SVT Play: All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Online Stuffed

(193) 6.3 84 min 2019

Stuffed is a movie starring Allis Markham, Jaap Sinke, and Ferry van Tongeren. An inside look into the world of taxidermy and the passionate artists from all over the world who work on the animals.

Allis Markham, Ferry van Tongeren, Jaap Sinke
Erin Derham

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Top reviews

Sunday, 31 Jan 2021 07:37

Hee hee, this is my first comment, and it doesn't feel a good enough review! I'm a bit frustrated with how well the film has been received by the critics. We've all heard about it, we've all seen it, we've all understood what's going on, and we've all wanted to find out more about it. Yet the way in which the film has been received, and my anger at this, and myself, is not related. The anger, in my mind, is not a healthy one. At some point we are supposed to connect with the characters, we are supposed to feel a certain emotion, we are supposed to feel the pain of others and we are supposed to be involved in the violence that takes place in the film. Well, I was a bit disappointed that I didn't connect to the characters on a level, because I could have been involved with them much more. I thought the film was a little dull, and the soundtrack was good, but the basic story was definitely not that good. I felt like the violence was forced and forced to be violent, and I didn't care about the characters at all. I felt like the film was too dull to care about. In fact, I didn't even care about the characters until half an hour in, when I found out who they were and how they were related to each other. I don't think this film is bad in the slightest, I think it's just lacking, and I think it would have been great if they had made a more 'realistic' film. They said that it's a historical film, and it's very realistic, but in my opinion, I'd like to see a film more realistic and I think they should have made a film that had a higher budget and a better quality film to show. This is my honest opinion, but it's not something I think anyone else would agree with. The acting was alright, but I thought it was decent. I was disappointed with the way it was shown, like in the beginning, I didn't think it was that great, but then it was better, then it was good. Then it was okay, then it was awful, and then I was upset because it wasn't good. I thought they made a good film, but I think they could have done better.
Monday, 18 Jan 2021 08:38

Oh boy, my eyes. How this movie went so very, very, very wrong. I was not prepared to endure watching one minute of this, oh man. The worst part was not the two big staff members that included Oscar winner and director of DANGEROUS LIAISONS (which had a female cast), but the director himself. I was sooo disgusted by the terrible care that they were giving the puppets. I kept waiting for the puppet to pull its head off, and he did not. No head was pulled off, no blood spurted, no hair came out. I was really embarrassed by the disgusting scene where the audience is laughing so loud at this one puppet. (spoiler ahead). I'll spare you, but the writer, director, and crew seem to think that people are simply making fun of puppets. That is, if they think that some of the people in the audience would laugh at their abuse. This kind of stupidity kills the whole idea of the documentary, and I think it's obvious that the makers didn't really take the time to research the subject. They left out information about why the puppets were made, how they were made, and it makes the documentary seem totally amateur. Also, how could the puppets be trained? Puppets who want to live and not just be fed up of being fed? You can't just play puppets. They are quite large and have to have a "brain". The majority of puppets in this movie are puppets whose only purpose is to be handled and not to be talked about. I was so disappointed with the result of this. How could a director of such talent have such a bad job?
Saturday, 12 Dec 2020 14:01

I have seen this movie twice now. It is very nice to see that a documentary about the homeless is still on the air. The main point of the documentary is to introduce the people of the world in an objective way without bias. By identifying the purpose of the documentary, we as viewers are much more informed. The characters are shown to be normal people, who simply suffer from a serious problem. Although the documentary doesn't provide a solution, it tries to show the story of each of the people affected. I am not familiar with the special forces or special services, so I didn't understand what the soldiers are doing in the city, nor did I understand what happened to the prostitutes who were rescued from the city. But it is important to emphasize that the people were, in fact, rescued from the city by the army. What makes this documentary so powerful is that all the actors had to suffer from the same problem and the story is told in a way that enables us to be aware of all their problems. Some people claim that this documentary is fake. The people of the US have got used to a famous and easy story that is repeated by the media. The truth is that the soldiers had to deal with people that, on the surface, seemed to be pure criminals. They were surrounded by criminal elements who do not understand them. They were not even aware of the basic values of civilised human behaviour. Therefore, one of the main parts of this documentary is to demonstrate that the US is no better or worse than any other country.
Wednesday, 02 Dec 2020 02:52

