Watch Bronx Gothic

Bronx Gothic

Bronx Gothic is a movie starring Okwui Okpokwasili, Umechi Born, and Peter Born. From director Andrew Rossi (Page One: Inside the New York Times, The First Monday in May) comes an electrifying portrait of writer and performer Okwui...

Running Time
1 hours 31 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Andrew Rossi
Okwui Okpokwasili, Kate Novack, Chad Beck
Peter Born, Umechi Born, Ralph Lemon, Okwui Okpokwasili
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

From director Andrew Rossi (Page One: Inside the New York Times, The First Monday in May) comes an electrifying portrait of writer and performer Okwui Okpokwasili and her acclaimed one-woman show, Bronx Gothic. Rooted in memories of her childhood, Okwui - who's worked with conceptual artists like Ralph Lemon and Julie Taymor - fuses dance, song, drama and comedy to create a mesmerizing space in which audiences can engage with a story about two 12-year-old black girls coming of age in the 1980s. With intimate vérité access to Okwui and her audiences off the stage, Bronx Gothic allows for unparalleled insight into her creative process as well as the complex social issues embodied in it.

Comments about documentary «Bronx Gothic» (20)

Alexander James photo
Alexander James

I enjoyed this documentary a lot, especially when I first saw it. I think it shows the subject's point of view and makes the viewer feel for the person, his/her feelings, and the situation. You really get a feeling for the man who was abused and how he came to be what he is. I really hope this documentary comes out on DVD. I would buy it.

Roger Rodriguez photo
Roger Rodriguez

This documentary is an excellent and entertaining look at the history of the music industry in New York. It is a must-see for any fan of music and for anyone who has ever wanted to be a musician. What makes it so great is the fact that the film is done in the style of a documentary, with interviews with music industry people, music critics, critics, and fans, and it has a wonderful "behind the scenes" look at the creation of the film, as well as a look at how music was brought to New York in the late 60s and early 70s. The documentary is very informative, as well as entertaining, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in music.

Jessica Ortiz photo
Jessica Ortiz

This is a documentary about the life of Ernest Hemingway, the famous American writer. I did not know that he was born in Cuba, I only knew that he lived in Spain and that he had a wife and a daughter. This documentary is an entertaining look into his life. It was edited very well, and I really liked the way the director showed how the two main characters met, how they both became friends, and how they met and fell in love. This is a very well made documentary, and I was entertained throughout the entire film. There is a lot of funny stuff that I didn't expect to see, and it's definitely worth watching.

Helen Patterson photo
Helen Patterson

The "No" to this film will be because the subjects in this film are not generally subject to such extreme censorship and their innocence is often called into question. For this reason, the film is quite a bit more heavy handed than some of the others I've seen. That said, it's an interesting look at the subject of censorship and how it can affect an individual's lives. The film includes interviews with people who were subject to the documentary, as well as various others, and as I said, this is a film that is quite a bit more heavy handed than some of the others I've seen. The interviewees are more detailed and in some cases more personal than usual, but it's still pretty interesting. I found the interviews to be very interesting, and I have a feeling that this is a film that will be seen by many more people than this one. I would definitely recommend this film, but be warned, the subject matter and the historical context may be more challenging for some people.

Larry B. photo
Larry B.

This film was probably my favorite documentary of the year. I've never seen the movie, but it is well worth seeing just to watch the work of the film-maker, with the help of some amazing actors, including Robert De Niro, Mark Wahlberg, Kate Winslet and Ashley Judd. It's not easy to make a documentary about a famous actor who has been a famous actor for more than 30 years, but this documentary is actually worth seeing. The documentary focuses on Mark Wahlberg's past work and how it affected him when he became famous, as well as the film he directed after his hit movie "Magnolia" became a success. You will also see an interview with a cast member and some of the crew who worked on the movie. It is a must see, especially if you are a Mark Wahlberg fan.

