Quite a far way off its predecessor, even if 'Beneath the Planet of the Apes' is still a good film.
Charlton Heston reportedly wasn't initially interested in returning for a sequel, though, to his credit, did in the end return briefly to tie up his character's loose end - and apparently even gave his fee to charity. That's why we don't see much of him here, which is a shame but given the aforementioned it came out well enough.
James Franciscus takes over from Heston and does a fine job, the latter is definitely the better of the two but Franciscus is passable. Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans and Linda Harrison do return, though the first two basically play second fiddle to others - including newcomer James Gregory's bunch of characters; Gregory is solid, fwiw. As for the film's other parts, make-up etc., it's basically the same as the original. The plot even feels similar for a fair chunk of this production, though it eventually goes its own way.
I'm even more interested to check out the subsequent sequels, given the ending to this 1970 film was apparently intended - by those on the ground, so to speak - to be the final entry; the studio evidently wasn't in agreement.

Enjoyable mostly due to returning cast members, this first sequel could have been so much more. Sadly, this has "money grab" written all over it. Heston was reluctant to return, and only agreed once promised his character Taylor would die. One can only wonder what might have been had he been more enthusiastic, perhaps a decent plot and script? Sigh...

_**Classic Sci-Fi Adventure with a KILLER Ending**_
Of the five original "Planet of the Apes" films only the first one (1968) and this sequel, "Beneath" (1970), are truly great and worthwhile. The three prequels devolve in quality: "Escape from" (1971) has its points of interest and amusement, "Conquest of" (1972) is okay, but too one-dimensional, and "Battle for" (1973) is weak. "Beneath" is the only actual sequel, hence, both the original and "Beneath" should be digested as one long story.
The plot revolves around astronaut, James Franciscus, landing on the ape planet in search of Taylor & his crew. He makes contact with a primitive babe who knew Taylor (Nova, played by jaw-dropping Linda Harrison) and then embarks upon a quest to find him, leading first to the ape city and then to the "forbidden zone," a holocaust-ruined wasteland with a cryptic underground refuge.
Growing up, I always favored "Beneath" above the original film. Why? Possibly because "Beneath" has a lot more action, especially toward the end, and the concept of the psychic mutants was both eerie and captivating. As an adult, however, I've come to appreciate the original in increasing measure; it's deeper than "Beneath," more intellectual. Each film has its strengths and weaknesses and they compliment each other well.
Many criticize James Franciscus as a Heston clone. Although this is a valid complaint (Linda Harrison described Franciscus as a smaller version of Charleton Heston) and Heston as Taylor is indeed inimitable (so don't even try), I never had a problem with Franciscus in this film. He does a fine job in the role of the stranded astronaut on a planet of madness. His character, Brent, isn't disillusioned with humanity like Taylor, so he has less of an 'edge,' but Brent is a fine generic 'everyman.’
All the main characters from the first film are present. Aside from Nova and Taylor, the story features Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans), Zira (Kim Hunter) and Cornelius. Unfortunately Roddy McDowall wasn't available to play Cornelius so they brought in David Watson for the part, which isn't much of a problem because you can't tell beneath all the ape make-up and Watson does a splendid job mimicking McDowall. A new character is introduced and that is Ursus, the gorilla general, played by James Gregory (remember him from the original Star Trek episode "Dagger of the Mind"?). Who could ever forget Ursus' motivational speech: "The only good human is a DEAD human!!"?
There are numerous great scenes and images; for example, the gorillas marching in the forbidden zone and the gigantic appearance of their revered Lawgiver with a bleeding face, then collapsing.
Some criticize that the first half of the story is merely an inferior repeat of the original film (astronaut crashlands, discovers that apes rule the planet and ends up in ape city), but it was great the first time around, why not experience it again with some nuances? (Especially since "Beneath" was released two years after the original). I admit that this section of "Beneath" isn't as great as the original, it's even kind of boring (that is, after seeing the first film), but WAIT till Brent and Nova escape ape city and discover a mysterious and intriguing underground lair.
One beef I've always had with "Beneath" is that Leonard Rosenman's blaring score is a little mediocre compared to Jerry Goldsmith's original. It properly mimics the original and is serviceable, but doesn’t quite cut it. Why didn't they just re-use Goldsmith's score?
On a technical level, "Beneath" isn't nearly as good as the original due to obvious budget limitations. The subpar score is one example; another would be the all-too-obvious pull-over ape masks in certain scenes. But these are minor cavils and never prevented me from wholly enjoying the flick. Still, I could see why some would give the film a lower rating for this reason.
The climax is KILLER, and I mean that literally, as Brent ultimately finds Taylor and the gorillas invade the underground turf. Some great action entails and then... well, I’m not going to give-away the nihilistic climax. Regardless, I always loved the ending; in its own way it's just as great as the iconic close of the original.
The film runs 1 hour, 35 minutes and was shot in Southern Cal at Malibu Creek State Park, Calabasas; Century Fox Studios, Century City; and Red Rock Canyon State Park.
GRADE: A-
***SPOILER ALERT CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE MUTANTS***
It is revealed that the psychic mutants are human caricatures who literally worship the "doomsday bomb," a bomb capable of destroying the entire planet. It would appear that human beings need something to worship even in a devolved state, which suggests that humankind is incurably religious. This may be a negative reflection on religion, which is the human attempt to connect with God ('religion' means "to bind back"), but it isn't a negative reflection on biblical Christianity, which concerns the Creator connecting with humanity through the death & resurrection of the Messiah and the subsequent life-birthing power of the Spirit. In any case, the perverted religious nature of the psychic mutants is nothing less than fascinating, albeit a bit laughable at times, e.g. "the fellowship of the holy fallout." Nevertheless, the portrayal of their psychic powers is the best depiction in cinema IMHO.