Let me start by saying that I was happy to see David Sheffer. I had not read his book, but he was very good at describing the social conditions in India, the discontent that young people have with the way things are, and their despair. That was my reason for watching this film. I found the interview style to be very funny, as it is described by Sheffer himself. Sheffer also was very specific about what they had done, with respect to drugs. They didn't film their consumption of drugs, as they were different, but only using what they had caught from the street. I found it quite interesting. I also liked that Sheffer described the way they sold drugs in India, and how certain localities have certain anti-drug laws. There are laws that make it a crime to be selling drugs, so it's not like the Americans or the British are supposed to have those laws in place. The way in which the drug laws are enforced is also interesting. They show footage of police officers in Brazil showing these cameras to various people. They show many scenes from the police station, and they used an eye-popping shot of a camera that was not programmed, so it shows some of the police officer's frustration and disbelief when they found that these were videos of kids selling drugs. It was also interesting to see the other side of the drug problem, to see how people take the drug, and how these often are able to see a doctor when they need to get help. In addition, it was interesting to see how this can have an adverse effect on certain individuals, and how this can have an effect on the communities that are involved in the drug problem. The film is quite educational, and really shines through in the end, as it is a bit depressing to see how these people live their lives. I think there is a sense of hope in the movie. It seems that things might be improving, and there are hopes for the future. I would say that, even though I really do like the film, it is not without its flaws. The cinematography is not always consistent, sometimes shots are filmed in a manner that does not fit the story, or do not align with the storyline. This does affect the flow of the film, and how it is filmed, and it takes a little from the movie. There are some scenes that are just shot on a computer with no real film in it, which do not match the rest of the movie, or do not really fit. Another flaw is that they did not include scenes of the city, and the countryside, or the people. The story seems to have a lot of details, and they are sometimes not followed up on. These are not very big flaws, but do affect the film, as it doesn't follow the story very well, as it is not finished. I am also not a huge fan of the ending. It doesn't really tie together the movie very well. It does tie together the film, but it leaves things open. I think it could have been better, with a better ending. The ending is also very political, and very drawn out. It is too drawn out. I think there could have been a more natural ending. Overall, I think the movie was good, and worth watching. I liked how Sheffer has been able to get into some of the aspects of the social situation, and he does a great job at showing it. I am not a fan of the ending, however, I don't think that there would have been a better ending. I think there would have been a much better ending, but they could have chosen something that better aligned with the story. I think that the best ending would have been something that was more of an open ending, as it would have been more consistent with the story. This was an excellent documentary, and it will leave you with a lot of questions and thoughts. In my opinion, it is worth watching, even if you don't like it.
Monday, 02 Nov 2020 00:29

This is a very simple, very restrained documentary. It is based on the life of one Indian man (the Chief of the Tikka tribe) who is trying to show us how the world has changed for the better or worse, since he was a young man. He is a scientist who now is a practicing psychiatrist, but he only speaks with the tribe when he is asked to. He also shows us how the Indians respond to news of a US diplomat returning to India. He's not asked to comment on their lives, he's not asked how they have changed since he's been gone, he's not asked whether they feel that the world has changed for the worse or the better, and he is not asked to speculate about what might come next. All he has to do is to present some facts about what has happened to the Indians. He never tells us what his story is, but he does let us know what he thinks is the most important fact that everyone needs to know. It is this that makes the film extraordinary. What we see on the screen is what the chief has been able to extract from people in a way that their lives have changed dramatically. The chief, and he alone, has not convinced us of anything. He has made us want to know what he would be willing to do in the event that he was confronted by an American diplomat or a doctor returning to India. It's all about us, and it is all about what we could be doing for him. He's only the conduit for his people, so we are all powerless to influence his world, and we might just learn the most important fact he would like us to know.
Tuesday, 11 Aug 2020 23:38

Sitting in front of a computer screen for the first time since I was a child, the movie "Sleeping Beauty" comes to life in a series of quirky images and conversations, the key to the movie being a seven-year-old girl. The film tells the story of a woman named Adele, the daughter of a famous writer named William Shakespeare. Adele's childhood is spent on a diet of books, movies, and TV shows, and when she is about ten years old, her mother, the bookish William Shakespeare, invites her to his mansion for a play night. This kind of "creepy" upbringing of young children is not a new phenomenon, but the movie takes place in a completely different way. For the first twenty minutes, the film seems like an ordinary movie, and the narrative is mostly about Adele and William discussing their childhood. The first half of the film is very moving, the parents talking about their "happy" childhood, and the little girl telling the stories of her imaginary friends. The second half of the movie is told through conversations between William and Adele. The relationship between them is quite unconventional, but this is exactly what the movie wants to show, that in a strange way, love makes you see things differently. One of the main questions the movie poses is whether or not the fairy tale has some validity in the modern world. It shows how people still believe in fairy tales, and the people who can't get over the old stories of the two children telling them. A fairytale is not just a story that you have to believe, but a story that is retellable, and as the movie begins to move on, we start to see the stories in a new light. The questions that the film asks are not just for children, but also for adults. The movie, for me, is an insight into an age where people like to have their fairy tales told to them, and the movie is a good tool to help adults see the fairy tales in a new light. A bit of the wisdom of the children's stories is not new, but the movie does a great job in bringing this wisdom to the surface. It is a good movie to watch with the family, but it is not a must see for children. It is a great movie to watch with adults, but it is not a must see for children.
Wednesday, 05 Aug 2020 16:54