Gerald Franklin photo
Gerald Franklin

The idea of taking a guy to see a bunch of actual photographs and taking their word for them is a great idea, but for some reason this movie tries to do too much, which only makes the whole thing seem more incoherent. The first problem is the premise: that the photographer is going to prove that this is the image of someone who was a slave, and that this image is the image of a man who was freed. How could this be so? If you're going to film a bunch of photographs, you don't need to film the entire image, you just need to have enough evidence to prove that you've got the image of the subject, and then you need to get the subject to prove that they're the person. This would be a much easier way to go about it. Second problem is the subject matter. This is supposed to be a documentary, not a piece of entertainment. It's supposed to be talking about a black man's life and his story, not a bunch of photographs that you can see just by looking at the camera. Third problem is the length. I think they could have cut a lot of this film down to maybe 45 minutes. They could have cut the jokes out of the film and replaced them with things like the n-word. Or they could have edited out the long, drawn out speeches and replaced them with short, funny ones. But there are so many more things that are wrong with this film that it's hard to keep track. I think this film should have been called, "The Greatest Story Ever Told", or "The Greatest Race Ever Told". There's nothing wrong with having a bunch of pictures. In fact, I think this film would have been much better if it just had pictures of people that were freed and have never spoken. But it's not. And that's why I say it's a disaster.

Juan photo

It's been a year since I saw the original "B" movie. I didn't really know what to expect from it, but the story is so familiar that I'm not sure if I should watch it again. This time I know that I should, because it's a great, gritty documentary. I think the characters are really interesting and I'm glad that they're all so authentic. I'm glad that they didn't give me a bunch of Hollywood-style explanations of how the movie came to be. I liked the fact that the story isn't as simple as you'd expect it to be. The story starts with the murders and ends with the people talking about the movie. The movie really does a good job of showing the kind of thing that happens to people. It's all a part of a group of people who see the film and talk about it afterwards. I also liked the fact that they didn't just show the murders, but also the conversations that people had when they were watching the film. It makes you think about the movie and I think it's really cool. I think that this movie really is different from other movies. It's not a film that will make you happy, but it's a film that will make you think about a movie that you've seen before and how much you enjoy it. I really like the way the film works and I really recommend it. The story is a little difficult to follow at first, but once you get the hang of it, it really makes sense. It's a good movie, but it's not a perfect movie.

Howard Holland photo
Howard Holland

The title of the film "Chronicle of a Street-Smart" refers to a certain character, a street-smart kid who became famous for his unique style of street-wise behavior. I won't reveal the story for the sake of those who haven't seen it yet. The director chose the name of this character as it will be a focus of the film. As for the director, I am not sure what his speciality is, but I can say that he can act well. The cast is not that important. It's the story itself. I've seen other street-smart movies and I don't find them interesting. However, I found the screenplay of "Chronicle" to be very good. I can't say more about it. For example, there are scenes where people are being attacked. I find this very dramatic. The performances are very good. The characters are very different from each other. I like how the characters behave. I like how they interact with the other characters. I think the director succeeded in creating a good film. I've seen the movie twice. I recommend it to those who like street-smart movies and I would like to see the director's next film.

Juan Ward photo
Juan Ward

I am a big fan of Kate Bush, and I found this documentary to be very informative and well-made. I have seen the film numerous times and I am always intrigued by how a person's personality may change during their lifetime. If you are a fan of the band, you will love the film.

Pamela Nichols photo
Pamela Nichols

Before I watch this movie I was wondering if I would enjoy it. I was pleasantly surprised. The movie is about a photographer that is spending some time in his childhood home in Queens, New York. He is asked by the owner of the house to document the place and the people that live there. He is there for a few days and later he is in the neighborhood again to photograph some girls. The problem is that he is a bit too close to the neighborhood for comfort. The guys who live there are pretty much dirty and in the end, even more so than before. One of the guys is a punk and another is a psycho. The rest are very different people. One guy seems to have a gun. I would not call it a documentary. It is more like an exploration. The guy who shot the documentary just seems to get to know the place and the people and then he just takes the camera away. He really doesn't have anything to say. The photographer who is there just sits and observes and he leaves. There is no more story. The documentary becomes a diary. The whole thing is really interesting and it made me think about the whole neighborhood and what I would do if I lived there. The camera was only an assistant, but the guy who made it really was a wizard.

