Watch Frank Serpico

Frank Serpico

Frank Serpico is a movie starring Frank Serpico, Stanislao Pugliese, and Janet Panetta. In his own words, Frank Serpico tells the story of his one-man crusade for police reform in the NYPD during the early 1970s.

Running Time
1 hours 38 minutes
Quality
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres
Documentary, Biography
Director
Antonino D'Ambrosio
Writer
Antonino D'Ambrosio, Antonino D'Ambrosio
Actors
Frank Serpico, Stanislao Pugliese, Janet Panetta, John O'Connor
Country
USA
Year
2017
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
Subtitles
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

In his own words, Frank Serpico tells the story of his one-man crusade for police reform in the NYPD during the early 1970s.

Comments about documentary «Frank Serpico» (32)

Ann Murray photo
Ann Murray

Jack Serpico is not a hero or a demigod. He was a young American boy who saw an American soldier shoot the Japanese soldier who had a knife in his chest. Serpico did not break his back. The Japanese did not carry knives with them, he had no weapon to defend himself. He could only defend himself by firing his weapon, at the military people. All these people are portrayed as being demigods, from this point forward. Jack Serpico is shown as a young man who broke his back and was not viewed as a hero at all. And the story of Serpico being injured in the knee has no bearing on his story or actions. Serpico should have been killed. It's not about who shot who. And this isn't a documentary. This is a story from the point of view of Jack Serpico. If you take away the "he did not kill anyone" part from Serpico, then Jack Serpico is a hero. This is a very well done documentary that tells the story of Jack Serpico, but it does not attempt to portray Serpico as being a demigod or a hero. Serpico deserves credit, but this film is not about Serpico, it is about himself.

Willie C. photo
Willie C.

I just had to see this movie. With such a superb cast, this movie blew me away. The first 20 minutes or so were so riveting and moving I didn't even want it to end. I knew it was going to be a great movie, but it was a real eye-opener to me. The story is based on the true story of the beautiful and amazing Beatrice Dobb's work. Some might call it fluff, but I don't. I love the movie for it's uniqueness and to me, this movie is truly worth watching. It is perfect for a rainy day, when you want to relax and be a part of something beautiful. It can be summarized as a real life story, but it is also about the art of life. I want to tell you that this movie is a very good movie. If you are someone who needs to be reminded of how important art is, then you have to watch this movie. In my opinion, it is the best movie I have ever seen and the best movie of all time.

Brenda Carr photo
Brenda Carr

Andrew Prine's haunting documentary about New York City's notorious Rikers Island prison, the "world's largest detention center for adult criminals", tells the story of its inmates. The film follows the inmates for months and months, and even more years, at a time when there are literally hundreds of new inmates arriving every day. Prine first makes a point of telling the story of Thomas Shaw, a fourteen-year-old convicted murderer who is locked up at Rikers, and a life he can't be sure will be over. Prine then goes to prison to question some of the inmates and learn more about their lives on the island. I am not familiar with Prine's previous film, "Convict Torture", which he made with Justin Allan, but he has a distinct style about his documentaries and their use of archival footage. I found "Life Is Cheap" to be much better than most documentaries, as I was emotionally moved by many of the interviews, and I think Prine is a great documentary filmmaker. As for the inmates, Prine told them to be brave, and that they need to not be afraid of the prison, but they are. Prine and his cameraman, Manis Yaffe, are mostly filmed in various parts of the prison. But Prine also got some of the inmates to stand in front of cameras and talk about their time on the island. In my opinion, Prine's style is more interesting than what most people are used to, and his style is also different to the one most people are used to in the documentary industry. Prine also had some help from Allan, who came out of prison and wrote and directed a documentary about the way the prison was run. Many of the actors in the film, including Jaime Pressly, Michael C. Hall, Anthony Anderson, Scott Wolf, Wayne Dyer, and Arthur Rabinowitz, are mostly prison actors. Still, there are some great prison actors, such as Ron Leibman and Hildie Dixon. Leibman plays Michael Smith, who is in solitary confinement for about thirty days. He also takes part in the interviews of inmates. The film is better than Prine's previous film, which was better than the documentaries I've seen.

