Watch California Typewriter

California Typewriter

California Typewriter is a movie starring Silvi Alcivar, Ken Alexander, and Tom Hanks. California Typewriter is a story about people whose lives are connected by typewriters. The film is a meditation on creativity and technology...

Other Titles
Maszyna do pisania
Running Time
1 hours 43 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Doug Nichol
Ken Alexander, Tom Hanks, Silvi Alcivar, Martin Howard
Canada, India, France, USA
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

California Typewriter is a story about people whose lives are connected by typewriters. The film is a meditation on creativity and technology featuring Tom Hanks, John Mayer, Sam Shepard, David McCullough and others.

Comments about documentary «California Typewriter» (21)

Adam Rose photo
Adam Rose

Since I've been a great fan of David Bowie, and particularly the period when he was still prolific, I was looking forward to seeing this film, even though I was somewhat disappointed. But I did have to admit that I was surprised by it's artistic and artistic value. It was not the usual documentary style of making a film about a musician's life, but that of using the camera as a surrogate of an artist. In this film we see Bowie in the studio and his studio mates as well as his family. The intimate nature of the film, with the musicians playing in the studio, Bowie's family members, his love of his music, Bowie's reflections on life, his family life, Bowie's lack of success and his success and his relationship with his family, is beautifully captured. Bowie was the star, as is apparent from the name, Bowie, and a musician's love for his art. The film does show Bowie's good times and bad times, and the only thing I did not like is that Bowie himself is very open about his suffering from Hepatitis C. That is not surprising since he was an alcoholic. It's also not the fact that he suffers from Hepatitis C, it is the fact that he was not even taking it, he was drinking it, but of course it is his love for his art, his passion for music that made him to have that illness. This film is a great work, the audience can be entertained, even when it is not the Bowie film. We can learn that a man's life is not always what he wants it to be. He is a man, he has a lot of love for his art, and he is also a man who is in need of a new way to live his life. He is an artist, and that is what he is striving to be.

Roy photo

This film has been praised by some critics, and it's apparent that the film's director, David Foster Wallace, loved the material and wanted to tell the story. I was one of those who was excited to see this movie. I thought it would be just another movie with a story about an essay. That is a common and interesting concept. I didn't expect to be taken into the inner workings of the writer, but I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it's not a story about writing, but rather it's about life and a man's relationship with his own writing. The film follows the author as he works on his story. The story begins with the journal entries and the personal struggles the writer has. Eventually the writer writes his first story, and we follow the protagonist through his trials and triumphs. The best way to describe this film is that it's a film about life, and life is a story. The problems with the film are that it doesn't show us the author's life, only his work. For example, at one point in the film, we see the writer write in his journal, and when the camera pans away we see the writer still writing in the journal. This makes the film seem like it's just another film about writing. The film is also a bit too short. There are only a few minutes of the movie that are shown in a way that is more interesting than the rest of the movie. Also, the editing isn't very good. The editing isn't very interesting at all. It's not too bad, but it's not very good either. The film isn't very good either, but I have to give it a 7 out of 10 because of the good points mentioned above. I would recommend this film, but I think it's too short, and not very interesting, and the editing is too bad. I would suggest seeing this film if you're interested in life, or if you just want to see how a man is affected by the story he's writing.

Zachary B. photo
Zachary B.

This is a nice and realistic look at the personal and professional lives of professional typists and their families. I can't say that I was impressed by this documentary. It's pretty much like a collection of stories, and they all seem to be part of a larger story, but they all have a very simple story. So, this was a little frustrating for me. I don't know if it's just my view or what. Maybe I'm just not in touch with typists. In any case, it's a great look at typists in general, but not a particularly good look at typists, so I can't really recommend it.

Lauren B. photo
Lauren B.

I'm not really a movie critic, but I am familiar with the cinema and the film industry. I like the idea that they are taking something that's already been done many times, but the difference is that they are being honest about what they did. I found the documentary about Mark Cancian in Hollywood to be very revealing. His mannerisms, his family background, his work ethic, his ability to adapt to different conditions - all were very accurate. The documentary also made it clear that the makers of the film were not out to "make a movie" - they wanted to inform the public about the world of film and about how it can be a "tricky business". I have never seen so many negative reviews of a documentary. The movie was funny and informative. I would recommend it to anyone who has an interest in film or film history.