Ruth Barnett photo
Ruth Barnett

Being the "Prince of Egypt", the best known historical person of the first half of the 20th century, Sir Christopher Wren is clearly one of the main reasons why this documentary was made. It's a fascinating look at the man who helped to found the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and to give it a national identity. The documentary opens with a wide shot of Wren's office in the Queen's House, where he was sworn in as King Edward VIII. It is a great way to see his style of life, his discipline, his thoughts, and his personal motivations. Then we see his rise to power, and the turmoil of the period. There are some interesting points about how people were affected by his rule, but the real story is his attitude towards religion. He was not necessarily a fan of the church, and the first sign of his problem with the Catholic church was when he went to an English Catholic chapel and turned down the crucifix. He saw the crucifix as a symbol of sin, and his main interest was not to destroy the church, but to use it as a way to achieve his goals. He was also a great supporter of democracy and freedom of the press, but he was not an atheist like so many other monarchs of the time, and he never said he would never believe in God. He said he would believe in "good" things, but would always put religion aside and his own motives first. He was very much a "democratic" king, and he had a dislike for the church and for Catholicism. This was also a great role model for many of the people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who were also not religious at the time. After Wren was crowned King Edward VIII, the newspapers were filled with rumors that he was not a true believer, but there was no proof to back this up. He was only 24, and he had been a bishop for a year. His motives were clear, and he had great ambitions. He had been offered the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, and he was convinced he would never accept the position. He did, but the British government refused to give him the job. The newspapers had become so suspicious of the king's motives that they put him on trial for heresy. He was found guilty, and he was excommunicated. This is the best example of a church in the Middle Ages that did not share a religious affiliation with the state. This period was the time of the Reformation, and Wren was not very tolerant of people who were not members of the church. He was an anti-Catholic who wanted to use the church as a tool to achieve his own goals, and he could not have been more opposed to the Catholic church. After the trial he was thrown in jail, and this was a long time in the making. He spent most of his time writing and working on the English National Dictionary, which was released after his death in 1547. It became the standard dictionary of the English language, and the people of England, including those in the United Kingdom, learned that the church did not represent the state, and it was not a holy place. In the 19th century, Wren was almost always on television, and this made him famous. He was very public about his views, and this made him a target for many people, and many saw him as a great leader, but there is no evidence to back up his claim that he had no interest in religion. He was also criticized for his treatment of women. His views were not universally accepted, but he was popular and respected. He was a great ruler, but he had many weaknesses. The documentary makes the case for the monarchy as a great institution, and it does so well. Wren was great at what he did, but he was not great at everything, and he was also a great problem for the church. This was also an important reason that the church tried to remove him, and the documentary shows the great lengths they went to. There is a lot of interesting material in the documentary, but the film is quite long. It does not have a lot of punch, but it is well made and it is informative. It is a good documentary about a great man.

Jose photo

It's a pretty cool film. It's a low budget film but it's still entertaining. It has some of the greatest lines I've heard in a movie in a while and the story line was intriguing. The acting was pretty good too. I think it's the weakest part of the film. The director was okay but the writing was a little off. There was a couple of weird scenes that didn't make sense. But all in all it was entertaining. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who loves horror movies.