**James Franciscus versus the mutant lunatics!**
A great, dark sequel to the original classic that goes beyond the downbeat ending of the original and gives us an even more depressing one! No mean feat considering how bleak the ending to the first movie was.
I love this movie. The legendary James Franciscus _(The Valley Of Gwangi_) is astronaut Brent - sent to find the missing Taylor. He finds him, of course, deep _beneath_ the ruins of a post apocalyptic city - imprisoned by _psychotic mutants_ with the power of telepathy.
Meanwhile, those _pesky apes_ are marching on the city to find out just what the hell is going on and what all the kerfuffle is about regarding reports of _crucified apes and bleeding statues._
This all leads to a shocking climax _you wont forget in a long time._
It's all rather disturbing and that is precisely why it succeeds.
- Potential Kermode

Decent watch, might watch again, and can recommend for dirt humor fans looking for something different.
There isn't a lot of comedy in fantasy movies, and there isn't a lot of fantasy in comedies, typically, so I'm sure they thought they were corning a rather unique market. Honestly though, it's like they had someone write a really great Dungeons and Dragon movie, and then tried to ruin it with humor page by page. There is a 9/10 star movie hidden in this, if they would do a (slightly) more serious story.
Danny McBride and James Franco basically do what they normally do, but in jerkins: I'm pretty sure they don't even really have accents compared to everyone else. Franco has a fluttery tone that Zoey Deschanel mirrors, but she is just a living macguffin with two solid jokes. There is a parody of this where they just replace her with a sex doll and pause when she's supposed to have lines.
Natalie Portman is about 10 times the actor than everyone else in this movie, and I don't know what got her to slum it in this other than it was a unique opportunity to be a bad ass D&D style woman character. I honestly would have liked to see a movie franchise based on her character. She makes a great straight man to the band of idiots, given to much more subtle humor, but she plays off of the others' dirt humor really well. And don't get me wrong, she is a legitimately funny actor.
The overall story is a bit formulaic for an RPG adventure, but it is filled with great characters and villains, and I legitimately think I'll turn this movie into a campaign adventure somehow. Lazar is actually a really well crafted villain with a decent support structure of henchmen and resources, despite having a rather basic end goal.
Ma-Tee-Tee, as over dramatic as he is, may be one of my favorite villains. He's a leader, he apparently crafted an entire society to his choosing, and either gained or created his power, and what's more he actually created a system (though unfair) that allows a chance for actual warriors to fight their way to freedom.
There is a lot to love about this movie, and then there is all the stuff they added for attention seeking comedy.

Pretty good movie. I wouldn't want to do time for a murder I didn't commit. If I was set up like this movie, I'd probably do the same thing she did.

Weak and from a legal standpoint complete wrong (despite a former lawyer turned murderer and former law professor saying so). Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones are good and Bruce Greenwood plays smarmy well but this isn't a very good thriller. **2.75/5**

This is a movie that we got a very long time ago when we still purchased a paper TV-magazine to know what was on TV every night. The last couple of years when we did that we frequently got a DVD as a “bonus” with it and this is one of those. According to my movie collection database we have had it since 2008 and last evening we finally got around watching it.
This is a quite okay movie. It will not blow your socks off but it is fairly okay and worth watching. It is a nice thriller/fugitive style movie to watch on a middle-of-the-week evening. I would probably not have been impressed had I gone to a theater to watch it but watching it as a TV-movie it was quite enjoyable. There are the usual silly moments that tend to be in these kinds of movies of course, starting with the stupid wife who just has to pick up the bloody knife just before the police arrives. Why do all (most) script writers have to put that crap into every movie?
I do generally like Tommy Lee Jones even though he tends to look and act pretty much the same no matter which movie he is in. I guess I like stability. The plot is okay. It is a fairly conventional husband frames wife, wife goes after husband kind of story and does not really provide any surprises.
One thing that caught my attention was that the car dealer apparently could do a credit check on a woman that was, as was found out later in the movie, dead since three years. I think someone missed the QA-checking of the script in terms of credibility there but then, as I said, the movie will not blow your socks of and the plot is fairly standard Hollywood fare with the usual silly stuff in it.

