Watch Fragments of Truth

Fragments of Truth

Fragments of Truth is a movie starring Georgia Angelopoulos, Jacques Berchtold, and J. Keith Elliott. Dr. Craig Evans travels the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights...

Running Time
1 hours 15 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Reuben Evans
Reuben Evans
Jacques Berchtold, J. Keith Elliott, Georgia Angelopoulos, Craig A. Evans
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Dr. Craig Evans travels the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights groundbreaking new evidence, demonstrating the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts.

Comments about documentary «Fragments of Truth» (21)

David R. photo
David R.

This documentary is, in my opinion, a great addition to the history of the new millennium. As such, it may well be one of the most important films of the decade, and for me one of the best films of the decade as a whole. It is a really impressive film, and I would certainly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the political, cultural, social and economic changes that we are currently experiencing. If you are an American or a person of European descent, then you probably already know a lot about the film. The way the film was produced was interesting too, since this kind of documentary requires a large amount of direct quotes from people from all over the world. It is such a shame that more of these are not available to the public. If you are interested in this film, then I would definitely recommend this documentary, since it is a very important one, and it will make you understand the political and cultural change that we are experiencing in the 21st century. I am very glad that we have a society now that is able to share these things with each other, and I can't wait to see what the next 10 years will bring.

Aaron photo

This documentary is about the so-called Armenian genocide and what they (the Turkish government) have done to defend it. The main theme is the glorification of the Nazi massacres of the Armenians during World War II. One of the key arguments is that these acts of murder were an "act of retribution". The documentary makes the interesting point that this is just an excuse to justify the Armenian genocide. In addition, the film shows the killings of many Jewish people during World War II, while ignoring the massacres of the Armenians. Some of the Armenian historians, although Turkish citizens, are considered traitors, and are denied all access to historical documents and evidence. These same people are constantly demonized as white supremacists, and it is only in the modern era that this is being remedied. This documentary will not show you a good side of the Armenian Genocide, it will only show you an interesting side, one that should be researched. It's a simple documentary, but it's an important one. It should be mandatory viewing in all universities.

Rebecca G. photo
Rebecca G.

This is an interesting film that definitely reveals a lot of background on the two Japanese kids who took on an American soldier in Korea, and the other Koreans who were involved in the trial of the American soldier. I loved the documentary style used by the people who made the documentary as well as the natural sound that they used to add tension to the scenes. This is definitely a must-see documentary for anyone who's interested in what goes on in Korea, or interested in the Korean War. In the documentary you'll see and hear everything from what you would expect: the torture, the harassment, the accusations of racism, the investigation and the verdict. I thought the documentary style was great, it gave me an understanding of what went on in Korea during the war. It really helped me understand the situation as well. The testimonies of the other Korean people was also great. I would definitely recommend this documentary to anyone who has an interest in Korea, war, or Korean culture.

Rachel S. photo
Rachel S.

The Last Days of Les Miserables is a fascinating documentary. After all, this is the last time we'll ever get to see the original cast from the play reunited together, a movie that is nearly 20 years old and looks at the world of "Les Miserables" at a very personal level. The film was directed by Richard LaGravenese, who was best known for his 2009 documentary 'The Lords of Flatbush' which was based on the novel by Victor Hugo. LaGravenese, who has never seen the original musical, had read the book, which is described by the director as being "a sort of love letter to the new world." The film is interesting because it highlights the differences between the musical and the play and how people reacted to the musical. As a musical, the film seems a bit stodgy, but it's worth watching because of how it details the people who work on the musical and also the director and the actors who play the lead characters. LaGravenese talks with the actors and looks at what their lives were like in the theater. He also talks with the director of the original musical and looks at the changes that came with the musical, which is a good sign of a good documentary because it reveals things that would normally remain hidden.

Frances P. photo
Frances P.

After reading the book, I was hesitant to see this movie. What started out as a film about the book ended up becoming a far more personal look at one of the greatest books in literature. It was interesting to see how I relate to it, and how I relate to so many others. It has a wonderful and thought-provoking message and is extremely well done. Don't be afraid to see it, and give it a chance.

Gerald G. photo
Gerald G.

