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

Watch Constructing Albert

Constructing Albert is a movie starring Albert Adrià, Ferran Adrià, and José Andrés. The most important revolution in culinary history took place in a remote cove on the Catalan coast. The Big Bang of creative discovery that was...

Laura Collado, Jim Loomis
José Andrés, Paco Méndez, Ferran Adrià, Albert Adrià

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Laura Collado, Jim Loomis
Writer Laura Collado
Stars José Andrés, Paco Méndez, Ferran Adrià, Albert Adrià
Country Spain
Runtime 1 h 22 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

Top reviews

Wednesday, 23 Sep 2020 08:22

One could view this movie as a wakeup call to some of our nation's young people. Many are simply on the edge of earning their own money but find themselves stuck at a level that makes it difficult for them to maintain. While, I understand this plight, the underlying message this film is trying to convey is that no one, not the government, not a family, and not even a single individual can make a lasting impact on their life. This is a 'low blow' perspective of a society that is consistently short on motivation. The general population are quite wealthy, and plenty of them have benefited from loans and investments. The problem is, this means that almost everyone has a deep-seated sense of entitlement. Without any real estate investment or financial investments, the youth feel cheated out of their dreams. Not only that, but they face a lack of support from a society that has almost no sympathy for them. The government is used to provide an incentive for their money, and anyone with a great amount of money is eligible for a bailout. In order to feel any success in this situation, the youth must be convinced they need their money. This is where the 'other' element comes into play. Rather than the parent of a child, they are the ones that have taken them in and have given them the financial resources to care for their 'family'. In other words, they are on their own. The youth feel lost without the parents, which is why this movie comes across as being more about the parents than the kids. One comment in this movie made by a mom who had made the mistake of borrowing money from her son as well as the 'bad bank' is worth noting. Many parents use their personal savings to finance their kids, but unfortunately, many parents will not go so far as to literally kill their own children. I think a simple solution to this problem is to find a bank that has a interest rate of 3%, and that will actually let you borrow money on a monthly basis for the rest of your life. It might sound far-fetched, but it's one solution that is available. In addition, finding yourself a mentor will also help. It will be a good idea to find one that has a personal investment in your success and can provide you with advice. This may not sound like a particularly brilliant solution, but it does seem to be something that could be put in place. However, I believe that it is the youth themselves that can't seem to get themselves out of the rut they are in. This is, at the very least, a wakeup call to those who feel they can't take a step forward. Some may even be motivated to try, but the problem is, they just can't. Lastly, a place to seek out for support may be a life coach, where they will work with you to help you develop your skills. Finally, there is also a good portion of advice that
Friday, 28 Aug 2020 10:25

I first saw the documentary on our local public television station (11,LA) which discussed the various theories about Albert. I remember that I was horrified to read that the state police believed he was the man they had seen and spoken with (again!). Some said he was an insane asylum patient, while others said he was a teenage runaway who'd spent a great deal of time in prison and that he was a teenage gang member. It's difficult to determine if the confusion about Albert's origins is due to the use of film or the ignorance of those with whom the case might have occurred. I would have preferred to have seen more people who knew Albert and had heard the stories about him being a teenage runaway and gang member, but I guess that would have been more fitting. If Albert was really a juvenile offender, it may have helped to make his claim more convincing. The story of his childhood seems to have had a fairly consistent pattern, however. When it came to those who knew him, there was some variation of that story, but at the same time, the people interviewed were clearly describing him as an over-sized, leering gang member. Even his family seemed to have some confusion over his origins. Albert's mother claimed he was raised in the ghetto, and her brother said his father left when Albert was very young. And his younger brother claimed that he had seen Albert's mother about once a month in the neighborhood, but he never saw Albert outside the house. So, perhaps his parents were describing Albert as being a troubled child who got picked on by the neighborhood kids and the other teenagers in school. This confusion makes it difficult to know whether Albert had some kind of mental illness or was a successful criminal. Some of the people interviewed mentioned that he was a gang member and gang rapist and a murderer, but, to their knowledge, he never actually hurt anyone. What makes Albert different from other serial killers is that, according to the psychiatrists interviewed, he usually rapes the victim. Perhaps he did so many times that the description he gave to the interviewer sounded real. Some of the doctors interviewed described him as having some kind of neurological disorder. I don't know if these were true, but it's likely. Maybe Albert was a psychotic, but perhaps that's what made him so effective. And what makes him different from the other serial killers was that he had some kind of social skills. Some of the interviewees said that he managed to acquire a good enough education to get a decent job, while others said that he was pretty good at operating a car. That's a big deal for someone like Albert. A good school for the children he befriended, a reliable employer, and a stable home. You wouldn't think it would be that difficult to find something like that in a place like L.A. He probably did go through some kind of trauma as a kid to make him more like he is now. But if that's the
Tuesday, 25 Aug 2020 02:40