You know what, the movie's visual effects were better than its actors. The acceptable stunts and graphics for a B movie, but the let down came from the performances. I don't know what happened to the director, he used to make the better movies in his early career and now he lost his way. Maybe the big stars don't believe in him that may lead him to recruit second stream actors.
The romance portions were too bad, no chemistry, physics, mathematics, nothing, but just an ordinary without the feelings. When it comes to the game of throne, that's looked okay as it scripted like 'snakes and ladders' game. Anyway, it was a well known story among most of us which was altered and told somewhat differently. Disappoint is there though still somehow watchable.
Don't force yourself for this, because you are not going to miss any masterpiece. It's becoming a habit in Hollywood, like I already mentioned in a review a year ago that two same thematic movies coming out of a same period. So this time Dwayne Johnson's movie wins the race, according to the ratings and reviews across the internet, but I still have to see it first before compare them both.

A Thousand Words has a solid premise that could have been something special, but the execution feels shallow. The plot is unique and had the potential to explore deeper themes, but instead, it plays things too safe, relying on surface-level humor and predictable emotional beats. The directing feels uninspired, and while the pacing is decent, it never fully leans into the weight of its own concept. Cinematography is standard, nothing particularly memorable, and the visual storytelling doesn’t do much to enhance the narrative.
Eddie Murphy delivers a good performance, especially given how much he has to rely on physical expressions rather than dialogue, but the script lets him down. The writing lacks depth, missing opportunities to make the story more impactful. The comedy is fine, though nothing standout, and while there are moments of emotional sincerity, they don’t hit as hard as they should. The soundtrack is forgettable, doing just enough to support the scenes without adding much character. Overall, it’s an easy watch, but knowing how much more it could have been makes it feel like a missed opportunity.

"Shula" (Susan Chardy) is returning from a fancy dress party late one evening when she encounters a corpse on the road. A quick investigation reveals the body as that of her "Uncle Fred". She doesn't appear terribly upset at the news and neither does her partying father when she calls to tell him! Her evening doesn't get any better with the arrival of her drunken cousin "Nsansa" (Elizabeth Chisela) and when the police tell her they don't have enough vehicles to come and deal with it til the morning, she has to sleep in her car. What follows now sees us immersed in some of the rituals and traditions of a Zambian funeral, with grief - real and not so real - presented in a semi-comedic mix of ancient and modern behaviour. What also become clear is that "Shula" has a reason for her indifference and that this family, indeed their whole village, has unsavoury secrets to keep. What was curious for me, given the nature of the man's behaviour, was the extent to which the men were largely oblivious and the women almost entirely defensive of his true nature. Not of his behaviour in life, but of his reputation thereafter. He was clearly no great loss, yet his sisters grieve profoundly and lay the blame for his death squarely at his much younger wife who obviously hadn't looked after him properly. What's this to to with a guinea fowl, you might ask? Well it appears that they frequently serve as an early warning system for wildlife when predators approach, and so the allegory with the characterisation of "Shula" is clear to see as the story shines a light on established patterns of behaviour that still consider women as chattels. Aside from some engaging light-relief from the almost permanently sozzled "Nsansa", there isn't really enough development of the personas here and there's also not so much dialogue, per se. Just a great deal of plausible family chatter, angst and wailing amongst a community that treats death respectfully as the photography gets it's sleeves rolled up and takes us quite effectively into this bereft commune where there are spoils to be had, too. A lot of this is left to our own imagination and judgement, which is fine but a little lazy on the part of the writers who maybe hadn't quite the courage of their convictions when it came to delivering a more directly potent thrust, but it's still well worth a watch.

With the disillusioned “Eren” controlling the marauding “Titans” trampling everything in their path underfoot, it looks like an impossible task for the folks of “Marley” to thwart this “rumbling”. Maybe, though, “Armin” and “Mikasa” can find a way to thwart him by combining their skills and forcing mankind to reconcile their different factions and join forces too? It’s a conclusion to a series but stands alone well enough for you not to have followed that as this vivid, if not exactly detailed, animation takes us on a story of treachery, loyalty, and even a degree of light psychological horror as the android-looking critters threaten to obliterate humanity, like lemmings, over the edge of a cliff. In many ways it also serves as a tidying up exercise removing some established characters, sometimes quite emotionally, as the denouement embodies the values of teamwork and resilience whilst impressing us with some acrobatics and quirks along the way. It would certainly help if you’d seen the rest of the series, but the studios are getting much better at packaging these cinema releases to make sense on their own without detailed previous knowledge of the characters, and this action drama does just about enough even if it is very long for what it is, and there is a great deal of padding.