I thought the documentary was interesting, although there was too much time spent on the ongoing construction of the Highway. The negatives: On one hand I liked how the filmmakers talked about the suffering of construction workers and their families. The one complaint I have is how this is a very accurate portrayal of how these people feel, but I was wondering if these are true stories, or if this is just a story about construction workers and what they do. The filmmakers spend too much time on the elderly and the "ghosts" of construction workers, as though the construction workers themselves were somehow less important than the construction workers. This also shows the lack of education of the young filmmaker. The film also seems to miss the point of how the state, the police and the courts were created by the US Constitution. This also seems to me to have little relevance to the construction workers. The second point I would like to make is that the issue of homelessness and evictions is still a big problem in Oakland. The documentary did not address this problem, but I would have liked to have seen more discussion about how to address homelessness in the city, but maybe I am not a local expert. I would also like to have seen more discussion about the displacement of Native Americans by the railroad. The third point is that there were too many parts of the documentary that were just moving. The documentary should have concentrated on building a longer film that was more focused on the workers' experiences. Maybe the filmmakers could have put more emphasis on the workers' families, or on the scientists who actually work on the construction site. The documentary had too many moving parts and felt too rushed, but I would recommend the film to anyone interested in the history of construction and the impacts of construction on the environment. Overall I rate this documentary 7/10.

Christopher Walker photo
Christopher Walker

I just returned from a screening of "Faces of Terrorism: An Interview With Clint Watts" at the Langley Arts Center in Hampton, Va., and was blown away by this remarkable documentary. Watts' work on this film is nothing short of brilliant. He not only interviews the key players and eyewitnesses, but shows them in their best and most balanced light possible. Watts is one of the best film makers working today, and this film was a great complement to his other work. The first interview is with the terrorist-turned-lawyer Don Adams, who begins by introducing Watts to the world of terrorism law. Watts is the first to interview a living terrorist, Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal was an Egyptian Muslim who managed to obtain visas to enter the United States and still remains the prime suspect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Abu-Jamal was convicted of the crime and his conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, though he is appealing. Watts interviews the FBI agents involved in the investigation of Abu-Jamal, including lead agent George Cooper, who has a superb ability to stay on top of the situation while explaining, for example, the question of why Abu-Jamal's name was never released from the list of terrorist suspects. Watts has a good sense of humor in this interview, even as he jokes about how a Muslim group would probably have to have at least one representative in every meeting. Watts also talks to FBI agent John Jacobi, who is obviously shaken by the brutality and brutality of Abu-Jamal, a brutal group of Muslim terrorists that have killed thousands of people, and who had killed at least five hundred. Watts is a very knowledgeable and smart man, and he understands the value of examining the sources of terrorism. Watts' films are not concerned with "The Coming Terrorist," as some critics have criticized. This film is concerned with Abu-Jamal, and shows what it is to be a living terrorist. Watts is not anti-Muslim, but he is pro-American. He is not anti-American, but he is pro-American. Watts doesn't point out the Muslims' fault, or the fault of American policy. He points out that "Muslim" terrorists are not of Muslim faith. He points out that it's actually American policy that allowed Abu-Jamal to get his visas and stay in the United States. Watts interviews many of the people in Abu-Jamal's circle, and also discusses a wide variety of issues in this documentary. There are no derogatory comments about Arabs, Muslims, Jews, or other groups. Watts's interviews, which are almost always expertly conducted, show the terrorists' best and most balanced points of view. Watts also interviews victims of the terrorist attacks and, especially, shows how they are effected by the terrorism. Watts also interviewes survivors of the WTC bombing and their children, some of whom were affected directly by the attack. The film then shows the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Watts gives an interesting insight into the effects of the attacks on the people of New York. It shows that terrorists were able to get visas through the U.S. immigration system, and that they were able to get temporary visas to go to America. The film also shows that the psychological effects of the terrorist attacks and the personal tragedies that occurred were greatly underrepresented in the media. The film uses a very specific and unique documentary technique. Watts interviews a man who died in the World Trade Center, and it's very hard to believe that it's not one of the terrorists. Watts interviews survivors of the attacks in New York, and they also go on to discuss the events in some detail. Watts interviews victims of the World Trade Center, shows what happened to them, and even gives them stories of how they are affected by the terrorist attacks. Watts also gives a great insight into the effects of the terrorist attacks on the New York area. The film then uses a technique called "pop-culture analysis" to show how terrorists affected Americans. Watts interviews people who were affected by the terrorist attacks in New York. He interviews people who were injured by the terrorists and also people who were

Jessica Ramirez photo
Jessica Ramirez

A documentary-style film about the effects of pornography on two women, who are trying to fight against the over-sexualization of their society. First, a 13-year-old girl who is molested by her step-father, has her image splashed on the world wide web in order to shame him into taking her away. The story of the second woman, a teacher, is about a brilliant teacher who becomes a pornographic icon after having her photograph taken with an 11-year-old boy. It shows that the problem is far deeper than just the two women. There is also a side-story about a pornographic movie where a character that is in love with a porn star is talking about how much she wants to make love to her, but her step-father keeps coming and going from the movie in order to keep her from getting intimate. This is all a commentary on the male-dominated society, and how pornography should be viewed. There is a lot of information about sex in general and of the links between pornography and pedophilia, and it is very informative. I personally like the images, which are funny and very original. Some are funny, others are touching, and some are just about nudity. I have also seen the film "Penis and Banana", where the porn star is even naked on the camera. I also really like the voice-over, which explains all the information that is displayed in the film.

