I've never seen the film, or heard of this guy but I'll summarize what I remember from studying it a few years ago. First, the one debunked autism study wasn't the only study at the time questioning vaccines (I don't believe this video is about that study). There were a couple legitimate studies into potential problems with an adjuvants used in the vaccine being discussed called Thimerosal. This adjuvant, thimerosal contained mercury that was well above levels that were deemed safe and so it prompted said studies.
However, said mercury was ethylmercury, not methylmercury...The former is supposedly far safer in humans because its more
easily removed by our bodies. (This was the argument from the pharma companies and eventually the CDC, as linked).
The initial 2 studies found a
weak correlation to an increase in neurological diseases (I don't think specifically autism). Not strong enough to say 'this is the cause', but strong enough to warrant more studies, and they claimed that it might be do to the ethylmercury in Thimererosal (Even if its safer, it might not be totally "safe"). Other studies, I believe returned inconclusive results or showed no link at all. (This is where I believe the controversy comes in, in that the CDCs studies had issues of some kind.) In any case, this issue got mixed up with the autism study but they are not the same, or even about the same vaccine and in these studies general neurological problems were cited, I believe.
The FDA (I believe?) pressured the vaccine maker to stop using thirmerosal despite the evidence of harm being weak/inconclusive (They used certain principle of harm reduction? Essentially 'better safe than sorry'). The Pharma companies did so, and in 2001 the vaccines were no longer made with the adjuvant in them (The only place its found now is multi-dose flu vaccines for adults). Some lawsuits were won for neurological damage due to this vaccine--however, the caveat with lawsuits is that the government is liable and there all kinds of special provisions so winning a lawsuit isn't exactly proof there was any real harm done (Because the standards are lower than a normal civil case I believe...again, because the government has a legal deal with vaccine makers to be liable for damages if the FDA approves the vaccine).
The above is as fair a history as I can recall. You can make of it what you will. I have no idea what the video says or does not say, but in my personal study of it that's what I walked away with.