'The Last Showgirl' is good. It's a movie that didn't overstay its welcome, the 89 minutes flew through. Some of the ways the characters act did feel a bit odd to me at times, though the actors all give solid performances; without those onscreen, I'd be rating it lower.
I did hear pre-watch of the positivity Pamela Anderson received for this role and I can see why, she is very good. This is the first time I've seen her in a leading role, despite knowing of her forever. I would, to be honest, put all of her co-stars in the brackets of praise near here though.
Dave Bautista particularly impresses, while Kiernan Shipka, Brenda Song and Jamie Lee Curtis do enough that I do remember them hours after viewing; which isn't always the case for the supporting casts of films that I rate like this. As noted above, it's a film made a success by its talent.

There’s something really quite touching about Pamela Anderson’s performance here. She (“Shelley”) is what you might describe as a more refined topless dancer who considers herself more a dancing entertainer, replete with her own body weight in feathers and costume jewellery. She has an estranged daughter “Hannah” (Billie Lourd) and it’s through that strained relationship that we discover a little of just how many sacrifices she has made throughout her life, many that her daughter seems to consider more neglectful than beneficial. To add to her woes, their stage manager “Eddie” (Dave Bautista) announces that playing to ever dwindling audiences has caused their bosses to give them a fortnight before they close. With no good news on her horizon, she has to audition in an entertainment climate that isn’t remotely receptive to her work whilst trying to reconcile with her daughter. Luckily, or not, she has the plentiful advice of her floor-walking barmaid friend “Annette” (Jamie Lee Curtis) who has been in the game for just as long, has a penchant for a margarita and is also pretty down on her luck in an industry where youth is key. It’s Curtis (and Bonnie Tyler) who maybe offers us the most telling sequence of the film as she dances on a table and displays a vulnerability that I think many might feel as they age and feel more redundant - even in a less exposed professional environment. It doesn’t help that they haven’t much to show for their careers, either. This is a film about ageing that Anderson holds together strongly and emotionally and though the substance of the plot might not be the most robust, the two leading acting efforts are powerfully charismatic.

The ending was absolutely ridiculous, clearly designed to cater to a modern audience while pushing propaganda. Although I'm not Catholic, I find it insulting that an otherwise enjoyable film was overshadowed by this audacious shift in tone.

Conclave is a film for those willing to immerse themselves fully. It's a slow-burning, almost hypnotic narrative where every word, every pause holds weight. There's no attempt to shock or force drama here. This is a measured, deeply atmospheric experience.
Ralph Fiennes delivers one of the finest performances of his career. His character is like a wall with cracks—you peer into them and sense the storm brewing behind. His restraint is captivating, and when he finally raises his voice, it feels like the rupture of silence itself, as if his inner chaos can no longer be contained. These moments tear through the screen.
Berger crafts an utterly unique atmosphere. The Sistine Chapel, the endless papal corridors, shadowy corners, and striking red-and-black tones transform into active participants in the story. This isn’t just a backdrop—it’s the film’s lifeblood.
Stefan Fontaine’s cinematography breathes life into these walls, slicing through spaces with long takes and obsessive symmetry. Each frame feels like a gallery piece—it’s a joy to watch.
Volker Bertelmann's score beats like the film’s heart, tightening the tension to its limits. His thunderous, almost liturgical chords make each vote feel monumental and decisive.
The most fascinating part: the story unfolds gradually. While the initial monotony of dialogue may seem tedious, the deeper you dive, the more palpable the tension becomes. The intrigue builds, and the details—from the architecture to the character dynamics—form a compelling tapestry of a near-detective political thriller.
But the ending… It leaves you questioning whether the journey was worth it. On one hand, the open-ended conclusion provokes reflection. On the other, it might leave some viewers puzzled or even underwhelmed.
Yet, Conclave is undeniably a film for connoisseurs: profound, meditative, and aesthetically impeccable. It’s not just about Vatican intrigue; it’s a deeply symbolic story of power, faith, and doubt. Berger’s mastery of space, Fiennes’ magnetic presence, and the soul-piercing score come together to create one of the year’s most stylish and powerful films.
4.5\5, Thank you for taking the time to read a humble opinion from a lover of good cinema.