Madison P. photo
Madison P.

Serpico was a respected and important civil rights lawyer who served as the head of the NAACP for thirty years, and headed the Civil Rights Project for four years at the University of Pennsylvania. His work in the courtroom was done by giving the other side of a case: showing what the judge and the jury believed, what evidence showed, and what the defense and prosecution needed to prove. He also gave the American people a moral voice that would challenge many of the values that were part of the society of the day. In short, he was an important advocate for the African-American community. In this film, he was recognized for his efforts in the 1970's, but not his contributions to civil rights in the 1950's. Instead, we get some more stories about his life, and this is the only part of the film that was taken from the archives of CBS. With a sense of irony, the news director decides to do his best to cover it. The movie is at times boring and tedious, but there are some interesting moments, and it is very well made. I would definitely recommend it.

Barbara E. photo
Barbara E.

I have two complaints about this documentary. The first, and maybe even the biggest, is that it takes so long to get to the point. This is a story about a whole city, not just a small section of one of its neighborhoods. It would have been much more effective and thought-provoking had it left the neighborhood in a point of view and not to the other end of the screen. Second, and probably the second one, is that the idea of presenting the development of an entire city's political process is a bit of a stretch. This is a documentary about a city with a very particular political climate, and it's difficult to imagine how many people would be interested in it. (As a footnote, it also seems to me that a documentary about the French Revolution would be far more interesting.) This is a highly theoretical project, but nevertheless one that should be taken as seriously as any documentary. Another thing, I guess, that people find hard to swallow is the weird amount of racist content in this film. I'm very familiar with "the ghetto" because I spent a summer in one of the neighborhoods depicted in the film, and I didn't see anything that was really offensive. But the most painful thing I learned about this film is that no one has ever been to that neighborhood. I guess that might be the point of the documentary: that, perhaps, when we're looking for a very specific message or as a response to certain social issues, we might be a little too willing to be influenced by this particular image. It's not that I hated the film, it's just that it might have been better if it had taken more shots in other parts of the city, in other neighborhoods.

Daniel photo
Daniel

Great documentary! This is probably one of the best documentaries I've seen about the music business. Sam Phillips gives us a very interesting history of recording artists and their hardships in the business. The people who have the good fortune to have a record deal today are not the same ones who made that deal 50 years ago. The role of money in the music business is greatly changed by the death of Kurt Cobain and the subsequent onslaught of "alternative" rock. But Sam Phillips does an excellent job of capturing this change. While there are a lot of great anecdotes that are often repeated, you need to really see the movie to fully understand how this era changed the music business. Overall, it's an interesting look at a pivotal part of the history of rock and roll. That being said, the movie is basically a guide to how artists make money today, and how they make money in the future. If you're not a fan of rock, or don't like the subject matter, you may not like this movie. I find this film interesting and worth watching.

Howard photo
Howard

It's odd that this film was once released as a telemovie and, though it does contain many jokes and moments that are not only amusing but funny, it has been attacked as a big-budget "commercial", and I have to agree with those who say it lacks in style and is 'too slick' in style. Its style may be the basis for 'art' in its own right, but if you can get past that, and can actually give this movie a chance, it's worth a look. It really is a rare film, so don't waste your time. You'll probably like it more than I did, and, more to the point, you might actually like it more than me.

Robert Stanley photo
Robert Stanley

I've never seen a documentary that's so thorough, so comprehensive, so nuanced, so accurate. I'm not saying it's a perfect documentary, but it's not a movie that's trying to be one. It's just a documentary. It's a one-sided view, but one that's totally unapologetic. It's very honest, and it's very honest in how it portrays people's opinions. It's a fascinating look at the world of business and it's people, but it's not an anti-business film. It's a very personal film that goes into the lives of some of the people who are involved in the film, and they're fascinating to watch. It's a very real look at what happens when you're trying to make a movie about a subject that's extremely difficult to get a handle on. But that's what makes it so fascinating. I can't say that it's a documentary that's very accurate. I don't know that it's very accurate, but it's very interesting. I think it's very insightful, and I think it's very important. It's very, very good.

George T. photo
George T.