Doris Ramos photo
Doris Ramos

This is the second documentary I have seen about the movie PROPHECIES of LOVE (Noreen Gosch). This documentary is about the life of Noreen Gosch (who is also the star of the movie) and what really happened to her character. She was 22 when she filmed this documentary, so her story was interesting to hear. The only part of the documentary that I found interesting were the interviews with "Catherine Martin", the director of PROPHECIES of LOVE. It was interesting to hear her thoughts about her movie and what really happened to Catherine. I also think that the documentary would have been more interesting if it was about Catherine as a character, rather than the actual actual woman that she portrayed. The reason I say that is because I am interested in Catherine and I am also interested in the movie. I do not think that this documentary will be very interesting to anyone other than Noreen Gosch, or to Catherine Martin. I think that the documentary was actually pretty good, but I would not recommend watching it if you do not have Noreen Gosch in mind. I would rate this documentary a 7 out of 10.

Bryan photo

I just saw the film and I have to say, it was an eye-opener. First of all, the film is not really about the war itself, as most viewers will tell you. However, it is definitely a case of someone who wants to tell the story of how war is terrible, how it affects all of its participants. But, the film also shows how one person can make a difference in a situation that is not just a total loss for all of the participants, but a social impact that is not fully understood by most people. I think there are a lot of reasons why the conflict in the Balkans took place, but the film really shows how one person can change the story for everyone. You have to watch it to see if it will change your view on the war, or if it is just an eye-opener, but, whatever you think, you will leave the film a changed person. I really hope that one day, a documentary film will show the real stories of the people who are affected by the wars and the effects they have on their communities, and that, as a result, we can learn to care about them. Also, I'm pretty sure that the documentary film, like I have said, is not really about the war itself, but about the impact it has on everyone involved.

Lawrence R. photo
Lawrence R.

It's hard to not have a great relationship with Joe Bob Briggs. The man's a good man. The guy is actually a good guy. No matter what I have read in various interviews or other media, he is the man to follow. I have no problem with what he does as a vegan activist, because he is still a person who did work in the past and still does work in the future. I've seen the interviews with his wife and others, but to give them away, this documentary is a MUST SEE. What's even more fascinating about this is that it is basically non-fiction. No one would question Joe's work, because no one does research on him. No one has ever questioned his integrity. What this documentary accomplishes is to show us that despite the exclamation point, Joe's work is not completely without flaws, even in the last 25 years. We see that he makes mistakes and we can acknowledge that he's always struggled with himself, and his history of questionable relationships, drugs, alcohol, and sexuality. We also see that his honesty and integrity are both unmatched, and even heroic. There is no doubt that he and his family are amazing people. They always put their family first. The documentary does not cover everything. Joe often gives interviews where he appears to be a little rattled by what he's about to say. This is the first time I've seen him do this. It's understandable, and not surprising. The interview with his wife does seem slightly different from the other interviews, but that is not unusual for him. He does not have a lot of background on the other women. There is also a video with Joe's sister, and some video with other women, which I found intriguing and added a lot to the documentary. I have not read all the book I've seen this, but I have been impressed with all the interviews with Joe. I'm glad he's being talked about, and I'm glad he is doing this, but it is to me an incredible shame that not everyone agrees with his work. If this documentary shows Joe doing what he does to raise money for charities, or in the end, his health, I think it's well done. However, it does not do enough to validate his work. He's not just a good man, but a truly great man. For me, this documentary will only get better, and I hope the people who saw it enjoy it as much as I did.

Christina Washington photo
Christina Washington

This film was co-written by British filmmaker Mark Gatiss, and was based on his experiences as a young journalist who was embedded with British troops in Iraq in 2003. He spoke about his experience and the mistakes he made in his first few months in Iraq. He took it upon himself to document the circumstances in which he and the other troops lived and the mistakes they made, both good and bad. Some of the interviewees were celebrities, like Joss Whedon, Ian McDiarmid and Mark Gatiss himself. Overall, it's an interesting film and a good look at what it was like in Iraq in 2003. My favorite parts were the interviews with the celebrities, mainly Joss Whedon and Ian McDiarmid. In summary, this is a good movie about the real-life conflicts that occurred in Iraq in 2003. It's not perfect by any means, but I can recommend it.

