I wonder how many ostensibly peaceful office environments would react like this if they were given the same ultimatum! It's underperforming so the overbearing and supremely confident "Blake" (Alec Baldwin) announces to the team that at the end of the month, only the top two will have a job in their estate agency. This proves quite a shock to "Levene" (Jack Lemmon), "George" (Alan Arvin), "Dave" (Ed Harris) and "Ricky" (Al Pacino). They try, they claim, but the market just isn't there. Well "Blake" ain't buying any of that and so the ultimatum stands. What now ensues sees this workplace - under the rather weak management of the insipid "Williamson" (Kevin Spacey) go from amiable camaraderie to toxic back-stabbing. Essentially the battle comes down to "Ricky" vs. "Levene". The former a younger man full of zeal who has "Lingk" (Jonathan Price) about to buy and secure his top position; the latter has long lost his touch but not his need for a job. "Blake" has left one gift with their boss and that's a list of special "leads". These are clues to who might be seeking to buy and who might be looking to sell, and they are considered gold dust for this challenge but he isn't handing them out. Then the office suffers a break-in and those valuable documents are gone. Who took them? There are of no value at all to a common thief. That's the pivot conjoining an whole series of sharp practices, double standards and borderline criminality as the David Manet play shines quite an intense light on the dynamics of competitive human relationships, venality and trust. Lemmon manages to convey a palpable sense of desperation that's evenly matched by Pacino on good form as the man whom most of us could probably believe as a smarmy realtor. This smouldering toxicity and some pithy and ripe dialogue combines to increase and to maintain tension effectively throughout this short but intense drama that has the extra benefit of not being cluttered up by one single romantic interlude! I think it was pretty obvious who did the deed towards the end, but you're never quite sure and even then, do you feel pity, empathy, anger? Probably not since "12 Angry Men" (1957) have I seen such a powerfully delivered drama from an all male cast and it's worth a watch.

Good David Mamet written film, with the usual Mamet-style dialogue, that doesn't have a real plot and not quite a character study either, yet still engrossing even with characters who are real estate scammers. Seen this several times over the years and still mesmerized by Jack Lemmon's performance. Pacino was good but Lemmon deserved the nod over him. **4.0/5**

Incredibly realistic mood… It captures the environment of a sales team so well… The stress, the competition, the somewhat adversarial relationship between management and the front office…
The predatory, hunter-gatherer nature of it all
Such a great film…

Interesting adaptation of a theater play with a great cast for a choral movie. The script is not that interesting, from my POV, but this is a story for actors and the cast is great.

Wish Upon is laughably fuckin' stupid. But there's some value in the "laughable" aspect of that. You know, in a "laughing **at**" kind of way.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is the nostalgia movie we wanted!! Unlike Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which focused too heavily on nostalgia and not on the plot. While this movie did have some plot holes and everyone was wearing their 80's best instead of futuristic costumes!! This movie gave us the feeling to watch it again!! Between dialogue and the acting, you might feel that way too!! It was also interesting to see Christopher Lloyd in Star Trek!! If you want to hear the in-depth review and rating of this movie, come and check out Hopeful Reviews! A podcast that-surprise-reviews and rates TV shows and movies!!
9.1/10 #blessed.

Picking up closely from the second film, this sees our crew of adventurers defy their superiors and steal the Enterprise in an attempt to rescue "Spock" from the Genesis planet. This is probably the best of the films for both DeForest Kelley and James Doohan as they both have some more of the play than normal; Christopher Lloyd is on fine form as the Klingon commander "Kruge" and there is plenty of phaser action to keep us all entertained. Not quite as well put together as the "Wrath of Khan" but it continues to develop the characters in an entertaining fashion.

I kind of feel that this gets a lot more hate than it deserves... because it follows Kahn and because it rewrites an emotional death.
I know, I know, I love Spock too, but, really, should have left him dead. That was part of the emotional roller coaster of II.
But, they didn't and that does sort of cheapen Kahn a bit.
However, it's really not a bad entry on it's own. It's a solid film. It just followed the greatest of the bunch and pales in comparison.

You Klingon bastards! Kirk gets personal.
It is what it is folks, it's a good honest Star Trek story, it beats a real emotive heart and although some may decry the lack of blistering space battles, or end of the universe peril scenarios, it's an essential film for dealing with the protagonists we know and love.
Into the mix here we have our favourite alien enemies The Klingons (led by the oddly cast Christopher Lloyd), Spock's father, Sarek, who adds grace to the story, and crucially Kirk gets an emotional kicker. While elsewhere hardcore fans get a big surprise with the beloved Enterprise.
It's of course merely a set up for the next (and delightfully great) instalment of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, but on its own terms this stands up as one of the better character pieces in the series. Due in no small part to having Leonard Nimoy directing it because he shows care and thought about a subject he obviously knows quite a bit about. 7/10

This is one I've seen a few times over the years (last time was nearly 10 years ago). Wonderfully devious performance from Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow holds her own (and looks great). Not an amazing thriller but kept my attention to the end. Fine direction by Andrew Davis who a few years before directed the great thriller, The Fugitive. **3.75/5**