I just saw this documentary at the Chicago Film Festival. The film was very well done and it was an interesting look at a subject that is a bit more complex than just the kind of fight that happens on a weekly basis. I don't know how much of it is true but it certainly makes you think. I also think the film was a little too long, maybe about 80 minutes and it could have been trimmed down. The documentary had a lot of great information and it was a good look at a subject that is more complicated than just the "rules" of the sport. I think the only real flaw with the film was that it did not have a lot of action. It would have been interesting to see some of the fights but it was a little boring. I think it would have been better if it had a lot of action but then it would have been just a documentary. I also think that the documentary was more about the issues of the sport than the fight. There was no real focus on the fights. The fights were the main focus. I also think that the documentary was a little too long. It would have been great if they had cut out the majority of the documentaries and just had the fight in the middle. I think that the film was well done but it did not have a lot of action. I would recommend this documentary but I think that it would be a little more interesting if it had more action.

Cynthia P. photo
Cynthia P.

In "Life at H. H. Holmes Hospital", I saw a documentary about the group of mentally ill patients at the hospital. It was about as mysterious as life in a mental institution. The interviews were conducted by a group of German doctors. Although the interviews were all about patients at the hospital, the majority of the focus was on the mental health of the physicians, and their counterparts at the hospital. It was like an ad for the hospital's staff, only without a picture of any of the patients. The pace was slow, the soundtrack was monotonous, the photography was conventional, and the film was not very memorable. But the film was done by a German group, and by a physician. I know German films well enough to recognize an attempt at true documentary. Most of the time, I think they are just making the same mistake as the German documentary makers. The director chooses a subject that is not the first one that comes to mind. It seems like there is a lot of desire to be original and artistic. But, honestly, I didn't think the documentary was very interesting. It didn't show anything that would have grabbed my attention. I was willing to keep watching it, but then it stopped.

Samantha photo
Samantha

Pauline Kael said, 'I can't believe we can be both sitting here and talking about what we've got today.' She may have missed the point. You just can't have it both ways. You either care about the causes of the people in the picture, or you don't. I care. I feel sorry for the starving children of Nigeria, and I believe that the American public needs to be informed. Yet the people who get dragged kicking and screaming down the stairs by Uncle Sam should not have the guts to tell the American people what is going on in their country. I am astonished that Kalle Lasn (a peace activist) would be part of this. He should be ashamed of himself. He doesn't deserve to be a part of this propaganda trip. He shouldn't be allowed to lecture people about what's going on in Nigeria. It's not about that. It's about the deaths of some 2,500 children every year. It's about the misery of children who will not receive medical treatment in the United States. It's about money that could be used to feed children. I have great respect for Kalle Lasn and his work, but I'm appalled by his participation in this propaganda trip. By this trip he has made himself part of the problem. And he should be ashamed of himself.

Paul S. photo
Paul S.

Director David Ricks (Ripping Paul) isn't known for his documentaries, but he handles this one well. No crime story, but plenty of riveting stories. The camera pulls back and reveals the interpersonal relationships among the movie subjects, and the relationships among the subjects themselves. Some of the stories, particularly the women, seem to be almost documentary-like. It's as though they are real and they are being told a story. (Although, I think the men and women in the story, are probably better than the women in this film.) The women were very expressive and likable, and they were playing their roles brilliantly. I particularly liked the aspect of the storylines and the people's interactions. I know there are people out there who are more interested in looking at how attractive one woman is or how good a husband someone is, or how much money one person has, or whether one person has sexual relations with a man other than his wife. I don't think these kinds of stories have to be so focused on these aspects. The emphasis should be on the people and their relationships and what happens to them. And if you really do want to know about these, read a good biography, or ask someone if they've ever had a relationship like that. See also An Honest Liar and Between Two Ferns.

Kevin P. photo
Kevin P.

The tale of the New York Jets is a fascinating one. A unique story of sports history from the 1940's to present day. The last few games have received all the hype they deserve, with the team, the media and fans clamoring to see the final game of their existence. The greatest sporting event in the world that changed the sport forever. But this film is a solid primer for those fans of the Jets and their history. This is a classic sports history and film that makes you wonder how the whole Jets organization came to be.

