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

Watch 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...

Genres
Documentary
Director
Jacqui Morris, David Morris
Starring
Richard Avedon, Margot Fonteyn, Siân Phillips, Dick Cavett

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres Documentary
Director Jacqui Morris, David Morris
Writer Jacqueline Morris, David Morris
Stars Richard Avedon, Margot Fonteyn, Siân Phillips, Dick Cavett
Country UK
Also Known As Nureyev. Il mondo, il suo palco, Nureyev: An Orgy of One, Nureyev: Lifting the Curtain
Runtime 1 h 49 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 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.

Top reviews

Thursday, 20 Aug 2020 06:07

Like the movie's poster implies, the documentary-styled documentary that follows the early years of Putin's life is largely a portrayal of his childhood. It takes an interesting route here. You get the sense that the footage actually belongs to the man himself, not the events depicted. You also get the impression that this is a documentary, not a documentary about the man. There are a few new angles here, however. One is that many of the characters he knows are different to those in the movie. In the movie, he's surrounded by people he knows as a child. Here, he's surrounded by people he knows as an adult. Again, this is another way to tell this story. Another is that we get a good look at some of the homes and businesses in which he grew up. Most of the film is as he grows up, but we get a good look at some of his childhood as well. But the real movie here is the life in and around the presidency of Putin. This is a character-driven documentary that is on a rather par with, if not better than, the documentary-style movies we've seen from other sources. The thing is, in the documentary-style film, we get a wide range of views of the man and his life, but in the movie, we only get a few. We get a little of everything. We get a look at the military, of the administration, of what it was like to be a boy in the country, a look at the state of his personal life, a look at the politics, and in fact, we get a lot of the latter. It's a very lively look at all sides of the story. The documentary-style film doesn't cover a whole lot of the issues we see in the movie. It's mainly a look at the life in and around the presidency and some of the things it brought to the nation. And in that sense, the documentary-style film is not very different from the movie. It does have some artistic touches, but the story is a bit more stilted than most documentaries. And it's not really very memorable. The film is also very much the type of film you'd expect from a Russian TV station. It's not very original. It's very much of the Russian television stock. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. It could be a good thing, but I'm not sure. It's not a film you'd see on the big screen, or on any high-brow channel. But if you want to see something different, then this is a good choice. If you want to see a film that will appeal to most of the audience, then the movie will be pretty disappointing.
Saturday, 08 Aug 2020 11:26

In the 20th century, there were many musicians who used a soulful voice. Here we are, in the 21st, and it is difficult to find any who fit the bill, if only because the world's thesps are getting bigger and louder. The music of the past was largely musical in nature. The great composers of the 19th century and 20th century, such as Mozart and Brahms, were able to blend their music with melody and rhythm, and compose pieces so well that they can be heard in hundreds of generations. One of the big names in this music is Thelonious Monk, who, after spending several years in a mental institution, composed his first symphony and found out, in the process, that he was deaf, and that he had to work with a drummer. One of his recordings is the only known recorded recording of his voice. The first of the symphonies that he recorded, called The Angel's Serenade, is one of the best. It is a thrilling orchestral piece, full of drama and drama, and plays the theme of a woman's journey in love with a man. Monk was able to complete this piece, in 1943, in four days. This extraordinary recording shows that Monk has a beautiful voice, which he obviously put in to perfection. This is a true classical masterpiece. Other people have been able to put their voices into melody, and work on harmony, but Monk's voice is one of a kind. It is so full of life and emotion. It makes his symphonies difficult to hear, but I still cannot get it out of my head. I listen to it, every day, all the time. In addition, I have discovered some of Monk's recordings that are not on this recording, which are wonderful. I am not sure that they are from Monk's best years, but they are truly outstanding. These include Monk's two solo discs, written in the early 1940s, and Monk's work recorded by Ralph Hall (who was better known as Monk's conductor), and John Hammond, one of the great studio engineers. Unfortunately, I can find no recordings of Monk's second symphony, The Theme for Swing and Harmony. However, I have an excellent recording of Monk's live performance of this piece, at a Jazz Festival in Germany in 1946. This recording is from a very old video, from the 1950s, but it is very good. It is not the best of Monk, but is very good. I wish the same for this recording. Monk was, of course, the greatest jazz pianist of all time, but he was also a great musician. When I first discovered the music of Monk, I was blown away by his music, and the way he sang. The music has been played in many operas, and Monk was not always successful. He
Saturday, 01 Aug 2020 09:54

