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.

Starring
Allis Markham, Ferry van Tongeren, Jaap Sinke
Genres
Documentary
Director
Erin Derham

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 Erin Derham
Stars Allis Markham, Ferry van Tongeren, Jaap Sinke
Country Canada, USA
Runtime 1H 24M
Description An inside look into the world of taxidermy and the passionate artists from all over the world who work on the animals.

Top reviews

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