SVT Play: All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Online Serengeti Rules

(237) 7.7 84 min 2018

Serengeti Rules is a movie starring Jim Estes, Jaime Excell, and Bob Paine. Exploring some of the most remote and spectacular places on Earth, five pioneering scientists make surprising discoveries that flip our understanding of...

Bob Paine, Jim Estes, Jaime Excell, Mathieson McCrae
Documentary, Biography
Nicolas Brown

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, Biography
Director Nicolas Brown
Writer Nicolas Brown
Stars Bob Paine, Jim Estes, Jaime Excell, Mathieson McCrae
Country USA, UK
Also Known As The Serengeti Rules
Runtime 1H 24M
Description Exploring some of the most remote and spectacular places on Earth, five pioneering scientists make surprising discoveries that flip our understanding of nature on its head, and offer new hope for restoring our world.

Top reviews

Monday, 07 Sep 2020 09:56

This documentary is a must see for anyone interested in the games of the 24-hour South African. South Africans like to say that the Games are a "national sport". It is true that South Africa is the host country for the Olympics. The Games is a form of entertainment for the country. Even the people who have never been to a Games. There is an obsession in South Africa with Olympics. The Games is to the country a national sports event. The Games is the biggest celebration of the nation and every nation needs a celebration of their own, when you want to do something big. The Games in the South African's is the celebration of the "citizen's state" and a form of social cohesion. There are even people that believe that the Olympics is the most important thing in the country. South Africans like to believe that if the people win the Games, they will be successful and successful, as a result of that winning it will be beneficial to the country. The Games will be another point of praise. The country will be competitive with other nations. When the South African's win the Olympics, the whole country will be great again. After the Olympics the country will be confident. There will be pride and the people will be more confident. The Olympics is the best example of social cohesion and cohesion among the people. A good example of cohesion among the people is the feeling the people have of the achievements of the nation in the Olympics. This film is a good example of social cohesion. It shows the people of the country proud of their achievements in the Olympics and proud of the country. The way the film was made is very interesting. It shows the documentary makers traveling to various places in the country and filming in the places they visit. The documentary makers interviewed people who were not familiar with the South African's. Many people felt that they didn't know anything about the country. The documentaries shows the South African's as a country that everyone should be proud of. The fact that the South Africans won the Olympics makes the country happy and proud. The documentary makers interviewed people who had no idea about the South African's and their achievement. This is an interesting documentary. It shows the South Africans and shows the rest of the people of the country. It shows how the South Africans and the rest of the country have different opinions about the Olympics. This is a good documentary that shows how South Africans are proud of their country. 8/10
Monday, 07 Sep 2020 00:25

First off I am a football fan and I really enjoy the "You've never heard of me, and you're never going to again" films that all fall into that group. The fact that they're often commercial soaps and full of celebrity voices and a theme that is a no-brainer. There is a sense of hopelessness in those films that you cannot help but feel and while a film may have some visual appeal and take some time to get into but they all eventually deliver the same message. The problem with this film is that the message is not well presented, the characters are wooden and the film is a bit of a disappointment because it starts off promising but the final act just doesn't deliver. As a film it is good and as a sports documentary it's good, but as a full on feature length film it's just not very good. The documentary style is a great style, in this film the documentary style is almost non-existent and feels like something that was cut out and thrown into the film to fill time. It is not even really that interesting, the story that they use is very interesting and does not match up with the film that they are trying to show. This documentary style is not great in this film and the whole sports documentary style of the film feels like it has been used in the wrong place and just doesn't fit, but as a film it is good and a bit of a disappointment. Overall I really enjoyed this film and it was fun to watch but the only reason that I am giving it a 7/10 is that it isn't a bad film. The fact that I like the football documentary style that the film used and found it a bit of a let down is why I have given it a 8/10. However, the fact that this film was not well marketed or does not follow the typical sports documentary style that we see in films such as the 2007 film World Games, I think it would be a great film for people that are not into the documentary style and would enjoy watching it but it is not for me.
Wednesday, 26 Aug 2020 11:55