For some reason, this documentary - like some of those I've seen before - is written in a way that makes the subject a good story, but the purpose is to make a documentary. The documentary doesn't tell a story. It makes a documentary. The thing is, it's not a documentary that tells a story, but a documentary that tells the story. It's only the story told on a long table (located in a museum), surrounded by a bunch of artifacts that would be impossible to handle if they were on the surface of the earth (or in the sky, as it were). I'm not sure if it's a good idea, or even a good movie. But that's why the film is made on a long table: to hide the reality. The director is thinking that he's in the situation he's making the documentary, not a documentary. If he'd had an agreement with the museum, he'd have had an agreement with the curator. The film would have been totally different. The situation would have been one of a museum employee sitting next to a curator. There's also an additional note that the museum employee is an atheist, so the film is more or less a critique of religion. The curator is also a religious person, so the movie is a critique of the religion. This is not a bad film. There are many good things in the film. But the story that we're supposed to see in the film is not a good story, and the film is trying to cover a bad story. I think that it's clear that it's a documentary, but it's a bad documentary. I think that it's a mistake to make a documentary about religion, and I think that it's a mistake to make a documentary about religion on a long table, when it's not the case that you can't take the time to make a documentary that tells a story. The director is still making the movie, but he is also showing it.
Saturday, 01 Aug 2020 02:58

Steve Novotny (the director of the documentary "The Aftermath") does a wonderful job in making this documentary feel like a documentary. It is exciting to learn about what went down, and to watch the people from the church return to their lives. I was pleasantly surprised with the interviews and interviews with the other survivors. The survivors and the Church have a long way to go to mend their relationship. There are many holes in this documentary, as you can see from the lack of "interviews" with some of the survivors and the Church. I am not a fan of the Vatican, but I am sure the Vatican is more powerful than this church. This church has been a terrible force for evil, and there is no question in my mind that the Vatican was guilty. But it has not been able to do anything about it. In this documentary, the Vatican seemed to be to the right of the Catholic Church, and I would not even touch that organization. It was not a very good documentary. It was not the type of documentary that the Catholic Church would want to be known as. The Church did not want to be known for this documentary, and the survivors should not be made to look bad by the Church. It was sad to see that many survivors have to leave their old homes to be brought to another one. It is not an easy thing to go away to another place, and to be away from those you know and love. This documentary shows the Catholic Church as the devil. I am glad to see the church move away from it's policy of denying sins to children. There was a great need to have a strong anti-drug policy in the Catholic Church. For years, the Catholic Church was not able to come up with a policy to deny the use of drugs. The church's policy of denying the use of drugs to children is a very strong stance in my opinion. The Catholic Church has become a very powerful force for evil in the world. It has been a very bad thing for the Church to be associated with the Catholic Church. I hope that the church will not be associated with this documentary. Hopefully, the Church will not be associated with this documentary.
Sunday, 19 Jul 2020 03:59

I'm a large fan of Edward V. Hirsch, and I enjoyed watching his films, even the lesser ones. Theodore Kaczynski, the movie is not. While there are some interesting points made about Kaczynski and his work, I was actually annoyed with the way the film was edited. Rather than let the audience see what he had to say, the filmmakers cut away from the most important, if cliched, things. And when you cut away from him, he just seems very odd. The film also seems to have no reason to exist. If you've never seen a documentary like this before, you're going to be put off. However, if you enjoy documentaries and art films, you should be entertained. Kaczynski's life is fascinating and fascinating, and you could even say very interesting. But the documentary did not attempt to delve into his life in a meaningful way. It simply sat there for too long, and did not present his ideas or thoughts in a way that makes them easy to digest. There were also points that were good, but not nearly as great as the film had hoped. While some parts of the documentary were interesting and also worth watching, the ones that were bad (such as the 8 minutes of the Kaczynski interview) seemed very artificial. And they seem very out of place in a documentary. It would have been better if the filmmaker had tried to incorporate Kaczynski's ideas into the documentary itself. The directors also missed a chance to show some more of Kaczynski's life in a way that the viewer can easily understand and empathize with. The point that I was trying to make was that while it's an interesting documentary, the film itself was poorly edited, and that the editing was something that was completely out of place in a documentary. If you have to be alone, you should have a safe place to do it. I do think that the directors did an excellent job of bringing the story of Kaczynski's life to the screen, but it's not the story that we need to be shown. I also think that the film could have had a few more interesting things to say about Kaczynski. If the filmmakers had focused more on Kaczynski and less on his ideas, the film could have been great.

Write a review