Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Watch Citizen K

Citizen K is a movie starring Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Putin, and Leonid Nevzlin. The strange case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia, who rocketed to prosperity and prominence in the...

Alex Gibney
Leonid Nevzlin, Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Putin

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Alex Gibney
Writer Alex Gibney
Stars Leonid Nevzlin, Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Putin
Country USA, UK
Also Known As Cidadão K, Obywatel K
Runtime 2 h 6 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description Mikhail Khodorkovsky is charismatic and mercurial. It's not difficult to see why Alex Gibney chose him as the focus of his new film. After thriving in Russia in the 1990s and amassing incredible wealth from the oil industry, Mikhail Khodorkovsky became a nuisance to Vladimir Putin, who subsequently had him jailed in Siberia for ten years. Now living in exile in the UK, he orchestrates a far-reaching anti-Putin campaign. Through this story, Alex Gibney charts Vladimir Putin's rise to power, the golden years of the oligarchs and an era of gangster capitalism, combining archive footage and interviews with various journalists and Mikhail Khodorkovsky himself. Unfolding like a gripping political thriller, Citizen K (2019) is an urgent and topical account of a culture dominated by fake news and the rise of Russia's alleged meddling in politics beyond its borders.

Top reviews

Saturday, 17 Oct 2020 11:37

Kris Kringle's film "Citizen K" (2017), is an insider's view of a deep-seated family scandal. At the centre of the story is the late, great director, Dusan Makavejev, whose epic, visually stunning documentaries about the Yugoslav wars provide us with an intimate, yet powerful perspective on the conflict in the Balkans. Makavejev, whose work was showcased in the BBC4 series "Mediapart", was the first living director to have received a statue of the Academy for the achievement of discovering the greatest shooting documentaries of the twentieth century, and in 2012, was honoured by the Academy for his work on "Citizen K", the film that went on to receive a five-star review in The Guardian's 10 best documentaries of the year. Makavejev lived until 2014, and died last year, with the film still in the can. To get a true insight into the film, I had to watch it four times in my home. This being a very personal and personal film, it was not easy to watch it. When I sat down to watch it, I couldn't help thinking it would be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The first thing I noticed was the slow pace of the film. It dragged on with nothing happening for the first third of the film. This caused me to become frustrated with the film, thinking it was going nowhere fast. It wasn't until I watched the second part that I realised that the slow pacing and sometimes flat, sometimes boring scenes were the correct aspect of the film. I could not understand how I would sit and watch the film for five hours, without getting bored, thinking it was boring. I didn't get bored, I was so gripped by the film, that I couldn't even notice the slow pacing. I saw the flaws of the film before it even began, so I wasn't surprised when it was almost over. I didn't know how to feel. How could I enjoy this? What were the virtues of the film? I can tell you, that it is, in many ways, a deeply personal film. Every character in the film has a distinct personality, and it is the diverse combination of them that is the film's strength. I could not think of any character in the film, but I could say that I loved the way the film was done. The film is visually stunning, and features a brilliant soundtrack, that was carefully selected to accompany the story. The soundtrack in itself is what kept me at the edge of my seat throughout the film, as I kept expecting to be thrown from the edge of my seat by a scene, which would put me back on my seat. The film is extremely difficult to watch, and I was quite shocked by how many times I couldn't stop myself from crying. I was almost crying every
Thursday, 17 Sep 2020 09:14

I went into the film with an open mind. I'm not a big fan of Jeremy Irons, and even thought that his performance was not particularly great. However, I came out of the film thinking that he did a great job of presenting his character. I'm not sure that the acting was up to his standard, but his honesty and openness really got me emotionally involved with the story. I thought he was very convincing and honest in his portrayal of Mr. Johnston. I feel that some people could have done a better job of portraying his character, but in all fairness I am not sure that he did. To me, the acting and the writing were just as important as the storyline. I was not sure whether it was a story about the Vietnam War or a story about a story. I'm not sure, but I was glad that the writing of the film was in the vein of The Killing Fields. I'm not sure that it really should be called that. In fact, I think that the film should be called The Death of an American Hero. It's really a very interesting and well done piece of work. The film ends up being a very important part of this film. The fact that Mr. Irons and his fellow veterans were able to organize and carry on a war to save the lives of others, just shows the value of an America that had the courage to fight for the survival of its own. We need to remember this and this should be a very important film in this year's Oscar election. It is a shame that so many people seem to have no interest in the films that the Vietnam veterans have put out, and it is a shame that so many seem to think that this is a personal story that should be told to one person. People should remember that there are thousands of other Vietnam vets who suffered because of the war and it was not only about the war itself, but it was about the lives of others. I am very pleased that Mr. Irons has been able to bring this story to the screen, and I hope that he will continue to do more work like this, because it really is important. This is a great film and I would recommend it to anyone, not only those who have an interest in the Vietnam war.
Thursday, 30 Jul 2020 13:18