Doris photo

We all know that the underground of Harlem was the center of some of the most important black movements of the sixties, but what many people may not know is that the African American community of Harlem was also a thriving thriving ghetto, a place of crime, drugs, prostitution, and violence. It was a place where street gangs were in full control, and where the most serious crime was committed by the local street gang. In fact, the average crime rate in the Harlem of the sixties was among the highest in the entire country, and it was the only city in which the black and white populations actually showed no differences in crime rates. That is why it was a prime target for Mayor John Lindsay, who led the city of New York in a massive effort to eradicate the crime problem in Harlem. The documentary "Big Momma's House" does a fantastic job of showing the diversity and the complex relationship between the African American community and the city of New York. The documentary also does a very good job of showing the difficult struggle of the black community in the seventies and eighties. In fact, it is amazing that so many black people could be in such a position to be able to become involved in a documentary about the city of Harlem. This is a powerful documentary that should be seen by anyone who has a serious interest in the history of the African American community. It is a must see.

Teresa photo

The movie is a bit of a disappointment for me, it doesn't give you a full picture of what happened and how the situation came about, you get a somewhat impression of what happened, but not enough. The only reason i gave it a 7 is because it's very good, but it's not an amazing movie. It just doesn't have enough information. It's not as good as the movie "Raising Helen" or "Narc", but it's good enough. The only reason i'm giving it a 7 is because i like the cast and the director, and the fact that they are from Brooklyn, and it gives it an extra special feel. If you want a good movie that gives you a full picture of what happened, then watch "Pineapple Express".

Kevin W. photo
Kevin W.

I love everything that Kate (the film's narrator) does. It's a testament to her talent that she can come up with such brilliant stories about how she lived her life. For instance, in the first story, she recounts her experiences in New York City as a child, to the point where she speaks of her mother, who was a very intelligent woman, and was considered an "artistic" genius by those who knew her. As she was growing up, she also became friends with the acclaimed writer George Saunders. In fact, her own mother came to the city to visit her once a year. She told her that Saunders was one of the best writers in the country, and she and her mother often talked about it. After the death of Saunders' mother, Kate and her father came to live in New York, where she continued her travels in the 20's and 30's. When she was around 18, she met the photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson. She became a devoted follower of his work. She also discovered that the older man was in love with her. She went back to her home in Paris and became a professor at the Sorbonne. She was fascinated by the life she was living, but also with his. She felt that he had a wonderful sense of humor and was able to draw out a great deal from his subjects. He was also able to make her become a better person. She had a great experience of reading "The Atlantic" and was inspired by it to become a better writer. When she finally returned to New York, she began a new series of books based on Cartier-Bresson's photographs. As her fame grew, she became the focus of worldwide interest. The so-called "Sleeping Beauty" became a sort of cultural phenomenon, and became a sort of icon for women. Her mother was very upset by this, and tried to discourage her daughter from being so attached to the media attention. At the same time, her daughter began a relationship with the artist and painter Herve Villechaize, and began to have many problems with her father. As she became more popular, she also started to have the same problems as her mother, which led to her becoming a famous woman. It was this new, more-desirable status that she wanted. She also began to experience sexual fantasies about the famous man who was in love with her. She finally decided that she could no longer deny the fact that she loved the man, and decided to tell her mother. The director has great respect for the work of these great women, and does a great job of bringing these stories to life.

Cheryl T. photo
Cheryl T.

It's one of the most visually pleasing films I've ever seen. It's a "feel good" movie that contains a lot of uplifting messages. You can watch this movie over and over again, and it never gets old.

