SVT Play: All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Online The Hottest August

(246) 6.3 94 min 2019

The Hottest August is a movie starring Clare Coulter. Ordinary people in New York are asked to talk about their lives and their hopes for the future in a time marked by political division and climate change.

Starring
Clare Coulter
Genres
Documentary
Director
Brett Story

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Documentary
Director Brett Story
Stars Clare Coulter
Country Canada, USA
Runtime 1H 34M
Description Ordinary people in New York are asked to talk about their lives and their hopes for the future in a time marked by political division and climate change.

Top reviews

Sunday, 10 Jan 2021 23:28

Thank god for documentaries that don't make you feel like a total idiot for having been involved in this mess. I've never been a fan of the documentary genre and although I was in the audience in attendance at the Tribeca Film Festival for our first screening, I have to say that I enjoyed it far more. It's not the kind of documentary that everyone will enjoy, but it is a very interesting study of what happened at the meeting of the heads of the Big Four banks in 2006. What you see in the film, to be sure, is damning, if not brutal, evidence. And I can't emphasize that enough. The industry has never been in better shape, but their strategy and mentality at the time, and the way in which they decided to treat the public and the regulators that they face, are extremely clear. They were playing with fire. There is a scene where Mr. Geithner is in the middle of explaining his stance to one of the regulators, and the matter is brought up again in a very serious tone. Mr. Geithner says that he is not saying that the industry is in need of a bailout. He is not saying that banks are bad, and they need to be restructured, because they have done an excellent job and the regulations and the rules are mostly in place to protect the public. The point he is trying to make is that there needs to be a different way of thinking. He is saying that there needs to be the right way of thinking. They're not corrupt and they are not trying to cut the back of the system by engaging in risky behavior. He is saying that this is the wrong way to think. And that is what is really interesting about it. You don't have to agree with him to agree that it is bad business. And that it is dangerous. We've been fighting for decades to break the system. We have seen it's impact on the economy, and I am very glad that this film brought that into the forefront. The film is thorough, well produced, and I believe very knowledgeable about the subject. There are also some very poignant moments, like the ones where Dodd-Frank is introduced. And there is the scene where Carl Icahn comments that it is the weakest piece of legislation in a century. It is interesting to see the reactions of the other CEOs that were in attendance, who have been known to bring out the loudest of voices. Mr. Guggenheim is not a man known for being a fussy man, but he is very confident and he has a lot of different opinions. There is also a nice bit of humor in the film, like when Morgan Stanley's chief risk officer in 2007 describes to the board of directors his concern about the people in the audience that are calling for a bailout. "We will only ask them for two quid," he says. "They have to have a good reason for wanting it. The danger is that we can always be playing with fire." That was my favorite bit. I really liked that bit. It was very funny, and the people in the audience laughed. I also thought that the presentation of the movie was very interesting. The language is very critical, but very succinct. That is not the kind of presentation I've ever seen. It's a very nice piece of work. It does a good job of explaining what has gone wrong, and it goes into all of the nuances of how the big banks have functioned, and how they are taking advantage of the situation. It explains why these people are getting so much attention. They are being rewarded for failure, and they will pay for that failure in their interests. I would not want to be in a position where I had to decide whether I wanted to be involved in a major institution that I knew had done something that was fundamentally wrong. But I have to ask myself, did I really need to be involved in that process? My advice is this: it depends. I would not recommend that you go to see it. I think you'll enjoy it, but it is not for everybody. It is more for people who know what the Big Four is all about. And it may help if you have any knowledge of the
Friday, 30 Oct 2020 14:45

Although the title doesn't say anything about the weather conditions in August 2008, this documentary, directed by Rick Reaney, makes clear that this is a wet summer, followed by a dry summer. In other words, this is not a summer of rainbows and sunshine. What is clear, though, is that the 2010/11 monsoon season is most certainly going to be a dry one. Rick Reaney, author of numerous books, such as "Leaving Las Vegas" (1993), "Las Vegas: The Life and Dreams of Las Vegas" (1997) and "Bud Light and the American Dream: Las Vegas and America" (2009) explains that Las Vegas is a classic example of what is wrong with our civilization and an example of the arrogance of the consumer. "We don't learn from our mistakes," says Reaney. "Our American culture rewards arrogance and greed at the expense of empathy. We are too self-absorbed, and too easily distracted by what we see on TV, movies, or on our cell phones. We buy and drink and get high all day long. We don't think. We are the home of the arrogant and the self-centred. We believe we're smart, but really we're dumb." Reaney compares Las Vegas to a newborn baby and states that babies are born to a mother who has forgotten to feed and change the baby. As the mother can't think for herself, the child is completely dependent on the mother. "This mother is so smart and so selfish, and it all comes back to her." It is clear from this film that if it weren't for the tourists, the Las Vegas of today would have been much more like the Las Vegas of the 1950's. Instead of a tourist playground, Las Vegas is a whole different animal. In the 1950's, the hotels had no self-service "free drinks", and the casinos offered 50% discounts. Now Las Vegas has hundreds of stores, restaurants, casinos and a hundred million dollar swimming pool. "It is not the freeways that have put Las Vegas on the map, but the people that were once just tourists. We still have that Las Vegas, and it's not the same Las Vegas. Las Vegas is no longer a tourist destination, it's a place where people come to experience life." Rick Reaney's book, "Leaving Las Vegas" is a must read. Las Vegas is not as innocent as it has been portrayed in the past. It is a place where alcohol and sex are allowed, where alcohol can be purchased for as little as a penny and where no one needs to ask permission to do anything. Las Vegas is not a safe haven, and it has become something much worse. Las Vegas is a Las Vegas that people are afraid to visit. Las Vegas has become a place where people are afraid to step out of the motel and where things like "grind houses" have become a way of life. Las Vegas is a place where the law has no teeth and where the nightlife is driven by people who are looking for the next "Scorcher". Las Vegas is now being controlled by an "envy" culture. Las Vegas is not a place where people go to escape their problems, it is a place where people go to escape the problems of Las Vegas. Rick Reaney's book, "Las Vegas" is a must read. It is important that Las Vegas becomes an example of what not to do.
Thursday, 23 Jul 2020 04:35