The most important thing for me was the chance to get to know a little about Albert (and the other actors in the film) before seeing the film. I did not know what to expect but I was pleasantly surprised. The director did a great job in not telling the story too much in the beginning and just letting the characters speak for themselves. The film is based on Albert Speer's autobiography and it is quite interesting how they depicted him as a very "simple" man who made a lot of money for the Nazis and his time was not taken away from him at all. The documentary makers also had a good look at the other actors, especially the ones that were not in the film and were interviewed about their experiences. The interviews were very interesting and made me want to know more about these other people, who were not even featured in the film. I was very impressed with the way they portrayed Hitler's relationship with Albert Speer and the way they portrayed the friendship between the two men. The one thing that I did not like was that the film makers did not really portray the truth about Albert Speer, his role in the war and the way that he was treated by the Nazis and his fellow soldiers. I also do not like how the film makers portrayed the American involvement in the war, how much money was spent on the war effort and the lives that were lost. I think that the film makers should have focused more on the German war effort and less on the American involvement. I also do not like how they showed the American involvement in the war as a direct result of the Americans bombing the Nazis. I think that the Americans should have been more involved in the war effort and not be influenced by the Nazis. Overall, I really enjoyed the documentary and the way that the film makers portrayed the characters and the time that Albert Speer spent in the concentration camps. I was also very impressed by the way that they captured the time in the camps and the way that they used the music that was being played during the film. I think that the film makers did a great job in making this documentary and it is definitely worth seeing.
Monday, 17 Aug 2020 13:45

The film is a bit too late at this point. I was just starting to fall asleep at one point. But, it certainly isn't a bad movie. It's not exactly a brilliant movie. It's not particularly original either, but it's not exactly a disaster either. The film tries to tell us about two brothers and their troubled relationship with their dad, and of course, with their parents. They are both somewhat insane, and apparently the father molested the mother of one of their brothers, who is now 12 years old, a disturbing sexual experience that he recounts. The father, who appears to have been around for much longer than 10 years, is involved in a bizarre sexual relationship with a 17 year old kid. The mother, which appears to have been around for the better part of the last two decades, is involved in an odd incestuous relationship with one of her own sons. The son who is now an adult writes to a documentary filmmaker, who presumably asked his subjects to write about their feelings about their parents. The son wants his mother to watch the documentary he's made about his father, and in the process, he reveals his own feelings about his mother. The brother refuses to watch it, but instead, he writes a letter to his mother detailing his feelings, and the letter he keeps contains the letters of all of his siblings, who are still alive. The boy who wrote the letter has long since forgotten about it, and he's gone on to live an uneventful life. It's interesting how these films are often films that are not meant to be real life, so it's difficult to understand the sentiment that some people will have about this. A film might be perfectly acceptable if it is about the father in the film, but if it's about the mother, then it's going to be a dud. So, the film is not perfect, but it is quite good. It's more than a little depressing at times, but it's not completely terrible.
Tuesday, 04 Aug 2020 14:46

This was a highly entertaining documentary about the painting of Albert O'Riordan by William Hogarth. It goes a bit over-the-top with the historical and psychological stories of the artists involved. The subjects themselves have a limited perspective on what's happening in their art career, or that of their immediate family members. To get a more thorough picture, you would need to get some background information about the artist in question and some background information about the artists and their paintings. The discussion of the development of O'Riordan's work and his subsequent artistic career is interesting, but the execution of the interviews are rushed and sometimes quite inaccurate. The oldest interviewee, Ralph Steadman (who was responsible for The Pope, 1672), gives a very uninteresting history lesson about the Pope and his relationship with Francis I of France. It's difficult to grasp the influence the Pope had on O'Riordan. Steadman admits that it's not very clear that he had any influence. This is a good thing, because it gives a sense of how little it is known. The first interviewee is Gordon Leslie (who was a painter and designer) who presents a very interesting and insightful biography of O'Riordan. Leslie explains that the earliest painting of O'Riordan was completed in 1830. It took more than 30 years before O'Riordan's works began appearing in Europe. And it took until 1865 before he became a famous artist in England. It's hard to grasp why the film makers chose to focus on O'Riordan's artistic career. I don't think it was necessary, but it does give us an idea of how O'Riordan must have been to have done what he did. (Although it's clear that the painting was a huge success.) This documentary is well-made. The director, Matthew Rudnick, handles the interviews well and doesn't appear to be adding much of his own opinion. It's more of a personal story of O'Riordan and the insight he provides is well worth seeing. It may be hard to digest at times, but there is enough factual and historical information to make this a very interesting film. Worth seeing.
Friday, 31 Jul 2020 10:21

I liked the fact that this film left me with the feeling that I had gone out of my way to find out about Albert, the Chicago firefighter who died at the age of 20, in an accident that took his life in 2002. So this isn't some glorified event. I feel that director Michael Phelps demonstrates a real concern for the life of Albert. The subject matter was not only personal, but it was personal. He asked me to see this film because I knew that he knew the story of Albert. So, while I felt that I should see this film in the interest of informing myself, I also wanted to see it because I could relate to the true story of Albert. The plot of the film seems to go in and out of style with the telling, leaving many details unexplained. This is due to a loose continuity between scenes. The director didn't tell the story of Albert in a coherent way. So I wonder if this was intentional. It appears that he didn't want to tell the story of Albert in a coherent way. There are also holes in the plot. The doctor who is attempting to have the heart removed in Albert's chest tells us that the heart did not need to be removed. They say that Albert's heart was the same size and the size of a golf ball. What kind of doctors would make this claim? But, if they are making a statement about how Albert's heart was damaged, it makes sense. A bullet could have gone through Albert's chest and caused a hole in the chest that would have allowed the heart to continue beating. But, no one's saying that. The heart was simply not removed. The autopsy showed that Albert's heart was damaged, but there was nothing said that suggested that he was too small to have a normal heart. As a result, the audience doesn't know what to think of this scene. Albert's heart is getting bigger. Why is that? If this were a film that addressed the story of Albert, we would know this, but as it is, it is unexplained. Overall, I would recommend this film, but be sure to see this film before you read the book "Albert's Story" by Karen Katz. If you have not read the book, you will probably be confused as to what this film is about. And if you read the book, you will probably be confused as to why I didn't think that this film was well done. This film is not nearly as good as the book.

Write a review