When the Pope dies, it falls to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, "Cardinal Lawrence" (Ralph Fiennes) to organise the conclave that will elect his successor. His own personal preference is for the liberal "Bellini" (Stanley Tucci) but there is also plenty of support elsewhere. "Adeyami" (Lucian Msamati) could be the first pontiff from Africa; "Tremblay" (John Lithgow) is an ambitious American and "Tedesco" (Sergio Castellitto) the formidable and ultra-conservative candidate. As they are all assembling, a surprise arrives in the form of the hitherto unknown Cardinal Archbishop of Kabul (Carlos Diehz) and so now, the red tables are set for a process that shines a light on the flawed humanity of many of the men gathered together. For all of their ostensibly benign spirituality, these are politicians and even "Lawrence" finds his faith, his patience and his loyalties tested as he becomes aware of a conspiracy. Or is it a series of conspiracies? Is he being manipulated? Is it all just a smokescreen? With the voting showing little sign of breaking a deadlock amongst the 108 men sequestered in the room, he begins to fear that the outside world might conclude that the church is divided. That very same outside world, meantime, is suffering from a spate of terrorist attacks that even the ancient walls of the Vatican cannot shield them from, as the old traditions battle for supremacy with the more modern ones. Not since the "English Patient" (1996) have I seen Fiennes deliver like this. His character is a conflicted one, and he portrays that effectively - especially as he wrestles with his own crises of conscience and faith. Those deliberations lead him to a very difficult choice at a denouement that I didn't really love. It came a lot from left field and though quite thought-provoking to an extent, seemed just a bit too contrived to make a point that I felt rather stretched plausibility in what was hitherto quite a compelling thriller. Isabella Rossellini barely features and I thought added little to the drama beyond being a conduit for other, rather undercooked, aspects of the plot to develop. It's a good, solid, thriller that illustrates that politicians in cassocks and red hats are no less ruthless when they play for power, and it is a good watch. Maybe just not a great one.

'Conclave' has a lot to enjoy about it, even if it is slightly overlong.
The performances are its biggest strength, which is an element that is critical to get correct for talky films like this - and thankfully this one does get it right. Ralph Fiennes is terrific, you know what you're going to get from Fiennes and I mean that entirely positively. John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci, Lucian Msamati and Sergio Castellitto merit praise too.
I love the score, while the cinematography is splendid. The story is very watchable, even for someone like me who has zero interest in religion. I will say that the film does last a bit longer than it needs to, I wasn't ever bored or anything close but across the final chunk I was awaiting the end credits. It feels like a two-hour movie - not negatively, just noticeably.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/conclave-review-a-riveting-vatican-thriller-destined-for-year-end-accolades/
"Conclave surpasses expectations for a mystery-thriller set in the Vatican's inner sanctum.
It's a focused exploration of characters shaped by religious convictions and personal ambitions, offering a fascinating reflection on morality, faith, and power. Edward Berger's technically flawless direction guides a brilliant cast through a narrative that never underestimates the viewer's intelligence. Peter Straughan's screenplay tackles universal themes of corruption and idealism with rare sensitivity, balancing narrative tension with emotional depth.
With Ralph Fiennes' magnetic performance, Volker Bertelmann's gripping score, and Stéphane Fontaine's immersive cinematography, Conclave stands as one of the most captivating films of the year."
Rating: A

It’s more than a little frustrating when a film seemingly has all of the elements needed to make it work except the one that’s most crucial, the one that enables a production to brilliantly succeed or doom it to failure – the story. Such is the case with director Edward Berger’s latest, the much-anticipated, much-celebrated drama about the convening of a papal conclave to select a new pope. From a technical standpoint, the filmmaker has pulled together everything that should make this an epic picture – a gorgeous production design, stunning and inventive cinematography, and a stellar cast featuring superb performances by the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow and Isabella Rossellini, as well as fine turns by such lesser-known performers (at least to American audiences) as Lucian Msamati and Sergio Castellito. The picture also raises some insightful observations (though a little too infrequently for my tastes) about the current state of the Roman Catholic Church, particularly its foot-dragging on implementing reforms, the incessant high-profile scandals that have rocked the institution, and the rising tide of unflattering public perceptions among its increasingly skeptical practitioners, all of which weigh heavily on the College of Cardinals in determining who should be named as the new Holy Father. Unfortunately, though, the story and script leave a lot to be desired. For starters, much of the film’s opening act moves by at a glacial pace, frequently causing one’s eyelids to become more than a little heavy. As the picture moves into the meat of the story – the conclave itself – it waxes somewhat melodramatic, not unlike a glorified 1980s prime time TV soap opera. Its attempt to come across as an intrigue-laced thriller amounts to more than a succession of backstabbing segments in which the leading candidates to become the next pontiff are systematically eliminated through the revelation of skeletons in their respective closets. Finally, as the movie enters the stretch run, it throws in several twists and turns that either come completely out of left field (and somewhat implausibly at that) or that predictably materialize on cue thanks to the planting of patently obvious clues early on that were wholly impossible to ignore as the story plays out. Regrettably, these narrative foibles undermine all of the other fine attributes that this production has going for it, ultimately amounting to a case of being long on style but a little skimpy on substance, a shortcoming that also plagued Berger’s last feature outing, “All Quiet on the Western Front” (2022). Unlike many others who have been so profoundly moved and thoroughly captivated by this release, perhaps my not having been born and raised Roman Catholic has somehow prevented me from fully appreciating the depth and magnitude accorded to this offering’s contents. But, as someone who seeks to evaluate everything I screen on an equal footing, I can’t help but observe that “Conclave” simply doesn’t measure up when it comes to what it takes to make a genuine big screen epic.