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin signed a deal to allow Nureyev's films to be shown in the Soviet Union. With a filmmaker's growing and powerful grip on the country's public image, it is unsurprising that Nureyev is now considered to be the face of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But his work - shot in France, Italy, and the US - is little more than a propaganda vehicle for the regime. Here, Nureyev tells the story of a cop, Kseniya, who is caught up in the backroom politics of the Soviet regime. Her punishment - shot in the back of the head with a revolver - is revealed not long after she has been executed. The film is extremely entertaining. Nureyev's style is nonlinear - he sometimes cuts to another scene with narration and sometimes to a different location. He also utilizes audio, video, and still shots to develop the character of the film. It is his emphasis on photography and photography and photography that lead to the film being shown in theatres in the Soviet Union. It is a bleak film. The characters are portrayed in harsh, stark color images. They are often shown in very dark moods, including a scene in which a young boy, watching an American officer kill an innocent peasant, is shown in what appears to be a nightmare of black and white. The film is often accompanied by the deafening sound of a bullet. This is the sound of reality. Nureyev's fascination with the Soviet regime is clear throughout his work. As he put it, the American Revolution was a symbol of the power of the people, while the Russian Revolution was a symbol of the power of the State. It is his love of history and the people that propels his films. But his love for the Soviet Union is so strong that he is willing to take the violent route to tell his tale. There is no judgment of the people of the Soviet Union at all. The film is only intended to help define Nureyev's influence. This film is very well made, but only Nureyev can truly make it work.
Friday, 24 Jul 2020 00:51

This documentary is pretty solid. But there are too many points in the movie that fall flat. There are a few points that I have to comment. 1) The Russia has become so reliant on oil and other petroleum products that it has practically turned into a nation without a heart or an ethos. The government does not care about the environment, the people. The oil wealth has turned the country into a superpower. The country is now unable to care for its people. It has become just a country with oil wealth, without any moral backbone. That is sad. 2) The USSR, according to this documentary, is the greatest country in the world. It's an excuse for the world to pretend to be happy. The movie argues that if the USSR had not collapsed, then it would have been the greatest country in the world. It would have been the leader of the human race and humanity's most developed country. Instead it was the laughing stock of the world and the leader of the industrial world. 3) The movie is so slick in its presentation, it's hard to watch. It doesn't present any unbiased or fair point of view. Instead it's very emotional and gives the impression that we need to feel sorry for Russia and its people. No we don't. We see them as monster and that's the case we know of. We know that the current regime is corrupt, but that doesn't mean it's the worst in the world. We know that it is very rich and powerful. We know that the same rich people who are so proud of the country, are as guilty as the people who are paid to kill them. We know that they oppress their own people. So when we see the heroes, we're cheering for the people who are trying to destroy Russia. We see them as the heroes, not the people who are trying to liberate Russia. They should be treated with respect, but instead they are shown as monsters who don't deserve any respect. 4) There are so many points of view in the movie. Many of the points of view are not objective. Some of the points of view are pretty much propaganda and propaganda is not objective. We know what's going on, we know that people are being killed, we know that people are being ruined, but we don't know the truth. So why does the movie show us the propaganda? 5) The point of view of a celebrity is extremely important. For some reason the movie is showing the views of its guests and their personal perspective. The movie is not critical of the guests. The movie is very personal about the guests. We know they are the heroes, but that doesn't mean that they are the ones who are fighting the evil of the regime. The movie is very biased and biased means the movie is biased. 6) The movie tries to present some of the better aspects of the Soviet Union.
Thursday, 25 Jun 2020 15:17