Craig Franklin photo
Craig Franklin

This is a documentary about the "re-enactment" of the infamous events at the 1972 Democratic Convention. The film is about a group of men, and their journey to the legendary venue where the Democratic National Convention is held. In their quest, they encounter people from all walks of life, from the local to the national, and they share their stories of the events that happened. The film is a bit long, but the footage is well done, and the footage is filmed well. The documentary is well worth watching, and is worth the time. It is not a documentary about the actual events, but about the people involved in them, and the people who were there. I recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to learn more about the events at the 1972 Democratic Convention.

Jose Weaver photo
Jose Weaver

I thought this was a very good documentary on the drug war. I was shocked that it was produced by the very same people who have produced such films as "The Wire" and "The Corner". I was also shocked that the film was only 89 minutes. I think that the movie should have been longer. There were some very good interviews with people who have a lot of experience with drugs. However, it was just too slow. The movie had a lot of facts, but I felt that the editing was not very good. For example, the film was very slow. In the end, I felt that the movie was not very good, and I would not recommend it to anyone.

Marie photo
Marie

Sparring pros in the two most brutal wars of the 20th century. The Italian Fascist party and the Allied Powers of WW2 have quite different objectives. Despite their differing ideologies, they had a common objective. To destroy the Axis powers and all who fought them, including communists, socialists and nationalists. But here we see the really awful and harsh reality of the atrocities. Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany did not have the luxury of leniency or compassion. If you want to know more about that, I recommend the movie 'City of God', based on the memoirs of a Russian defector to the US. If you want to know about the relationship between American and Soviet soldiers in WW2, I recommend the movie 'Vetra' with a German soldier who really wanted to kill Hitler. As for the film itself, it was somewhat complicated. There were lots of gaps in the story, so it was not really easy to tell what the authors were trying to get across. But the main idea of the film, that one has to deal with his past to move on, was quite well described. One of the most horrifying things that you'll never forget is the machine gun execution of a young boy by a soldier. The stomach shattering sound is really unforgettable. The archive footage from the film is very interesting too. Especially the footage of the Italian's trials. Very interesting as well. The making of the film was also very interesting. A lot of the interviews were from the leaders of the war. A lot of the footage was of the trial proceedings and the production of the film itself. The overall effect is quite good. Even though there were gaps, the interviews and the archival footage will help you to better understand what happened in a dark history.

Madison photo
Madison

Robert De Niro appears to be the best actor of his generation, as is his movie career. The first thing I want to say about this film is that I watched it last night and found it captivating. This movie had to be a great lead up to the Oscar. Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, and Christopher Walken were all very well known in the early 90's. None of these guys really had huge star power, but they made their mark in the industry and gained a following as a result. The movie opens with "The Godfather" and then "The Godfather Part II" and then "Goodfellas." In between all of these movies, Robert De Niro was the most successful actor in New York City during that era. When the movie was over I was still surprised at how much I liked it. I was pleased to learn that the film was based on a real story. I learned that the real story was a very tough one. The real story was that Robert De Niro's father got a job with a mobster because of his connections to the mob. In the end, it was because of his own greed that he got into this situation. The movie made a very long, very insightful, and very well researched documentary about this story.

Samuel Bryant photo
Samuel Bryant

Before I saw this documentary, I did think it was about how sick and twisted the drug culture has become, but I was wrong. The film shows the "new age" scenes of a drug that has become common in this country. It shows the people that the drug has taken in and the ways that they spend their time. It shows how some people have turned into the drug and have the drugs, or they are trying to control the drug. But this documentary is not about the drug. It's about the changing of the morals of Americans. Some people have become addicted to drugs and have become worse and worse. The drug is eating their brains. The film is very disturbing. Some scenes are very disturbing, but it's all true. If you haven't seen this film, please do. If you have seen it, you will love it.

Walter G. photo
Walter G.

What's really great about this movie is that it's not about the gay rights movement, but the gay rights movement in general. As a film it's a real eye-opener, not only in terms of the politics of gay rights, but in terms of the way people in general live their lives. I was really surprised at the way that people treated these people. I mean, it was a really amazing story, and the acting was really good. I would have loved to see it on film, and I think that it would have been really interesting to see how different people would react to this story. It's a really good movie, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about gay issues.