I would have to agree with the comment about the music and the lack of any high production value. However, this documentary did shine some light on the biggest problem with the Rekall program: the enormous amounts of money spent on the most poor of people. How does it feel to get people to give you a high-dollar sum of money for a lot of important information and do nothing with it? Where is the justice in that? How is it that with these millions of dollars, people can't buy themselves a decent education in the city, but instead have to look for the most poor of them all? And the sad part is that with all of this money spent on these programs, no one is really learning anything new. In fact, it's the opposite: some people are just becoming more arrogant. How do you expect anyone to become better if they're constantly being lectured and have to get high-dollar sums of money? That is the bottom line. How does it feel to get money from a person in the middle of the ocean, only to have him or her steal it back the next day? In that case, you're probably making a mistake of having them join your program. The answers to these questions lie in this documentary. It gives an inside look into the life of these people, without the strings of money. You see how hard it is to find good information. The program directors never give you a lot of information, but they certainly give you enough money to buy a nice car. That's what the interviewees do with their money. Sometimes I felt a bit sorry for them. Not being able to afford a nice car is something that some people will never know. It's true that the documentary gives the impression that they live a very exciting life, but that is not the case. The life of a high-dollar high-schooler is more like living in a casino. There are no great social networks, no romantic relationships, no real freedom. The documentary shows you the inside of a high school and what it is like to be poor. However, the documentary does not show what's going on with the program directors. There is no interview with the Program Director, because she/he was forced to leave her job. Instead, you see one of the Program Directors who has had her own problems with the program directors, but doesn't mention anything about it. And that is how this documentary ends. It ends with no discussion. If you want to know about the program directors, read the book. However, if you want to know about the high-dollar high-school kids, you might want to check this out.
Wednesday, 26 Aug 2020 02:38

This documentary is excellent, on the surface and in many ways, but its main message is a re-assessment of how we view history. I think this is a good thing, because we tend to think of the world through the narrow lens of the western-European experience, which, as I've already stated, is a historical lens. However, I think the world has long been shaped by a more universal lens. As such, it is difficult to look at the past objectively. In the film, the director presents the opinions of everyone in the village (including the king) and uses many different statistics and interviews to compare and contrast them. This provides a perspective to our individual views. I've watched many documentaries, and I have always found that the world is only looked at through a particular set of lenses. One might be a Western European perspective, one might be from the "black continent" or the Americas or the Asia-Pacific region, and so on. Yet, one can't have an objective view without looking at a broad historical and cultural context. For the purposes of this review, let's say that, based on these lens, the director chose the "most culturally and historically diverse" village. Therefore, I would say that the majority of the time the village was either not at all culturally diverse or at most, the cultural diversity was rather limited. If, however, we take a look at the people living in this village, it becomes clear that many of them had different perspectives on the world. The director has clearly stated that the video does not present a "one-sided" perspective, so what he did was to focus on several different aspects of the village's history, which he discussed in a number of interviews, some of which he also presented in his own voice. In summary, the director chose the village because it was one of the most culturally diverse and because it is culturally diverse. However, the director did not present any of the other views because he chose to use a universal lens. It may be the case that people are more diverse in the various cultures, but it is also the case that cultures tend to be more general, universal and universal in their approach to the world, so it is difficult to develop a particular perspective of how the world was different. In the end, I think this is a good film because it shows a variety of views and perspectives. The documentary does not go so far as to suggest that everything is the same, but it does not exclude anyone of the views. As such, it may be a good documentary for those who are not used to viewing the world through the narrow western-European lens. I think that the director has created a documentary that is "different" and "new" and "more culturally diverse".
Wednesday, 05 Aug 2020 04:06

As I was finishing my degree, I decided to take an English class at a community college. I was unable to take any of the class, because I was in the process of changing my major. The course schedule was taken, and so was the appropriate time to take the class. To be honest, I wanted to take the class to learn something I never knew about me, but to do so, I could not use my university ID. That is what made me pass the class. I didn't want to attend class, so I decided to give it a shot. I graduated from high school a year later, and I never considered going to university. Being in the navy during the Vietnam war, I was in the reserves. I felt as if I did not fit in. One day, I got to go to the class I had been wanting to attend, and I really enjoyed the class. I decided to take the class because it was important to me. I spent the entire class, talking about my experience as a Reservist in the navy. One of the students asked me what I was doing in the navy, and I told him, "I am studying African history." My parents never told me that I wanted to study African history, and my mom never told me that she wanted to be a mother. My dad never told me about my hobbies. I got a chance to study history, and I was interested in learning more. I was told that I could not pass my class, but I kept my promise. In the beginning, I took the class as a test, but later, I decided to study more and more. I studied, and I was able to pass the class. I became a student, and a proud graduate of college. I never expected that I would be able to attend university. I did not know that it would be my desire to study African history, and I never knew that I would be able to attend university. I am a proud graduate of university.
Monday, 27 Jul 2020 09:46