Ronald G. photo
Ronald G.

It is truly a pity that the man behind this film can't be asked to have his say. As a filmmaker he would have had a lot to say about the ways in which film and photography have had a profound effect on human life and the ability to express emotion. His contribution could not have been more profound, in fact it was so profound, that he could not have been more to the point, in the least, and yet, it was just a question of whether or not his words should be seen. The problem is that this film is in many ways a manifesto for how good film can affect the way we communicate with others and the way we view the world around us. It is a call to action to all those who enjoy good film, to all those who are interested in communicating their artistic creations, to all those who enjoy the same principles as Bill (and Brian)'s father, to all those who appreciate the importance of artistic expression, to all those who love a good story and enjoy a good story told well. And to all those who are concerned with the impact of their own life on others, and their relationship with the people they encounter on a daily basis. This film is one of the best examples I have seen of the art and craft of film. This is a truly inspiring film, and one of the best films I have ever seen. The film will be a film that will live with me for a very long time.

Donald Harper photo
Donald Harper

I had the chance to watch this film at the movies. I really liked it. I especially enjoyed the interactions between the filmmakers and actors. As a viewer, it is not hard to figure out what is going to happen, but the great attention to detail and the wonderful screen writing really enhance the experience. There is a great blend of subjects, actors, and settings. The themes are not so clear, and there are a couple of moments where I had trouble following the storyline. There are a lot of scenes that feel out of place or awkward. However, those scenes are few and far between. I also found the camera work to be very well done. The editing is clear and unobtrusive. The colors are rich and warm. The light and dark contrast are a perfect fit for the film. The color balance is very consistent throughout the film. The film is made up of an incredibly large number of short segments, which range from 15 minutes to over 2 hours in length. Many of the segments are quite intense. I found myself losing interest in one segment, and my attention was not completely on the rest of the film until about 30 minutes later. However, I did find that the segments were connected well, and made for a very entertaining experience. I especially enjoyed the few scenes that depicted family life in various cities around the world. I felt as if I was actually traveling with the actors. I believe that the filmmakers were successful in creating a unique and engaging experience for the audience. I highly recommend this film.

Frank Carter photo
Frank Carter

This documentary is about how the Oscar-winning documentary "Wagner" was brought to the big screen by three filmmakers who set out to make a movie about the life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven. They focused on the life of a pianist, who at one time was almost as famous as the composer. For their first film, they relied on a cast of actors and a director who had never been involved with a project like this before. For their second, they cast a new crew, with the goal of making a movie about Beethoven. That first effort was a success, with two Oscar nominations, but it was overshadowed by the Oscar-winning film "Wagner". This is a great documentary, about the great man, his music, his life, and his legacy. It's a story that shows us how the history of music was made, how the best of the best got their start, and how Beethoven's greatest accomplishment was making his mother feel proud of him. It's a lot of fun, but it's also very hard to take. It's an excellent documentary, and if you like the Oscar-winning "Wagner" then you'll love this one. If you don't like "Wagner", you'll probably love this one, as well. As an added bonus, you get to meet the actors in this film, and it's a great way to meet the crew and crew members for the film. This is a great documentary, and I highly recommend it.

Christina S. photo
Christina S.

I have seen many good movies in my life and this is not one of them. I've always had a problem with the fact that the films that I have seen about aging are always too dark, never adequately displaying the good things that people have at age 60. They always show how unhealthy the life of an 80-year-old woman has become. This film is neither a good nor a bad movie. It is an average movie. The stories are not interesting and I don't know what it is about this film that's so good. If you want to see how aging has made women behave like 45-year-olds, see The French Lieutenant's Woman or The Prince and the Pauper. But if you want to see how the years have changed the lives of women, see this movie.

Michael A. photo
Michael A.