Jessica photo

A truly groundbreaking film from director Donald Blake, who also wrote the screenplay. It's quite a shame that Blake didn't continue to make films, as this is an excellent, unconventional film, not just for a fan of the director, but for film fans in general. The film is about a trio of four friends who are all poor, and a short time after they graduate from high school, decide to do a little "mobster" type thing and the gang makes a living selling the drugs they buy from the street. They decide to quit, and head to New York, and the police are on their trail, so the group decide to stay in New York. As the film unfolds, the group begins to be aware of the corruption of the streets, and the corruption of the police, as the group starts to realize they aren't the only ones on the side of the mob. The film is rather amazing, and you'll find yourself both cheering for the gang, and rooting against them. This film is a bit like "Midnight Run" in that it's both a comedy and a drama, but it's also a little bit of a thriller, as well. Blake really has a way of making people feel sympathy for characters he's writing, and he doesn't even bother to use one of the standard Hollywood cliches to sell his characters, such as the family that gets split up, the couple that ends up being the heroes, or the evil mob boss. This is also where I would like to point out that the characters in the film are all human, so you really can't fault the acting as much as you could in some other films. It's not just a big-name star that's in it, but everyone's in it. The characters are all interesting, and you really feel like you're getting to know them. Blake does a wonderful job of making the film feel like a drama, rather than a comedy, and you can really feel the tension in the film, which is definitely one of the best things about it. I think one of the biggest things people will enjoy about this film is the soundtrack. The music is so great, and I'm not talking about the music that Blake included, I mean the music that the film was composed with. The score is very haunting and very well suited for the film, and I think the music was the best thing about the film. Blake also does a great job of directing, and the camera-work in the film is absolutely wonderful. Blake doesn't bother to use a camera very much, but instead he uses just the cast, and the way he shot the film. The film looks great, and is very well made, and I think the movie is very well done. This is a great film, and I recommend it to any film lover.

Sandra Hicks photo
Sandra Hicks

I liked this movie because I thought it was original. I thought it was really well done and had a good message. I also thought it was an interesting look into the world of the mafia and what happens when a good guy does not do what he is told. I do agree with some of the comments that the acting was a little wooden but I thought that was because I was not paying attention to the film at all and just watching the lead characters talk. I did like the use of the close-ups and the use of different types of lighting. Overall, this was a good movie and I will definitely watch it again. I really hope that more people will take the time to watch this movie because I think it is a great look into the mafia and it shows that the mafia is still out there, still doing what they are supposed to do, still doing what they are paid to do, and still doing it for their families. It also shows that when you don't do what you are told, you are out of luck. I also thought that it was interesting to see what would happen if people started following the law and stopped doing what they are told and started doing what they are supposed to do. I also liked the fact that they show how the mafia is really like an organized crime family, they know how to do things and have a way of doing things. I also like that they show that the mafia really does not care about what people think about them. They know that if they show people that they are bad, that will make them change their ways and will make them change. They do not need to say that they are good people and make people hate them, they just need to show people that they are not good people and show people that the mafia is not that good. I think that this is a good movie that should be shown to everyone.

Julie Gomez photo
Julie Gomez

I don't know how to rate this movie, because I saw it on television and was so bored I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess I just had to laugh a little. That's why I can't give it more than an 8. I liked it when I saw it at the theater, but I'm not sure how it would be even remotely interesting to see on TV. I think the general public has a hard time with these kinds of movies. I think they like the "straight" movies, which are just plain dull. But I guess the only ones I can find that are interesting are the ones with a quirky, quirky script and actors who know how to play those characters and make them interesting. I don't know about any of these movies, but I am a huge fan of Laurel and Hardy and I think I'd like it if they made a new movie. I think the movie was interesting, but that's about it. It would have been better if they had added a lot more in-depth analysis of the actors and the characters, instead of just saying they were "blond" and "funny" and "gorgeous" and "gorgeous girls." That's not a really good way to make a movie. I can't really recommend this movie, unless you want to see something that is so typical of the genre.

Amanda F. photo
Amanda F.

If you're looking for a film to pass the time and see what's happening in the world then this is a great movie. If you're looking for a movie to keep you company and to put on the menu, this is a terrible film. Not only that, but the editing is bad. For instance, at one point during a scene, a character is talking to a man who is pointing a gun at him. The editor cuts to another scene in which another character is talking to another man who is pointing a gun at him. The camera zooms in on the dialog as the actor points the gun at the camera and zooms out. The editing is bad. It's a shame that this movie could only be made in one color. The story is very good and the acting is good. The characters are interesting and give you a sense of what their lives are like. But the editing ruins it. It's like a badly edited movie.