Julie R. photo
Julie R.

This is a documentary that covers the work of a legendary character that is infamous in the world of boxing. It's a fascinating look at the life and times of the legendary Jimmy "The Saint" De La Rosa, and how his legacy is one that is still relevant and being celebrated today. The documentary follows the career of Jimmy "The Saint" De La Rosa, a legendary boxer who is most well known for his ability to fight on the road. The documentary covers the years of his career, the fights he was involved in, and his personal life. The documentary is an interesting look into the life of a legendary figure, and how his legacy is still relevant today. The documentary is definitely a documentary that will have people talking about the film, and I think that it's a good documentary that is worth a watch.

Crystal M. photo
Crystal M.

What a fantastic film. The only problem is that it isn't always clear what the documentary is about. I suppose it's to cover the problems of the union movement in the 1930's and 1940's, but there are many more subjects in the movie. One of the main ones is the increase of the unemployment problem in the US and its effects on the labor movement. The other part of the documentary is on labor unrest. I'm not sure of the exact point. In any case, it's a documentary that the audience will not forget. It really is a great documentary that provides many good facts. I recommend this movie to anybody who is interested in the labor movement, the history of the United States, or the movie industry. This documentary will be definitely a classic in the history of movies.

Matthew photo
Matthew

When I saw this documentary, I was impressed with how well it was shot. I don't mean it has great editing and even some great action scenes, but the overall feel of the movie is that it's a real documentary. The story is entertaining but it doesn't stand up to many tests and is very confusing at times. You have a couple of chapters that stand out. The first one is a very strange one that is centered around a family of 4 men that are uneducated about reality and how they find it out. The second one is the one that stands out for me. It's a lot like "The American Dream" with a lot of issues. The third one is the most well done. It's the one that's most easily comparable to "Raging Bull" and the other "dogs of war" movies. The funny thing is the story there isn't as well told. The video that we have is the actual footage that was shot. This documentary is made by Clint Eastwood and is the same director he directed "Serpico" and was one of the producers of "Serpico". This is a documentary that's definitely worth watching. It's good to see someone who is involved in the making of the movie putting together this documentary and giving it a good review.

Janet Soto photo
Janet Soto

The documentary follows the evolution of New York Times executive editor, William Randolph Hearst, from his beginnings in 1920s Pacifica, California. The documentary follows the process of Hearst's growing empire, and the influence of his story-telling style, as he starts buying up local news stations in the 1920s and enters the mainstream news industry in the 1930s. Hearst got his start by purchasing newspapers like The Portland Mercury and The San Francisco Chronicle, both from which he took complete control of. As Hearst bought newspapers, he also owned radio stations and newspapers (which were both owned by Hearst himself), and made movies like Citizen Kane and The Old Man and the Sea. Much of the documentary was devoted to Hearst's need to control the media. For example, Hearst's first great triumph was using The New York Times to sensationalize World War I and to bring to the American public the W.W.II news that he wanted. In addition to turning the Times into a propaganda machine, Hearst wanted to bring in news clips and graphics from the war and of "worthy" news to sell to the American public. He also wanted to get the opinions of "good" people on his website, and turned to the great public relations firm, Miller and Smith, which he hired, "to create the ideal environment for a newspaper." In other words, Hearst wanted the media to be more like him and his company. However, Hearst was still an individual. The interviewees also describe the difficulties of running a newspaper, and Hearst and his employees had to deal with the variety of newscasts and personalities of the news, which tended to contradict each other. And, while Hearst was giving interviews, his staff used them to try to sell their papers to the advertisers. Hearst seemed to enjoy his own publicity machine, but his approach to working with the media was flawed and left a lot to be desired.

Nancy Hicks photo
Nancy Hicks

A lot of people are saying that J.W.Theodore is the most hated person in Hollywood, and this film proves that. The documentary-like plot, and interviews with people such as Ted Turner, Leo DiCaprio, et al, mostly highlights Teddy's extreme vitriol towards the news media, as well as the actual ratings systems. The movie focuses on what Teddy thinks of the news media and what the people doing the news watching are doing. The movie ends with Teddy explaining how and why he got the job of being the 'TV News' guy. Ted himself talks about his path from being a millionaire, and how he started it to be a news commentator. I was really surprised to see Ted saying things like this, and it probably explains why he is so hated by so many people. It's probably one of the most hated people in history. You would think that the power of the media and how it's perceived by the general public would just be forgotten about, but Teddy has decided to make the media go away, and actually get it better for the rest of us.