This documentary was directed by John Ford, who also directed "The Deer Hunter" and "Roots" as well as "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." There is a lot of the stuff that is familiar in this movie. There is the slow, deliberate pace, the lack of fireworks. The focus is still on the interviews with the families of those who died in the blazes. But the focus is also on some of the things that were different about the two tragedies, or, more specifically, the things that were different about the victims. Most of the focus is on the horror of the first event, and the sheer insanity of the second event. This is why we have to watch the movie twice because there are some parts that are very difficult to watch. And the family members talk about their loss a lot more than the families of the victims. So it is a lot more difficult to watch. Also, it is interesting to see the fact that a lot of the people interviewed are from the state of Tennessee. The victims are from all over the country, but there is a certain accent that is strong in the state of Tennessee. It's an interesting side note that people often tell you how much they loved the victims and how sad they were for them. I think that the people who were interviewed in the documentary are really good people. They have a lot of compassion for the victims. The movie is not perfect. It could have been better if they had focused more on the interviews with the families of the victims. Some of the interviews are just too painful to watch. For instance, they talk about the FBI's attitude toward the fact that they did not find the perpetrator. This is an issue that still doesn't seem to be solved. It's also a lot more depressing than I thought it was going to be. I have seen people that I know of in similar situations that are happy with the outcome. I think the goal of the documentary was to show the people that are here at this memorial, and the people that loved the victims, that it's not a terrible tragedy that happened. They were just in a different place than most people were at the memorial. They were not at the place where they lost their loved ones. There was a lot of pain and a lot of grief that the victims were experiencing at the time. It's not a horrible thing to be at the place where you lose a loved one. I think that the focus of the documentary was to show the people that lost their loved ones, and show them that it's not a terrible thing to be at that place. That's probably the most important thing to me about this documentary. I think that's why people were so moved by this movie. They felt that this was a story about a terrible tragedy. It's not a good thing to lose your loved ones to a fire. But at the same time, there is a story that is important about that tragedy. It's also important to show that a tragedy like this is not just something that happens once in a lifetime. It happens very often. I think that the documentary was a very good one. It was a very, very good documentary. It was also very well produced. It's not a movie that I would see twice. It's a very good documentary. I think that this was a very important documentary. It was very well done. I don't think it was as good as "The Deer Hunter," but it was still a very good documentary. I think that people should see this documentary at least once. It's worth seeing.
Tuesday, 30 Jun 2020 03:57

A fascinating documentary, somewhat akin to the grand old tradition of "going underground". The late, great William Randolph Hearst was one of those who saw the light of day on television and made the most of it. One can argue that he was a bit too self-serving, but the fact that he would talk about "the truth" and how important it was, he had to be doing something right. Regardless, the Hearst dynasty is now dead and the "truth" has been replaced by the image of the businessman who was at the top of his game but had to bend to the winds of public opinion. When he started his "independent" newspapers, he was taking the heat and being misunderstood by many of the people who he was supposed to be speaking for. The people of the 60's were left with a huge hole in their pocketbooks, a huge debt to Wall Street and the corporations that were still "out there" on their way up. A huge amount of "good" corporate names were walking away with huge payoffs. It was clear that the Hearst dynasty was in trouble and "independent" journalism, as good as it was, was just a palliative. If only there were some people who knew what was really going on, could lead us to the truth. The long-time director of the Hearst papers, Dick Utz, has done a very interesting job in looking at Hearst's last months. He has collected all the important documents and has given them to a documentary team that are going to do the research and present them in a way that will give the public what they want to hear. It's a good film and deserves to be seen by people who are interested in the Hearst story, but don't need to be told all at once. One of the documentaries I have seen that compares favorably to "The Hottest August" is "The Empire Strikes Back" by Oliver Stone, a good movie that is also about the Hearst empire and the consequences it had on the American public. It is a good movie with a very clear and realistic presentation of the Hearst legacy.


Write a review