I recently purchased this DVD for my wife. I found this movie very interesting and inspirational. I thought it was about as "bad" as the premise might have seemed to me. The movie starts out with a family that is very well off, living in a beautiful home and in a quiet, serene neighborhood. A group of students are being questioned by a teacher about their life and how they feel about their own. The student's family (led by a father and a mother) are very "cool" and kind of strict and seem to have all the right answers. The student's mother (a hippie) is not a good role model, and is rude and obnoxious. The student's father, the middle-aged, wealthy, independent, married professor, is not very good at showing compassion to the student's family. And the student's teacher is very evil and rude, and is not very good at loving his students. All in all, the student's family is very different from the typical family. I really found it inspirational. I do not really understand why this movie has such a low rating. I think it is a very good movie. I rate it a 7/10.

Arthur Medina photo
Arthur Medina

This is one of the most "rushed" documentaries I've seen, and that's not saying much, since so many documentaries can't hold up to this standard. I just finished watching it and had to pause it for a minute. The narration is not the greatest, the cinematography is uninspiring and the editing is awkward. But the interviewees, both with and without exception, are excellent and make it worthwhile. They all seem to have an innate curiosity about the subject matter. I wish more documentaries had this quality, and I wish more people like this existed. It is, of course, easier to put up with a narrator than an interviewee who's not so much interested as someone who's ready to say something interesting. I guess that's why I'm still very curious about the subject of the documentary. I was hoping for a little more insight, a little more subtlety, but I guess the producers didn't get what they were hoping for. I guess the reason I gave it a 7 is because I wanted it to end sooner. I'd rather see it continue to exist than to end.

Zachary photo

I've never seen so much incoherent "music" (in the style of the Sixties) to be in the same movie. The woman with the glasses in the tub? The black guy in the crowd? The guy with the little beard? Who the hell are these guys? And what's with the character's moving from country to jazz? The film is supposed to be about the music and the people, but it never is. We are shown the music, but never the people. The film makers never reveal who the person in the picture is, or who they are. The music is so pretentious it comes off as a sitcom (or even a sitcom in disguise). I've seen movies that are so unbelievably pretentious that I've thought, "Yes, this is a satire, but I can't figure out what it's mocking." It's a shame that this movie doesn't have a sense of irony. It's an interesting attempt to do a documentary about the music, but it doesn't do anything about the people in the picture. It's just a silly, tedious and tedious film. The film makers did the best they could with a half-baked plot and a weak plot. It's sad to see that they really had to go to all the trouble to do a film about music.

Zachary photo

From the beginning, it's hard to not love this documentary. The subject matter is interesting, and there's plenty of very funny moments in it. It also gives a very good picture of how poor a place LA really is, and how it can actually be. The fact that there's not a single person in the audience who isn't from the LA area is almost a crime. But that doesn't mean that it's all for the best. There are a few awkward moments that make the film a little hard to watch, especially when the two hosts (in this case, Michael McKean and Jon Lovett) try to act like a real audience. But overall, this is a great documentary that you should definitely see. This is a must see for anyone who's ever lived in LA. I give it a 7 out of 10.

Joshua Taylor photo
Joshua Taylor

The most fascinating part of the movie was the way in which it was broken up into a series of videos. The first one was "My Life." It was about getting a job at a typewriter factory, and the experience of having a lifelong love affair with a typewriter. It was a very emotional, really moving piece. Then, a very similar one came out called "The Last Word," about the battle of wills between the two lovers. These videos are very different, but they are both very interesting. Overall, the video is an excellent insight into the creative process of what a writer or a graphic artist must go through. It is not a "Who-done-it" or a "What-to-do-when-you-have-a-writer-problem." It is a look into a process that is very unique, and that can be a little confusing at times, but is very informative and worth watching.

Eugene G. photo
Eugene G.

I was a fan of George Orwell and his work, and after reading the book, I saw this movie, which I really liked, but the direction of this movie is absolutely terrible. I find it completely ridiculous, as there is no reason to make a movie about a book that a lot of people are reading. This movie shows absolutely nothing about George Orwell, it is the whole point of the book, and this movie is a waste of time and money. I did not like the movie, and I did not understand how George Orwell, a man who lived so long ago, is going to be a character in this movie. The movie is just a good example of a film, and a good example of what I dislike. The movie does not have an original idea, the script is bad, the direction is bad, the film is so full of errors that it is difficult to tell the good parts of the movie. So, if you want to see a movie about George Orwell, don't watch this movie, it is not worth it.

Andrew G. photo
Andrew G.