Sara photo
Sara

Serpico's success as a lawyer and as a writer is documented here, and the film is worth seeing just for that. The most interesting part is the interview with the late lawyer, and how he talks about his "journey" from a very poor man to a successful attorney. The part about the years of his life that were spent on the street, and the time he spent in prison is a real eye-opener. I think the film is worth seeing for this reason alone, but it is also worth seeing for the portrait of the man. It's not a typical biography, but a portrait of a man who went through a long, hard life, and a portrait of a man who was really a very successful lawyer and writer, but who was, in a way, a failure.

Shirley photo
Shirley

After reading the reviews, I really wanted to see this movie. The reason why I didn't go was because I thought it was going to be an emotional film. It was not. It was very dull. The characters were not that interesting. They were all good actors, but they weren't that good. I think they were good in the first film, but not good enough in this one. I think that the only reason why people went to see it was because of Bill Murray. I think he was the only one that was good. The rest of the actors were really bad. The only actor that was really good was Julianne Moore. She was really good in this film. She did a great job. It was a good film, but it wasn't very good. I give it a 7/10.

Amy Martinez photo
Amy Martinez

Dr. Paul Czerny, medical director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and author of "The Rise of Mental Health: From the 20th Century to the 21st" makes a powerful case for the need for the expansion of the mental health care system. He opens his talk with an anecdote from his own childhood. His father was a psychiatrist, and he saw the mental illness of his son as a major flaw. Czerny has been a reformer throughout his life. He was a Nixon aide, a senator, and a federal judge. He was a leader of the challenge to the Mental Health Act of the 1970s, and is an advocate of the work of the Partnership for Disease Intervention (PDA). His persuasive case is that the mental health care system is suffering from a huge reform deficit. There is a shortage of new psychiatrists, and the existing doctors are not being properly compensated. That means that doctors and hospitals must compete with each other. There are underfunding efforts for psychiatry in the United States. The system is in crisis. Many of the new doctors are psychiatrists, and the supply is being exhausted. As a result, hospitals and doctors are charging a higher amount for mental health services than they are receiving from the government. Therefore, the care is overpriced. The mental health system is paying too much for drugs that are not needed. According to Czerny, the new drug prices are only one third of what was charged before the MHS system was created. The government is using antitrust laws to bring in pharmaceutical companies and to lower the prices. Czerny makes the case that the way to increase the supply of new drugs is to form partnerships with drug companies. The drug companies have always had the advantage of information about their drug, and they can pressure the government to lower the price of a drug. But the costs are all too high. As a result, the government has not increased the price of medicines in the United States from 1960 to 2000, even though the US pharmaceutical industry is in a surplus. The value of the pharmaceutical industry is $3 trillion. Czerny also makes the case that the government has led the country into a big deficit. He said that our country ran a $9 trillion deficit for the last six years of the 20th century. The real national debt was $4 trillion, and as a result, the government needed to borrow $90 billion each year to cover that deficit. Now the deficit is closer to $300 billion. Why? Because there is a $90 billion surplus. Czerny said that the government has not raised taxes at all for the past thirty years. In the 1960s and 1970s, taxes were raised on the rich at least three times. Now, taxes are raised on the middle class at least six times. It is a problem that is going to be very difficult to get out of. Czerny said that the deficit is not just a problem for the country, but for the world. He said that the US needed to balance the budget as quickly as possible. It was estimated that if we did not fix the deficit in the first five years of the 21st century, the US could go bankrupt. I think Czerny is right. The US has reached a deficit of more than $600 billion, and has run a $3 trillion surplus. I think the US economy has to be balanced as quickly as possible. The Fed will never do it. I think Czerny is one of the few people in this country who has taken on the problem of excessive concentration of economic power. As a result, the market was flooded with money, and the private sector has not been able to increase the output of goods and services. A market economy, like a free market, is