Jeffrey photo

As the first World Science Fiction Convention, I was honored to attend the screening of "The Abyss", this film that showcases a young Japanese man and a young American woman who are both trapped on a Russian submarine, it's their dream to escape and be freed, it's also a chance for them to bond. The film is a narrative of the the two's struggle to escape their situation, but also their bond to one another. This is a visual feast with a wonderful focus on the fantasy world, an impossible dream that is shattered. In the end, this is a film that is as escapist as it is poignant. All in all, it's a film that was completely personal for me, and I loved every second of it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Edward W. photo
Edward W.

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" (the 2nd movie) is so shocking that it's almost always with a punchline. I'm still shocked by the damage I have done to my credibility with it. I never thought Moore could be so underhanded and knowingly deceptive. His "Fahrenheit 9/11" depicts "Bush" as a twisted sociopath, obsessed with "losing the war on terror" and with the elimination of his fellow citizens. It's all with an "F", I'm sure. My reaction was to laugh, but more because of the irony that it would be so funny to a human being. It's such a brilliant ruse and it's just the beginning of a great tour de force. Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is just that. Moore's films don't make a specific political statement, it's more a throw-a-line, do-what-you-want-to-do-now style documentary. I don't think I've ever seen Moore's films being shown so quickly to "the masses" like it is here. It's one of the biggest drops in credibility I've ever seen. It's no wonder Moore's films don't make a contribution to any good cause. He's an opportunist who will get his way no matter what the cost. It's just too bad his films don't go over the top, cause there's plenty of things that would sell for even more credibility. They are much more eloquent, I think, and it's a lot easier to make a decision based on the facts. The scenes in the film are great, as they are the top of the charts in terms of technical excellence. They show in great detail the real-life (no hidden-camera/interviews) public hearings of "Fahrenheit 9/11" as it was in front of the House of Representatives. The film does not hold back. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the film that would do for the Republicans what they did for the Democrats in the early 80s when their ideas were started to crumble with Watergate. I could hardly wait to see it. But after reading the criticisms of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the media, my expectations of the film were already low. It was probably the second most well-reviewed film of the year and I was sure that there was no way that this film would be as good as I was convinced it would be. I was wrong. I was way off. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the best film of 2006. I am not saying it's the best film of all time. But it's the best film I've seen in a long time. Moore has outdone himself. He's a brilliant human being, no doubt about that. This is the best film of the year and I can't wait to see what's next for him.

Susan A. photo
Susan A.

Movies based on my book 'Life, Love & Death' are usually fascinating to me. They come out of the blue and I don't know the first thing about them. This documentary was no exception. I have read all the reviews about this film and while some have commented positively, others have been scathing. I would like to address those. I found it interesting that the reviewers seemed to take their time and thought of everything from the writing style to the choices in filming location to the number of guests they chose. As for this documentary, I think it did a very good job of keeping me interested and informed on its subject. My favorite part was when the camera went over to the fire, which I thought was the highlight of the documentary. I also thought the first 30 minutes were very interesting and the last hour was very intense. I found this documentary to be more of a film school presentation than a documentary. It is definitely worth watching but I feel it could have used a little more editing. I'd say that if you are reading reviews or reading other peoples' comments about this film, keep in mind that this is an interesting subject to review. A lot of people will judge this film as they should and there will be more than one who won't like this film. I am more excited about what the future holds for this film than I am about the future for me. If you are the type of person who likes documentaries that are educational, then this is definitely one you should check out.