A few of the documentaries out there are about people trying to tell the truth. Some of them are about the worst thing in the world, and they are hard to watch. So what about the documentary called 'ZOMBIE'? It's a very short documentary about the dead. This is one of those documentaries. The subject is clear, there is no need for the film maker to dig deep into the story of the person, and also the people involved. The subjects of the documentaries are not going to be interesting, they are not going to make you care, and this documentary is exactly that. In the documentary, you get to watch the dead people talking to people, and the dead people being interviewed. This is a documentary about the dead, and there is no need to look for the truth. This is what makes the documentary so sad. There is not much information on the subjects, there is no movie, no photos, no fun. The subjects are just talking, so you do not get a good feel of the dead. The documentary is at its best when the dead are talking, and not a day goes by when you are not able to see them talking. And sometimes they are talking about the dead. However, there are the occasional interviews with the people who were the subjects, and in these interviews they are talking about a lot of things, about a lot of people. In the end, you cannot help but feel a little disturbed. There are no words to describe this documentary. In the end, you will be much like me, and you will watch it without tears, and you will be happy for the film maker for that. 7/10
Saturday, 06 Jun 2020 19:04

We are not saying this is the truth about the universe, but we are saying this is a representation of the facts as they are seen. Most of the time these facts are known, some are not and it is our personal feelings about the appearance of the Universe that determine our perceptions and help shape the way we think about the universe. This is the main feature of the documentary "Ishtar" which is based on the book "Astronomy Enigma" by Ilya Somin. It was written and directed by Andrew M. Segal who has a good reputation as a very good documentary maker. When we saw the documentary in Toronto there were quite a few people who were unfamiliar with the book and not sure about the extent of the facts. I also had some difficulties understanding the comments of the book authors, namely Ilya Somin and William D. Kunstler (who had a separate book about the same subject). We also need to appreciate that the book has been published in 1992. However the film is still valid and we can say that there are some things that are the same in this documentary and in the book that there are not in the book. I like the film and we saw it in Toronto on September 7th and we also saw the documentary in San Francisco in August and we were thinking that these two documentaries are linked. It has a good documentary feel to it. We liked the information about the book and the documentary because we saw the book in Toronto and we saw the documentary in San Francisco. All the people we met during the presentation of the film in San Francisco were very friendly and we all liked the documentary and the information about the book. We also liked the interviews with the authors of the book, William D. Kunstler and Ilya Somin. The authors are very nice and we really liked them. The people we met were also very friendly. The questions were really good and we could understand each others views on the information we heard. They were polite and we could feel that we were talking to people who could give us some information. There were also some aspects in the film that were missing in the book and these were the other interviews with the scientists, the general idea of the book and the idea of the background of the book. If you are interested in the book, if you have read it or you are a professional in astronomy you can also enjoy the information that was not in the book.
Wednesday, 29 Apr 2020 18:04

An English documentary about the starstruck Russian dance sensation, Nureyev. The film starts off by showing a couple of portraits of Nureyev's parents, showing how much Nureyev has learned from her parents. In contrast to the documentary, the director here takes a closer look into Nureyev's personal life, starting off by showing her childhood and how she developed into a very bright young woman. From there, the film moves on to Nureyev's career. The director does a good job in showing a wide array of Nureyev's various outfits, and various costumes. She also does a good job of showing Nureyev's various dances. The documentary doesn't show much about Nureyev's private life, other than to show her marrying a man. The director makes it clear that Nureyev never forgave her father, but she did feel sorry for him. She tried to change his ways, but he never listened to her. The documentary ends with Nureyev leaving home to pursue a career in dance, where she will stay in the company of famous female dancers, such as Nena, Nastassja Kinski, Irina Shatilova, and the opera dancer Vera Kuragin. Finally, the documentary ends with Nureyev still in New York, and looking forward to dance. I think the film is interesting, but it could have been better, because it does have some weak points. Nureyev never really talked about her childhood, she never mentioned how she felt about her father, or how she felt about her mother. In the documentary, Nureyev didn't say much about her father either. Nureyev didn't say a lot about her mother either, but the documentary is a bit too short, and a little too focused on her career. The documentary does show how Nureyev is a very artistic woman, and it is interesting to see how she has become so. But I still think the documentary could have been better, because the director focuses too much on Nureyev's career, rather than showing her personal life. Nureyev is a great talent, but she is a very private person. She does a good job of showing how much she loves to dance, but the documentary is short, and the film could have been better. I think Nureyev is a very interesting talent, but the documentary is too short. But if I were to pick one highlight, it would be the dancing. It is fun to watch, and shows how amazing Nureyev is, as a dancer.


Write a review