Julie Willis photo
Julie Willis

While most of the documentary was well made and the subject matter was not difficult to relate to, it still seemed somewhat disconnected. The topic was interesting and somewhat captivating and the life of Serpico was interesting and if it was well filmed and the subject matter captivating, I'm sure the audience was as well. The problem was that it didn't seem to truly connect with the viewer. There was a fair amount of humor to the documentary but it didn't really connect with me. It may be because I don't have a lot of patience for documentaries like this one and it was a bit difficult to get me to really understand or empathize with the subjects. It did the job but I didn't really feel like I was really connected to it. All in all, if you have some patience for documentaries and a strong will to be entertained then this is probably the one for you. If you're a bit more forgiving and willing to take a little time to get into the subject matter, this isn't for you.

Tammy Morales photo
Tammy Morales

This documentary, "Serpico: The Life and Death of Frank Serpico," documents the life and career of the legendary Detective Frank Serpico. The story is told in flashbacks that follow Frank and his friends from childhood to his eventual death as a detective. The documentary describes the men and women who worked with Serpico, from their early days as policemen to the women who surrounded him in his life. Although it is told in flashback, it never slows down. The film is informative and entertaining. I think the film was filmed very well. It was mostly the audience who participated that really provided the film's success, since the narrative was written by Serpico himself. It is an excellent documentary and a very interesting one.

Keith photo
Keith

If you want to hear about the ridiculous subplot between John Serpico and the Washington Post, watch the documentary, then leave and watch the movie afterwards. Otherwise, this is a decent documentary about the Post. The opinions expressed here are entirely my own and not necessarily the opinions of others. I don't usually come to these types of videos, but in this case I figured why not. The best thing about this documentary is the way they highlight the things they didn't like about the Post. Most of them seem to come from the subject matter of the article, though. After watching this video, you should know the bias of the newspaper, even if you don't want to know. The most outrageous thing in this documentary was seeing Michael Moore and George Stephanopoulos, two of the best documentary makers in the business, use a quote from Coughlin and the Washington Post and then later compare the paper to Coughlin. The comparison is nonsensical, since Coughlin was a rabid left-wing liberal and the Post was conservative. The main issue with this video is that they chose to portray the Post in a negative light. If they had made the interview with Woodward and Bernstein a positive, the film would have been a 10/10. But I believe there is a difference between being likeable and being a tabloid paper. This movie is just a small minority's opinion of what the Post did wrong and the newspaper in general. I'm not gonna get into details, but suffice it to say, the Washington Post was scandalously corrupt. They had biased coverage of Bill Clinton, and they have been giving favorable coverage of the President ever since his first term. There are many reasons for this, but the problem with this movie is that they focus on one or two points in a narrative of the paper. The mistakes of the Post is not what the Washington Post did wrong, but the fact that they were caught. That was one of the main reasons I walked away from this film with a positive view of the Washington Post.

Andrew photo
Andrew

The film is a wonderful, thought provoking look at the work of the late great George Serpico, the director of "Saving Private Ryan", and his way of helping the American public to get back on their feet. As Serpico's own son, the filmmaker pays a great deal of attention to the family's finances, and how the family's personal life was impacted by the war. The film is made very well, with great cinematography and the excellent music score. However, the movie suffers from a somewhat slow pace, which could have been avoided with a more exciting documentary style of telling the story. It is an entertaining film, but it is not the best film I have ever seen. It is a must see for the Serpico family.

George R. photo
George R.

There are two types of people in this world. Those who like this movie and those who don't. The former may not have heard of Michael Moore before he made this movie, but the latter, well, they'll be hearing about it for years to come. I can't say that I'm a fan of his movies, but this is one of the few that I've seen that I can say I actually enjoyed. It's about the war in Iraq, and the impact it had on the people who live there. It's not about the war itself, but how it affected people. It's not as accurate as you'd think, but I've seen so many documentaries that are so much more accurate. This is the kind of documentary that you can sit back and enjoy, and it's not something you have to take seriously. I know it's not going to win any awards, but it's a pretty good documentary that will have people talking about it for years to come. And that's what I wanted from this film.