You should thank me. Artists are always appreciated more after they're dead!
A Perfect Murder is directed by Andrew Davis and written by Frederick Knott and Patrick Smith Kelly. It stars Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, Viggo Mortensen, David Suchet and Sarita Choudhury. Music is by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Dariusz Wolski.
A powerful husband. An unfaithful wife. A jealous lover. All of them have a motive. Each of them has a plan.
A re-imaging of "Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder", which itself was by the great director's admission not one of his best, Andrew Davis' ("The Fugitive") film may not reach great heights, but it at least is its own animal. The twists and turns are solid enough for entertainment purpose, and suspense is never far away. The characterisations bring about differing and alternating responses from the viewers, which is a nice trick in the tale, and while the finale seems a touch "popcorn crowd appeasing", this rounds out as a satisfying suspense thriller. 7/10
Excellent performances, with interesting twists on the original film, and compelling direction by THE FUGITIVE‘s Andrew Davis highlight this intriguing suspense film. The film isn’t without it’s flaws, as you may find it difficult to resolve the fact that you’ll probably wind up rooting for the murderous Douglas not only due to his usually being the good guy in his films but because the lovers are severely flawed characters most will think deserving of getting offed, especially the lame-ass Mortensen as Paltrow’s love interest. With PSYCHO and REAR WINDOW also being made this year, I am left with mixed feelings about this latest trend. On the one hand, these remakes speak to the fact of Hitchcock’s timeless themes in his films, while on the other hand it points out that Hollywood has perhaps run out of ideas when even a remake of a middling Hitchcock film is one of the better thrillers to come out in recent years.

Terrible writing here. Awkward exchanges between who, in any other film, two great actors, are abundant.
The only thing this film has going for it? Some cool shots and Anthony Mackie when he's not following this God-awful script.

**If we can forget the errors in historical recreation and the blatant predictability of the script, it's a good film for an idle evening.**
I don't know Robert E. Howard's literary work very well, but I confess that I don't like “Conan” and I feel that the fantasy genre has seen better days. However, what I saw in this film pleased me: it's good enough to entertain us satisfactorily, but it's not the kind of film we'll want to see more than a handful of times.
Solomon Kane is a mercenary, played by James Purefoy, in a great effort. The actor is truly good for the role: he has enough charisma to give himself the leading role he needs, he is not too old for the character nor does he seem too young. Pete Postlethwaite is also a magnificent addition to the cast as yet another character full of dignity and very likeable. Max von Sydow also provides discreet support. The only person I didn't like very much was Rachel Hurd-Wood: she doesn't have much to do other than being permanently in danger.
The script starts well, with a story about a cruel man who over the years committed looting and crimes, and finally understands that he will go to Hell. From then on he tries to change, but it becomes increasingly clear that this man will have to face his past at some point if he truly wants to redeem himself. This finally happens when he has to defeat an evil wizard. I don't want to say much more, but it's quite easy to see that the big problem with this script is the way in which we easily predict what's going to happen, the predictability of the whole story. This is the film's big problem.
Another problem with this film is the way in which the past was recreated: I didn't feel, on the part of the production, any desire to place the action precisely in time and space. The script, however, required it! It is quite evident that the story takes place around 1650 in the fields of South East England, in Dorset. The construction of the sets, costumes and props simply ignored this whenever they could. The cinematography, for example, is magnificently crafted and presents us with hazy, gloomy and dark landscapes, and semi-ruined places. We have no resemblance to the English countryside, but it is the ideal setting for the dark story that will unfold and creates an atmosphere in a very intelligent way. Anachronistic fighting styles, anachronistic weapons and accessories, clothing that doesn't resemble anything that existed in the past, flintlock pistols whose sound effect resembles that of a revolver... M. J. Bassett makes several mistakes. In return, there is a lot of action, fights for all tastes that give the film a lot of flow and movement, as if it were a music video, and excellent CGI that creates a vast multiplicity of evil creatures.

If I kill you I am bound for hell. It's a price I shall gladly pay.
Solomon Kane is directed by Michael J. Bassett and Bassett adapts the character of Kane from the magazine character created by Robert E. Howard. It stars James Purefoy, Rachael Hurd-Wood, Pete Postlethwaite and Anthony Wilks. Music is by Klaus Badelt and cinematography by Dan Laustsen.
It's early 1600 and English mercenary Solomon Kane (Purefoy) is informed by the Devils Reaper that his wicked ways have damned his soul for eternity. Not wanting to spend eternity with old Nick and all his hellish instruments of torture, Kane escapes and renounces violence and converts to Puritanism - that is until a wicked turn of events in his life sends him on the violent road to redemption.
Solomon Kane was created by pulp writer Robert E. Howard, who would a few years later also create Conan The Barbarian, safe to say then that swords and sorcery was at the time of his life in the 1920s/30s on his mind. It's also safe to say here that if this type of genre swish and swash is not your thing then this will definitely not convert you into being someone who suddenly does. However, fans of such fare are in for a treat, where not for the first time a picture that bombed at the box office - and got a delayed release in The States - has broken free of supposed stinker damnation to become a firm cult favourite to like minded souls.
Kane is our anti-hero, a real hard dude who ends up living by the fight evil with evil mantra. In the hands of Purefoy and his director, Kane is moody personified, the whole film dishing out ladles of brood and dark thematics as religion and dark arts come under the microscope. The action is well choreographed, plenty of blood letting and head loping, accompanied by swivels and lurches. Imagery is potent - such as graveyards and reaper lairs, while Bassett firmly believes in soaking his cast in mud and rags, all for realistic payment.
Some popular actors slot in for some support work, which is a bonus, and although the finale is not without problems (main baddie all to brief, the big showdown likewise), this rounds out as an imaginatively and thrillingly mounted period genre piece. 8/10