Citizen K is a documentary that shows the process of getting all the candidates to the ballot box in the United States, and, of course, what happens if they don't get there. It's an impressive feat, and it's difficult to get them to agree on anything, but when they do, it's very clear that they have been bought by the state and company that is supposed to give them a voice. As a documentary, it's very interesting, and it's filled with great shots of the process and the candidates. Unfortunately, there is one major flaw that stops it from being a very good documentary. As I said, it shows how it's done in the U.S., and it shows the process of how a candidate is chosen, but as the documentary is quite long, it doesn't really cover the entire process. The longer it is, the less interesting the film becomes. The way it ends is a little disappointing, but it does leave you with a feeling that they've covered a lot of information, but it's not a whole lot. That being said, the film does do a very good job at showing the history of how the process has been run. The film is set in various states, and it covers a lot of detail about each state. This is done very well, and the film is very informative. It's a very interesting documentary, and it's a good example of how to make a documentary. It's also very educational and interesting, but it's a little short. Overall, I'd definitely recommend it to anybody who wants to know more about the United States elections, but it's a little bit too long and it's a little disappointing that it doesn't cover a lot of information. Citizen K: The Election is a good documentary that is well worth watching.
Sunday, 19 Jul 2020 14:00

To see a documentary about a film that you think is going to be more politically charged than it actually is is a rare treat. I felt that this documentary was as honest and as well-shot as any film I've seen in a while. It doesn't try to be too politically or socially significant, it just wants to tell a story, and it does that. For what it's worth, I was one of the fans of the original film, and I liked the fact that it was at least at least loosely inspired by the true events. To me, it was about the people who came into the picture, and I liked that it wasn't just a "hollywood" version of this story. I liked that there were actual actors, who worked with real people, and I liked that the filmmakers tried to paint a picture of what happened, and they succeeded. I also liked that the makers used the same footage they used to create the original film, and the documentary itself is beautiful, and that it was really worth it. I saw this film at Sundance, and I think it was a real shame that it went to the big screen. I thought it was a great piece of work, and I think it's going to be something that I'll be proud to add to my collection. The only negative thing I have to say is that it's not a perfect documentary, and I don't know if it was necessarily the subject matter that made this project so controversial. There are certain segments of the film that are very disturbing, and I know that many of the people who came out of the screenings I attended, felt the same way. I am not a film critic, and I didn't know if this was a "true story", but I have seen and heard from other people that this film was based on true events, so I can only assume that they were inspired by that fact. There are two other reasons why I am not a perfect film critic. One is that there are some scenes that I think were kind of contrived and out of place. I do believe that the original film did use real people, but I also believe that there are a lot of things that were taken out. I think that the makers of the film, who were making the film in the first place, should have made the filmmakers, the actors, and the actual people they used, as the characters, and that's what I believe they did, but I don't know if I agree with the fact that they left out some of the most important parts. I also have a problem with the actors. I have seen what they did, and I know that they are not making a film, but they act like they are. I think that was a mistake. The same goes for the whole ending. I just don't understand why the people were taking the drugs, but I know
Friday, 17 Jul 2020 14:19