Justin Stevens photo
Justin Stevens

This is a compelling and controversial film that takes a look at the final days of beloved Chilean writer Alberto Gaudí, and explores his life and work through the use of film. It begins with a movie clip from the official Ernesto Gaudí documentary, "City of Light", which we see briefly at the beginning of the film, and shows an interview with Gaudí himself, explaining how he became fascinated with film at an early age. The clip, which was created for the documentary, is narrated in its entirety by the author and features a discussion between the director and Gaudí on the inspiration for his work. The clip shows a hand-held camera recorded with an infrared light source, which focuses on the story through a focus of light and dark, allowing the viewer to focus on the images and get a feel for what Gaudí was going for. It's a great way to convey the image of the story, and while I think that this technique is pretty much redundant in other films, the film does help with its ability to convey the narrative of the film. Gaudí's own words are quoted throughout the film, often explaining in his own words how he became interested in film. The documentary includes interviews with members of his family and a bunch of other people from Gaudí's life, and we also see many film clips that provide context to Gaudí's life and work, including a video interview with his brother, filmed after Gaudí's death, and a featurette with one of the filmmakers that focuses on the visual elements of his films. There are some interesting things to note, including the fact that the film uses only basic technology, and that it's certainly very different from the way Gaudí would have wanted it to be, but it's still very interesting, and the film still manages to convey the ideas and meanings of the story. The documentary does provide some interesting images, especially for the eyes of a viewer with some artistic skills, but I also think that there are some images that could have used some explanation. Gaudí's own statements are interesting, and as a documentary, it's quite difficult to separate fact from fiction, but as a film, it's good.

Mary Reynolds photo
Mary Reynolds

I guess I should have known that this film was going to be a political statement on the drug war, but I had no idea what to expect, to be honest. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. I did have some qualms about some of the interviews, but this was mostly due to the fact that the interviewees did not feel comfortable talking about their drug war experiences. I do not regret that this film is politically incorrect, or preachy. However, I do feel the film is being used in the most simplistic way possible. The purpose of this film is to make us think, and hopefully change our minds about the drug war. I would have loved to see more interviews with the subjects, or more footage from the drug war. The film has a tendency to cut away, and I was constantly trying to figure out where the film was going. It seemed like a rushed documentary. I really liked the film because it did not go out of its way to be politically correct, or preachy. It was more of a natural, compelling documentary. I recommend this film, and I hope it reaches its goal.

Joan B. photo
Joan B.

This was an extremely disappointing film, to say the least. The story was confusing, and the overall quality of the movie was below average. This is my third time watching this film, and this time it was so horribly disappointing that I had to walk out. I was just glad to have the opportunity to watch a great documentary that I was interested in. I was disappointed in the research and report that was put into this film, and in my opinion, the overall quality of the film. I'm glad to see a great documentary that others enjoyed, but when it comes down to it, I'm happy to be a member of the club, but I'm not happy to pay to be one.

Maria photo

I've seen many reviews about the video, they said that it's a great film about the criminal mind of Al Capone, but the documentary does not even touch on the nitty gritty of the crimes committed, it does not go into any detail about the insurance fraud that was committed by Al Capone in the 1920's or even in the 1930's. It also doesn't go into much about how and why Al Capone got killed in 1931. As I've mentioned before, the film isn't really about the criminality of Capone, but it does get into the reasons and circumstances behind the murders committed by Capone. I do think that the film deserves more credit than it's given, because it really does take you into the life of Capone, and the motivation behind his crimes. It goes into the details of the crimes committed by Capone, it goes into the insurance fraud that was committed by Capone and it does even go into some of the actual crimes committed by Capone, it's not even that good of a documentary because it doesn't go into the details of Capone's crimes. But I do believe that the film deserves a higher score than it's given.

Ashley W. photo
Ashley W.

I've seen this film three times now. It's one of those films that is so gripping and incredibly sad, you cannot help but be affected by the story. It's a true story that was featured in the news in 2007, and many people in the US have heard of it and have had their lives affected by it. It's a small story, and we all know it's not that big of a deal, but it's so meaningful and realistic to see how people can have their lives turned around just by a phone call. It was an amazing film and I would recommend it to anyone.

Ryan L. photo
Ryan L.

The story of Nikhil de Silva is nothing more than a combination of facts, figures and figures about Nikhil. From his birth till his death, we see how he was a born, how he grew up, how he learned the violin, how he started his life journey. He was a poor child, working in a trash, being outcast from his peers. He grew into the man who became a talented violinist and the famous violinist he was always dreamed of being. Every musician remembers the times they took a bow and committed their music to the universe. As for the stars who played with Nikhil, we know that there is no doubt that he was brilliant. As we all know, it was his one and only piano that influenced all of them. So, as the movie opens, we are introduced to him on stage, which shows the reason for all the people who loves to watch music. We see a glimpse of a genius who made a mark on the history of Indian music. A legend of the Indian people. There is nothing more that we should think about than that. However, it is all the things we don't know that really makes us go to the cinema hall to see this brilliant act. After this, it is just a question of seeing this film and taking part in its unique cinematic experience. The film is simply brilliant, as it is shown in the cinema hall. There are countless memorable moments and if you are lucky enough to see it, you will think that this is something really worth watching.