The movie is a total mess. It is about as factual as one could expect from an award winning film, but this movie is both boring and terribly preachy. If the filmmakers had more foresight they would have made the movie more about how the tribal society is a bunch of horrible people, rather than telling the story of a tribe that uses both brutality and false modesty to justify the atrocities committed against them. This is very close to what the natives of the region did, and it was not the leaders' fault that the tribes' lives were in shambles. But that's not what the movie is about, and it takes the story away from those who lived through the trauma. Now, the movie doesn't tell you much about the rituals or history of the group, but what it does tell you is that the natives have a very rigid way of doing things, and one that we in the West are supposedly able to do better than them. It's very clear, though, that these natives are far from perfect, and we can feel their pain and be moved by them. The movie does a very good job showing how these people are living in terrible conditions, but that doesn't make the movie any less preachy. I have to admit that I was happy that the movie did not portray the tribe as pure savages, or murderers, but as just a collection of people, rather than a whole culture. The movie is still very much preachy in the end, but I thought that it was important that the filmmakers show us the cruelty and the harshness of life in that place. The movie does an excellent job of not being preachy and showing us that the tribe is a collection of human beings, not a cohesive whole. It's an amazing film, and I strongly recommend it. If you have the chance to see this movie, it is not worth the admission.
Sunday, 26 Jul 2020 18:05

If you are looking for a little History and insights, this movie is for you. I loved the film because of its message and its message is so well communicated. I also loved that it was only 2 hours long, because it was so well-told and thought-provoking. There are just so many funny scenes that I love about this movie, and you need to watch it to understand the ones I mentioned. I also loved the music that was included in this film, because it adds to the atmosphere of the film. I also loved that it was shot in black-and-white. I think that the only reason I didn't like it as much as I did was because it was all in black-and-white. The music is great, and I think that people who don't like it need to watch it again and again to understand how good it is. It is so good, and the movie is great. But the acting is a little bit off, and sometimes it is just not up to par, but that is not a big deal because there are so many great actors in this movie. I also love the fact that the movie does not just focus on the Serengeti people and their life, but also on the many different tribes and ethnicities that live there. I think that was very important because it made me feel a little bit more connected to the movie. I also love the film because it showed the different races in a very positive light. There is one scene that really hit me hard, and I thought that was great. I think that the film does not treat the Serengeti people in a negative way, and that made the film so much better. If you are looking for a very thought-provoking film, or a little history and insight, this movie is for you.
Sunday, 19 Jul 2020 16:20

The tagline, 'What is reality?' is deceptive: it would be more apt to say: What is not reality?' What is not reality? The director/screenwriter/producer/actor James Marsh has been pushing these themes since his early days as a working actor in TV. So it is no surprise that he produces a film where the subject matter is so loaded with expectations, they are inescapably placed on the screen and not on the screen. This is more a documentary than a docudrama and has a strong sense of drama. It is a rare moment when the director/writer/producer/actor/reporter/actor plays a tiny role in shaping the story. So the director/writer/producer/actor/reporter/actor/reporter/reporter/actor/reporter does not need to do anything. What he does is to bring to the screen and in the hands of the actors a singularly powerful truth about what is not real and what is. It is important to note that the subject matter is not politics or conflicts of interest, it is a story of individuals and of how people deal with the reality of their own lives. How do we make sense of that? How do we live the things that we know? What do we do with them? Are they useful? Does it harm? What is the role of language? The film is not perfect. In places the story is a little too straight forward and there is not much in the way of subtlety. But Marsh is not content with telling the story that is. He is passionate about it. So the movie, like the work of a great film, is a kind of double-edged sword. It provides the hard edge and the soft edge. As Marshall has said, 'I was asked to come up with the story, I don't know the story. I'm just the guy who brought it to life.' It is the film and the story that are the real story and the film and the work are the real story.
Monday, 27 Apr 2020 04:21

An unconventional documentary film that at times feels more like a documentary than a documentary. The main theme here is the relationship between the North African tribes and the Spaniards in the colonial era. While many tribes were conquered and their land confiscated, some bands were given the rights to hunt and harvest for food. Some tribes, however, resisted and resisted to be taken over. They often referred to the "law" of the land, their "will of the land." The subject matter is well researched and is unique in the history of world cinema. Many tribes that had worked together in the past had ended up as different tribes. This documentary is not about the culture and traditions of the tribes, but rather the people themselves. Many of the tribes spoke a variety of languages, and sometimes did not understand each other. The tribes were strong, but sometimes they seemed weak. The film is not about the Spanish, but rather about their interaction with the tribes. It was not about the Spaniards, but rather about the tribes. It is also about the impact of the Spaniards on the culture of the tribes. While the film is informative and interesting, there are some parts that could have been edited out and still would have been very effective. Most of the sections that would have affected the story would have been removed. For example, some of the sections showing how the Spaniards handled the tribes' food could have been cut out. There were also some areas of the film that could have been edited out, such as when the director/producer goes to meet with the tribes to discuss their "law of the land." As far as the ending, it is a little disappointing. I am glad the film is still in theaters and is getting the attention it needs.

Write a review