Like most of the other reviewers I watched this film on a bus trip back from the beach. It was very low budget and interesting. I think it was based on a true story and that's why it is interesting. I would have liked to have known more about the people and the story. Maybe they should have interviewed the actual people or their family. I think that the film might be a little too long and boring and boring. I think they should have cut out about 40 minutes. It was very well done, but I wouldn't have liked to have seen more. It was a good documentary and I would recommend it to anyone. I would recommend it to anyone who loves to read, like a lot of people I know do. I am not sure what to say, other than, don't let the small print turn you off.

Kathy photo

This is a fantastic film. I have always been a fan of it's director and writer, Sverrir Ondurin. I really enjoy watching this documentary and I have been hoping for this to be released on DVD so I could add it to my collection. I bought it a few years ago from a seller who got it from the FilmFestival, the festival is very nice to this film. This film is in Swedish, so I think that some of the people in the audience may not understand the subtitles. However, I found that I could understand what was being said a lot better when I watched it with the subtitles on. I believe this is the best documentary I have seen that deals with the subject of Swedish typing. The most interesting aspect of this documentary is how well the camera can capture the beautiful city of Stockholm. This film was very well done. If you are interested in Swedish Typewriter, this documentary is very good and will keep you interested in the subject.

Bryan photo

I read this review and wondered if I had missed something in the film or what. The film seemed to me like a documentary. In fact, it is sort of like one, but the only part that I felt was missing was the art of the soundtrack. It would have been nice to hear some of the themes that were written to the music. In fact, I think that was the only part that was missing. And I still haven't heard the main theme song, so maybe that is what they were trying to say. Maybe the subject is too heavy for the medium of film.

Alan Hernandez photo
Alan Hernandez

This is a pretty good documentary about a man who has a crippling neurological condition that forces him to live with a typewriter. This is all he can do, and he uses it to express himself. While some of his expressive drawings are wonderful, there are a couple of things about this man that are really sad. This man is a genius at drawing, but there are times when he's so restricted by his disability that he can't even express himself. This is really sad. I can't say I don't empathize with this man. I just wish there were a lot more that I could say about this man. I guess if I didn't know more about this man, I would probably be upset about how he's treated, but I'm not sure I could find it in myself to be a better person. This is a really good documentary, but I think you should go see it on video if you can. I recommend this one.

Willie Nichols photo
Willie Nichols

A nice documentary, although it is quite repetitive. It starts off with many interviews with members of the community, followed by interviews with some of the people who are involved in the community and then the documentary shifts to the few people who are actually involved in the project. The filmmaker is quite interested in documenting the process of getting started, but there is not much point in doing that if the interviews aren't as interesting as the actual progress. For example, I really wanted to know what the actual name of the project was, but it wasn't really clear. I think the documentary could have been more engaging if it had more interviews, but that is probably the downside of a documentary. The one good thing about the film is that it is quite entertaining, but if you are really interested in getting involved, it is too late.

Janice photo

I was fortunate to attend a sneak preview of this movie at the recent South by Southwest Film Festival. I was thrilled to see that this was actually shot on a DSLR. I'm not a fan of the iPhone, but I will give the movie props for getting a unique look at a hip urban neighborhood. It also was interesting to see a movie shot on film that is not an expensive commercial film. This was a good example of a movie that is not just a commercial but is an artistic film. In the past I have been a critic of cheap commercial movies, but this movie was excellent and I hope that the movie gets more exposure in the future. My rating: 7/10

Gary Snyder photo
Gary Snyder

I love the movie. I think it is an important, timely and very timely piece of cinema. It is not really a documentary. I think it would have been more appropriate to make it a "documentary" and add some context about the characters. Instead, it is just a man sitting in a chair watching his typewriter turn and write. The editing is also a bit awkward. You can really tell the story by looking at the typist's hands. It is really neat to watch and see his hands and to know what a hand-typist is. I also like that the film is in color and uses film stock. I feel like it is very artistic. It is also a very well-produced film. It is very interesting and well-made. It was a very satisfying film. I think it is a very good film. It is a very interesting documentary that really is a "must see." It is a great film. It is very entertaining and very well made. It is a good film. It is well-made. It is a very entertaining film.