I like Tomer Sisley, he shone in the series "Balthazar" so I take little pleasure in saying "The Price of Money: A Largo Winch Adventure" is simply put, "boring".
Its not the actors fault. The script lacks in all the key ingredients that make for a decent action adventure. Its pacing is glacial, there is an over emphasis on intrigue, that often feels redundant and action/adventure, such as it is, is lightweight, underwhelming and in short supply.
In summary, I barely made it to the end of this thoroughly dull proposition. Its essentially an action adventure, where both of the key elements are largely absent. Not recommended.

Die Alone is one of those boutique films that comes along every now and again, where they get it right.
A decent helping of originality has gone into this film. Its script is well above average, as are the performances from the cast, in this rather touchingly quirky take on what is essentially a walking dead, style film.
I could find little to criticise, given this is clearly produced on a limited budget. What is lacks in dollars it makes up for in pure creativity.
In summary, Die Alone is original, creative, oddly touching and shows, yet again, how talent and innovation triumphs over big budgets, every single time. Most definitely worth a look.

The pink-maned "Freddy" is more akin to a poodle than a wolf, but he is spirited when it comes to helping out his pack of lupine super-heroes who try to help out those in distress! Fed up constantly being put down, he looks skyward and makes a wish. Next thing, there's a moon spirit "Moopoo" before him and he's no longer a wimp. Thing is, though, his new blue friend needs life energy to survive, and so they have to find a way to repatriate him with his own kind on the moon else a catastrophe will befall all of us! There's only one way to do that, and that's to find "Max" - an ostracised wolf who lives deep in the forest and who possesses the magic spell required. Off they go on their search, but will the grudge-bearing "Max" even want to help them or might she have her own cunning plan to avenge herself on those who cast her out? It's quite a fun family adventure this but it does struggle to find it's audience. The very young probably won't appreciate the sense of (tea time) menace, especially towards the end - and those a bit older will probably be put off by the initially rather childish characterisation of "Freddy". It's also probably twenty minutes too long, but as a simple light-hearted drama it does what it says on the tin, touching of the aspirations of all of us when we are young and wanting to fit in, to lead and be valued. Forgettable stuff, but it's decently animated and watchable enough.

When a series of gates open connecting various timelines, it signals the arrival of some pretty impressive monsters upon whom human weaponry is useless. The salvation of mankind is going to rest with a generation of hunters. These are rated S-E, with E being the most junior in terms of experience and skill. That's how we meet the young "Sung Jinwoo". He's a relative novice who is also broke. He can't even pay the rent, so accepts a task joining a team who are entering a dungeon that's only been deemed safe for "C" level hunters. Pretty swiftly he realises that he's being manipulated by his so-called partners and faces an enormous great beastie that looks something like a red-eyed woodlouse. Only by pushing himself to the limit, can he hope to defeat it. This is when he discovers that by levelling up he gains more power, more resilience, weaponry, agility (and becomes considerably better looking!) - and that's the start of a series of well-drawn and lively animations illustrating his increasingly difficult battles to ascend the ranks of hunters earning friends and enmity as he goes. It's quickly paced and more characterful than many of the action animé series, this one, with loads of action right from the start. Though it does inter-twine the fantasy adventures with a bit of the human-side activity, most of this is staged within the confines of a game that presents a range of adventures that are exciting to watch. Jeopardy? Well, no, not really. It's all clearly building to a denouement that isn't going to be included in this amalgamated three-episode feature, but as stepping stones along the way it's also a bit more stand alone than some of the cinematic partial-serialisations that we see. On the downside, it does rely on quite a lot of onscreen textual information that isn't always the easiest to read when fleetingly put onto a big screen, but the escapades with the likes of a deadly red knights and some menacing ice bears help this to flow quite entertainingly.

