons one and two. Despite these flaws, I was able to thoroughly enjoy the film, and I highly recommend it to anyone that loves Scandal. It is a fantastic movie, and I highly recommend it.

Denise Evans photo
Denise Evans

I was going to go see this movie for myself because I like the director, but after seeing the trailer and knowing the content of this film I realized that I should have stayed away. I did not read the book that the movie is based on, so I can't comment on the film. I can tell you that this is a boring film that doesn't get the right message across. There are a lot of things in this movie that are a waste of time, like the way they make the soldiers work in the jungle and the way they keep the prisoners separated from each other. Also, it's just a long drawn out story of a kid who can't deal with life and who also has a gambling problem. So, what does it show us? Well, it shows that the man who makes a fortune in the gambling scene has a messed up life and the man who is supposed to be a judge on the gambling scene is a murderer who puts people in jail because he has a gambling problem. There are many other things in this film that make no sense and are boring. I also can't believe that people like Edward Norton and Michael Caine would actually agree to be in a movie about gambling. I mean, this is basically a movie that would show their own life. They just would have done a better job in getting the message across. I think that this film was made by a movie director who doesn't care about the subject matter, so there are many good points about this film but it is also a bad film. If you don't care about a movie that has a topic that you know nothing about, then you shouldn't go see it. If you like this film, then you probably won't be a good film critic. If you like this film, then you probably shouldn't see it because it is really boring.

Sara Young photo
Sara Young

I took a chance on this one, and not just because I'd heard so much about the subject matter. For me, it was a very interesting and touching documentary. While I am a longtime fan of Michael Moore, I don't always agree with his commentary, and this movie certainly wasn't a typical "Killer of the Week" type of thing, with Moore doing his best impression of a clueless American, with a particularly poor grasp of the finer points of foreign languages. Rather, the movie was a pretty clear-cut, blunt-headed look at how the media in this country operates, how we are actually one big joke, and how we go about covering what we believe is a serious, important story. While some of the stories Moore brings up (such as the many innocent Iraqis killed by US forces) are truly heartbreaking, I also found the ones that were mostly about the US Navy being out of control, and "lame" stories to be almost laughably laughable. While the film doesn't take a definitive stand on the war in Iraq, it does make some valid points about how these stories are essentially being used by the media to sell products, and to further a political agenda. While the movie is fairly well-made, there are still some points that make it clear that a lot of the information provided is not up to date. For example, in many of the interviews, Moore cites news clips from the past that clearly show the US Navy deliberately ramming Iraqi's boats. However, as I mentioned before, I don't always agree with Moore's commentary, and I thought the movie's point-of-view was a bit too much for some of the interviewees. However, if you are willing to open your mind and realize that what you are watching is a movie, and that what you are seeing is made-for-TV and broadcast news, then you'll find this one a good one.