This is a very interesting documentary. Not that it makes a really big deal out of the fact that we don't always know what really happened, but it makes a point about how we're forced to become emotionally involved with people we have no way of knowing or understand. The fact that the group we're watching is obviously quite small is a good thing, as it helps the documentary to show us the good parts of the community, and the bad. The events that occur in this documentary are more or less balanced, as the viewer is kept informed as to how many people died, how many people survived, how many were injured and so on. The film is very slow paced, so it may be a bit hard for those not very into documentaries to keep up with it. The fact that it's not shown in a linear fashion also helps to keep it interesting, as the events are shown in a non-linear way, with many stories intertwined together. The fact that it's done in a non-biased fashion also helps, as it's not seen as a documentary of the events, but as an exploration into the events themselves. The cinematography is also very impressive, as it is very technical and precise. The way the film was shot really helped to show the seriousness of the events, as the camera seemed to go through each of the stories. The colors of the film is also very good, as the backgrounds are very dramatic. The fact that it's not shown in a very short or fast style also helped to keep the viewer involved. As I said before, this is a very short documentary, so it's best to just watch it on your own time. It's also a very interesting look into the life of a group of people who have lost a lot, and how they cope. It's also very well-made, and the photography is quite impressive. Overall, I think it's a very interesting and very interesting documentary, and definitely worth watching.
Tuesday, 30 Jun 2020 10:56

Citizen K (2012) * (out of 4) A young girl gets pregnant, and must deal with her mother's infidelity. This film had a lot of good things going for it, but unfortunately the director left something out. One of the major things missing from this film is the mother's reaction. Most of the film takes place in the kitchen, and I don't think I've ever seen a mother react this way. I think that the mother should have gotten a beating, but that doesn't happen in the film. A lot of this film feels like it's missing something, but I'm not sure exactly what. The film certainly gives you a great look at some of the situations in the 1980's, but the director leaves out a lot of important information, and doesn't really focus on the major things happening in the film. There's a lot of good things to be said about this film, but it's missing some important things, which makes the film a little disappointing. The director has to have some major problems with the film, but it's not just missing something. The acting is also very good, and it's nice to see some solid performances. I really enjoyed the music, which is pretty good, but the director leaves out some of the really important things that the music is saying. Overall, I thought this was a good film, and I would recommend it. While the film is missing a lot, I think it's worth seeing, as it has some great performances and a good soundtrack. I would also recommend that you watch the movie with your parents, as it may seem a little hard to understand.
Tuesday, 16 Jun 2020 04:56

I actually watched this documentary about a year ago. This documentary is different in the way that the people are interviewed. Some of them are interviews of people that work for the government. Some are interviews of people who have been involved in the protests. The thing that this documentary does best is that it captures the emotions and the situations of these people. We can see the anger, the frustration, and the frustration of all the people involved in the protests. I think the people in the documentary are really realistic. They are not stars in Hollywood movies. They don't have the money, they don't have the fame, but their stories and emotions are realistic. I think the things that we can learn from this documentary is that people are going to do things for their country no matter what the political side of the story is. And that they will do things to make the country great and better than the country as it is. That is something that we have to learn from this documentary. We have to learn that the government and the leaders are our only leaders, because if we take over our country, we will be under no control of anyone. We will have no leaders. We will just be the people in power, and our only leaders will be our leaders. I think that this documentary is really really interesting and I think that it is important. I think that people should watch this documentary to learn from it. But I think that people should also see the documentary as a warning of what could happen if we let this country get overblown.
Saturday, 02 May 2020 06:44

The first of the documentaries I have seen about the human rights abuses in Israel was the film "The Hour of the Pig" which was based on the true story of the Dina al-Husseini who was an Israeli woman who was raped and murdered by the "Hamas" terrorist group in Gaza in 1994. That is the only film about the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian people that I have seen. I wanted to watch "Human Rights Watch: Palestine" which was based on a report by Amnesty International. In that film, the filmmakers had to portray the situation in Gaza and the West Bank in a very balanced manner. They were careful not to sensationalize the situation or sensationalize the terrorist attacks. They tried to show that what was happening was not isolated cases but rather the normal operation of a terror organization. "Human Rights Watch: Palestine" was basically the same story, but the director decided to focus on the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and the rest of the Israeli population in the West Bank. That is the main difference. I didn't find the film to be biased. I think that it was balanced. There were many things that I would like to have seen more of in the film, but they were not the focus. "Human Rights Watch: Palestine" is worth watching if you want to see the facts of what is happening in the Middle East. I think that it is a good movie to be shown to anyone interested in the subject. It doesn't preach to anybody, it shows the facts and doesn't sensationalize the situation. It is an accurate account of what is happening in the Middle East. "Human Rights Watch: Palestine" is a very good documentary that is well worth seeing.

Write a review