'Anora' is an absolute cracker! The film is unadulterated chaos, I honestly needed the silentness of it ending so I could relax. As usual, I'm not one to judge it on its deep-rooted meaning or whatever, I'll leave that to others, all I can say is that it's a blast and I unequivocally loved it.
Mikey Madison's performance is sensational, quite the showing indeed! Apparently I've seen her in three other things (much less prominent roles, admittedly) before, evidently I don't remember her from those - but safe to say, I won't be forgetting Madison from this at any point. Superb!
Away from the star performer, Mark Eydelshteyn makes the most out of his role. The trio of Karren Karagulian, Vache Tovmasyan and Yura Borisov are great comedic support. I've seen Aleksei Serebryakov here and there down the years and he always plays the same roles, I like him though.
The 139 minutes go by in a flash, with the utterly chaotic nature it is no surprise. It isn't the most difficult movie to predict given that you are waiting for the crap to hit the fan, but how it gets to that point is a wild ride to witness - the concluding scene is stand out, too.
I still have three more of the nominees to watch, but this overtakes 'The Substance' as the film that would hypothetically get my vote for Best Picture; not that I take much value from that (or any other) awards ceremony. It'll take some beating!

Anora is a film that starts off strong, pulling you in with an intriguing setup and a well-paced first act. It follows a story that keeps you invested, blending drama with some unexpected humor. The second act stretches a bit longer than needed, but it's clear that was intentional to build atmosphere and let certain themes play out. While the pacing is deliberate, it sometimes feels like it's lingering in places that don't add much depth to the characters. That being said, the buildup is engaging, even if the payoff leaves something to be desired.
Sean Baker's directing is solid, capturing a raw, almost documentary-like feel that makes the film feel real and immersive. He knows how to make everyday settings feel alive and uses long takes effectively. The cinematography complements this, keeping things grounded with natural lighting and handheld shots that add an almost voyeuristic feel to the story. It’s visually well-crafted, even if it doesn’t aim for anything particularly stylized. The way the camera lingers on certain moments adds weight to the film's themes, even when the script doesn’t fully explore them.
Mikey Madison delivers a standout performance, carrying much of the film. She brings a layered energy to the role, making her character feel both confident and vulnerable when needed. The supporting cast does their job well, but the script doesn't give them much depth to work with. That’s one of the film’s weaknesses, while it sets up an interesting premise and characters, it doesn’t fully flesh them out. You get a sense of their motivations, but not much beyond that. The dialogue is sharp in some moments but feels underdeveloped in others, leaving certain interactions feeling a bit hollow.
The score and sound design are subtle, used more for atmosphere than standout moments. The film relies heavily on natural sounds and ambient noise, which works well for its grounded approach. It enhances the realism but doesn't do much to elevate the emotions of the film.
Overall, Anora is a well-directed and well-acted film that keeps you engaged, but it doesn’t quite stick the landing. If you’re looking for a character-driven story with a raw, unfiltered feel, it’s worth a watch, but don’t expect a big payoff in the end.

"Ani" (Mikey Madison) works as a private dancer in New York when she is asked by her boss to go look after some visiting Russians. That's when she encounters the young "Vanya" (Mark Eydelshteyn). He's pretty drunk, completely stoned and has more money than God. He wants a dance, he wants much more - but that's not allowed in the club, so he invites her to his luxury pad next day for fun. She actually quite likes his youthful exuberance - and his cash - and after a few days, a Russian sable coat, and a trip to Vegas, they find themselves marred. Social media now takes an hand and his oligarch mother hears news that her son has married an hooker. Livid, she instructs her local fixer "Toros" (Karren Karagulian) to sort the mess out. He duly sends his two enforcers to the house where all hell promptly breaks loose. "Garnick" (Vache Tovmasyan) and "Tom" (Anton Bitter) are merely to detain the pair until their boss arrives to insist that marriage is going to be annulled; "Ani" is having none of that and "Vanya" - well he's just a little bit conflicted and quickly things start to go pear-shaped! This film starts off strongly with an entertaining courtship scenario played out between two actors who really do look like they are enjoying themselves. Eydelshteyn delivers enthusiastically and acrobatically, there's loads of sex and quite witty dialogue that plays nicely on the language barriers. Once the second phase of the film starts, though, it runs out of steam a little. "Vanya" doesn't feature so much and the story becomes a little less engaging as the rather too gentle thugs and the increasingly irate girl try to get everyone to the courthouse for the ruling before his angry mother arrives. That leaves us with too much overacting from Karagulian and some increasingly implausible scenarios as the air is gradually let out of the thing and it comes to end rather disappointingly. At it's best, though, the first hour is quickly paced and takes an amiable swipe at the sex trade and the players who make and take from it. Certainly worth a watch, it just hasn't quite the courage of it's initial convictions.

