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

Watch A Bread Factory, Part One

A Bread Factory, Part One is a movie starring Tyne Daly, Elisabeth Henry, and James Marsters. After 40 years of running their community arts space, The Bread Factory, Dorothea and Greta are suddenly fighting for survival when a...

Drama, Comedy
Patrick Wang
Shershah Mizan, Tyne Daly, Elisabeth Henry, James Marsters

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Drama, Comedy
Director Patrick Wang
Writer Patrick Wang
Stars Shershah Mizan, Tyne Daly, Elisabeth Henry, James Marsters
Country USA
Also Known As A Bread Factory, Part One: For the Sake of Gold, 麵包工廠首部曲, A Bread Factory Part 1: Ce qui nous unit
Runtime 2 h 2 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 After 40 years of running their community arts space, The Bread Factory, Dorothea and Greta are suddenly fighting for survival when a celebrity couple--performance artists from China--come to Checkford and build an enormous complex down the street catapulting big changes in their small town.

Top reviews

Thursday, 03 Sep 2020 03:29

In the world of filmmaking, one of the best ways to make a good film is by staying true to the art of filmmaking. Why this film hasn't received more attention than the third best film ever made is beyond me. However, this film is a masterpiece in its own right, and is even better than the aforementioned "Bread Factory". My guess is that these people know they are in a great film and use that knowledge to make a great film. Even better than that is seeing how much the directing and writing of this film reflects the individual opinions of the entire film. People watching this film should be critical of the director, the writer and even the actors. This film is very personal, in a good way. It is about the whole world, as it is about the individual. The whole film is a commentary on the world, and each individual person in the film has a part to play in that commentary. Everyone in the film has an opinion, which is different, yet relevant to the film. It's easy to become disinterested in the world around you, especially if the world has no room for individuality. One person will not have the entire film, another will have no action at all. Everyone has a voice in this film, and everyone has a voice to shout. This film is very well made, and I highly recommend that everyone watch it. It is so well done that it is unbelievable that a film like this could be made with no major industry. It was made on a shoestring budget and while it was a great film, there is a little bit of a story to it that needs to be told. If you go into this film expecting a real blockbuster, and then a really good film like this comes out, you're not going to like it. In my opinion, there is no way that "Glitter" is a true blockbuster, yet it was so well made that it could be classified as one. This film could be considered a masterpiece, because it is so well made, and the acting is so good that the film itself can be considered a masterpiece. Watch it and decide for yourself. This film is a masterpiece, and I recommend you watch it.
Wednesday, 02 Sep 2020 17:58

This is a good movie. After all, this is the first movie of a person's life to be made. I don't know what to say about it. I just can't. I have to describe it all in one sentence. I'm not sure if I have said it correctly so far, but I'm sure I will. The movie is a nonlinear story of three children growing up, a mother and a father and a sister and a brother, and how they deal with their growing up. The father, who seems to be a religious man, and the mother who works as a teacher, have a bit of a conflict in their lives. The sister, who also is a girl, comes from a chaotic family. The mother, who is struggling to find her own identity, is also dealing with her own identity crisis. The first half is probably the best. The story is in the middle and the first hour is very good, and the second half is very good, and I must say I was very impressed with the direction of the director. Also the production is great. The actors do a great job, but I can't say that the children were great. My heart goes out to all the actors, as I'm sure they have not had a chance to enjoy their performances. The father, playing a very silent man, plays his role very well. I don't know whether I would say that the mother is too quiet or the sister too loud. The director also did a great job in his editing. The music is very good. My favorite song is "One Last Thing". The story is great, I liked it and I hope I can continue to watch it. I really liked the story and I recommend to everyone who likes movies, and also to everyone who is interested in making movies, to see this movie. I would like to see the director continue his work, because the first one was a great movie. Overall a great movie, and if you like movies, this one is a must see.
Thursday, 20 Aug 2020 18:59

This is a rather remarkable movie, and the fact that it was a long time in the making should not be too surprising. With an assortment of renowned directors and actors as writers and directors, there is no shortage of ideas and potential for a great movie. However, the fact that it was made from the point of view of two people was a feat not to be equaled. The acting was first-rate. I can't say anything bad about it. I thought it was a terrific story about love, friendship, and its intersection with the politics of war and revolution. The photography was beautiful and the locations were used very well. The story could have been told in a few minutes, but it just got too long for what it was trying to accomplish. I was happy to see that it did not fall into the trap of falling into the ever-craving world of filmmaking, where directors and writers just need to tell the same story over and over and over again. One of my favorite scenes is when we see a shot of the gang from the bridge, again and again, taking the cross-country trip. I wish it would have ended with them coming back to the shelter. And then they come to the shelter, and then we are at the end of the movie. The way the movie ends is important to the story, and the moment was not as well executed as it could have been. However, it is a wonderful story. The movie was not a big commercial success. There is a controversy about the fact that the director, Richard Benjamin, was not credited. That should not surprise us. He is a very well-known, but not very well-known director. It's interesting to note that it was just about the same director that directed the (much better) "Goodfellas". If you go into this movie thinking that it is going to be a big, Hollywood-style blockbuster with many big stars, and a huge star-studded cast, you will be disappointed. But if you want to see a movie that is much more personal and less commercial, you will enjoy this movie.
Wednesday, 17 Jun 2020 01:40

In the days leading up to the release of "Titanic," the word "historic" came up a lot, and I thought it would be a good thing to see a movie about the Titanic, since it was one of the greatest disasters ever to befall a nation. I didn't expect anything but a movie about the disaster. And I was right. It is a very entertaining movie, but it has a few faults. First, the music is horrible. It sounds like they were listening to the music of the day. Second, the acting is terrible. Kate Winslet has done a great job in other movies, but she is very wooden here. The same goes for James Cameron, who can only be compared to Robert Redford in "The Conversation" (the original movie). He is, without a doubt, one of the worst actors in history. The third problem is the script. If you want to make a movie about a disaster, you should start with a good script, and then make the characters come to life. No one does that in this movie. The only character that comes to life is Jack Dawson (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), but the script forgets to give him a reason to act like a man. The script does a great job of making the characters "dream" about the disaster, but they just don't have the guts to make the audience feel anything. For example, the scene where Jack is being rescued in the water. He is totally frozen. Why is he frozen? He has not been given anything to eat. He is supposed to be a great hero, and the script gives him a reason to be a great hero. I don't understand how this script works. When the film ends, you don't even know if the characters have survived or not. If you think you have survived, you're wrong. The script leaves you with a huge hole in your mind. The fourth problem is the direction. In many scenes, the camera was very shaky. It was very choppy and a lot of the scenes were very dark. I have never experienced that before in a movie. The worst part of the movie is the last 20 minutes. I don't think that the director could have made a better movie, but he does a pretty good job here. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good disaster movie. It's a good way to pass a couple hours.

Write a review