We’re all familiar with the old adage that, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. It’s a notion that applies not only to what can happen in everyday life, but also to what shows up on the big screen, as the latest feature from writer-director Sean Baker illustrates. This widely acclaimed indie offering follows the misadventures of a Brooklyn lap dancer/sex worker (Mikey Madison) who falls for the insanely rich, self-absorbed, wildly irresponsible son of a Russian oligarch (Mark Eydelshteyn). Together they take the plunge into an edgy, wacked-out fairy tale, a dark storybook romance strung out on steroids, quaaludes and crack. Their whirlwind affair soon lands them in Las Vegas, culminating in a green card wedding that junior’s mobster parents (Darya Ekamasova, Aleksey Serebryakov) want annulled at any cost, even if it means calling on their oily, bumbling posse of cronies and heavies (Karren Karagulian, Vache Tovmasyan, Yura Borisov) to lean on the alleged lovebirds. But achieving that goal ultimately proves more difficult than imagined. As a cross-country chase ensues, a string of frenzied events leaves mom, dad and friends infuriated and the Gothamite Cinderella disillusioned, having erroneously thought she’d truly hit the jackpot this time. From this, one might easily think this premise has a solid foundation for an outrageous, uproarious comedy, but, sadly, the film lives up to its potential only some of the time. To be sure, there is some genuinely hysterical, wonderfully inventive material here, but it only hits the mark about half the time. What’s more, much of the story (especially in the film’s first half) is predictable, almost clichéd, with some bits dragging on needlessly long. Indeed, I’m somewhat mystified as to what all the critical fuss is about, something perhaps best evidenced by the picture’s capture of the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, the event’s highest honor. I readily admit to being a fan of Baker’s work, having immensely enjoyed his previous efforts “Red Rocket” (2021), “The Florida Project” (2017) and “Tangerine” (2015). But I’m genuinely at a loss to understand the level of praise that’s been lavished on this release. It’s a capable film in a number of respects, but the filmmaker clearly has done better, and those prior offerings make better viewing options in my opinion. Don’t fall for all the hype here, as this really is one of those cases of something being too good to be true.

A heartwarming portrait in hell. I feel as though this is a cool war movie with likeable characters constructing sweet shelters and surviving in horrible conditions. The unfortunate reality is overwhelming.

Regardless of how one views the ongoing volatility between Israelis and Hamas in Gaza, there’s another little-known yet equally explosive crisis in the region that has been going on for far longer. This nearly 30-year-old conflict has been quietly but unsettlingly unfolding on the Palestinian Occupied West Bank involving parties not tied to the better-known current conflict, a confrontation that has not received nearly the same level of attention – that is, until the release of this troubling film. Shot over the course of four years, the writing-directorial team of Yuval Abraham, Rachel Szor, Hamdan Ballal and Basel Adra have compiled this shocking documentary about the atrocities that have been relentlessly and mercilessly inflicted upon West Bank Palestinians in the Masafer Yatta region. This collection of approximately 20 small villages was summarily seized by the Israeli government (with the blessing of its courts after a 22-year litigation battle) to develop it as a training ground for tank regiments, an undertaking that has involved the demolition of existing structures and the displacement of the area’s residents, some of whose families had occupied their land for nearly 200 years. Many of those who resisted were forcibly removed, imprisoned or subjected to the heartless, uncompromising wrath of Israeli troops, responses involving bald-faced hatred, severe injury and even death. To make matters worse, the displaced have often had nowhere to go in the wake of these actions, some being forced to live in caves in the adjacent mountains. To be sure, locals have consistently fought back, and some have even attempted to defiantly rebuild the homes and schools they have lost, only to have their hopes dashed by subsequent rounds of sanctioned destruction. It should be noted, as indicated above, that these actions predate the Hamas attacks, so not even retribution can be used as a convenient or “justifiable” excuse for these actions. In light of that, then, can those who profess to be humanitarians realistically call themselves by that name in the wake of an immoral tragedy like this, no matter how much its execution may have been declared legally permissible? Indeed, where is the compassion, the fairness, the justice? This on-the-ground account of events unflinchingly documents this horrific situation, an inexcusable exercise in overreach between the two factions, one that’s impossible to rationalize in the face of vastly uneven odds and especially when the real, previously undisclosed basis behind this land grab is disgracefully revealed. This scathing chronicle, primarily filmed by Palestinian activist Adra and Israeli investigative journalist Abraham, shows the degree of atrocity that has been unleashed in the area, as well as what’s conceivably possible when individuals from two opposing backgrounds begin working cooperatively to expose what’s happening and to concertedly look for a workable solution to stop this inhumane, indefensible madness. “No Other Land” is not an easy watch by any means (sensitive viewers take note), particularly in light of its graphic depictions of violence (some of which, in all honesty, become somewhat repetitive after a while, what some might arguably characterize as overkill). Nevertheless, this Oscar nominee for best documentary feature shines a very bright light on this wholly unacceptable act of barbarity, one that any supposedly civilized society should be completely ashamed of, especially now that the whole world is watching.