**In the 17th England, a ruthless warrior set to rediscover his path.**
There's no reason, but after a long due I saw this. I'm pretty impressed with the film's production, but in the end it was an average film for me. James Purefoy was good, but the story needed someone very husky looking actor to play the Solomon. That's what spoiled my watch, other than that I enjoyed most of the film. Because the tone and the pace were excellent, but it was a predictable story.
A savage warrior leading his men somewhere in the Northern Africa, when he's sensing he almost defeated them, comes to know his soul is damned. He escapes there, leaves his all that life behind and looks for a peaceful future. He was born to be a warrior, that's why he left his own kingdom. So in his second chance to rediscover his path, he must achieve the impossible to defeat his opponent.
Full of dark and wet atmosphere really gives that required medieval look. The locations were well used and also the costumes, so if you like films that sets in this era, particularly stunts, then you might enjoy it. But if you ask me, I would say it is just a one time watchable film. Entertainment is guaranteed, but because of something, the film does not not look complete. So recommended for the selected viewers.
_6/10_

Just an ok movie. Really good storyline though. Wes Craven is making another Freddy movie, but everything that happens in the making of the new movie, is happening in their real lives.

You ever have that dream: the one where you did something... You don't know why, but you can never go back?
Alpha Dog is a filmic interpretation of the real life Jesse James Hollywood/Nicholas Markowitz case of 2000.
We are in the company of young dope dealers, a group of wannabe gangsters who ultimately are way out of their depth, whose decisions are so moronically misguided they form the basis for what is the tragedy of this story. Directed by Nick Cassavetes, the pic has serious intentions but never quite gets to reach the greatest heights for dramatic verve purpose. Yet for all that, after being in the company of genuine lost boys and girls, watching them as 24 hour party people bluster for majority of the piece, it means that once the tragedy strikes the film has done its job. It becomes something to last in the memory, where Cassavetes' flashy techniques (split-screens - freeze frames etc) don't detract from the harsh reality of it all. There's a bunch of committed exuberant performances on show, with a roll call of then up and coming young actors to note. 7/10

Going into this film, I had no idea what it was about, only that it was based on a true story. And the more I think about this fact, the truth behind it all, the more it saddens me.
The story that unfolded before my eyes last night is not one I'm likely to forget anytime soon. The characters, as I understand, are eerily like the real life people depicted, and all of the actors have done a great job terrifying me, surprising me, and making me feel sadder than any other film I can remember in recent history. Which is by no means meant to discourage you from watching this film, as I believe it is an absolute must-see for anyone who cares about the society we live in.
Jake Mazursky, an explosively charged skinhead, owes a large sum of drug money to a young thug called Johnny Truelove. After they get into a fight, Jake retaliates by trashing Johnny's house. Johnny then takes revenge by kidnapping Jake's 15-year-old brother Zack. Surprisingly though, Zack is OK with this, as he trusts his brother to come up with the ransom. In the meantime, Zack forms an unlikely friendship with one of Johnny's cronies, Frankie. But then, as fear starts to spread of having to do hard time, Johnny and his allies make a decision that spins the situation horribly out of control...
The character of Jake is played by Ben Foster, and I think he did an amazing job. Some people have suggested that he overacted his part, but I disagree. I think he was very convincing as a strung-out, aggressive, creep of a skinhead. Johnny Truelove, the young gangster, is played by Emile Hirsch, and his role is light years removed from anything he's done so far, and he's as equally impressive and convincing as Ben Foster - just as menacing and intimidating. Actually, he appears almost as though it's not a part he's playing, he's really some thug they plucked off the streets and put in front of a camera. Very impressive. This character in real life is known as Jesse James Hollywood, and he is the youngest person ever to be on the FBI's 'most wanted' list.
Zack is played by Anton Yelchin, and he's is everything his character requires him to be; young, naive, even a little endearing, and most of all desperate for a little excitement in his life. The role of Frankie is performed by Justin Timberlake, and I must admit, he was better than I would have initially given him credit for. Actually, there wasn't a single actor or actress who was miscast in my opinion. All roles, big and small, were equally well played. I must not forget to mention the parents: Johnny's father is played by Bruce Willis, and even though his part is small, is it crucial. Sharon Stone plays Zack's mother, in a role that is gut wrenchingly emotional and very well played. Although there is one scene at the end where she wears a fat suit, and it's so obvious that it's distracting, and this is a discredit to an otherwise excellent and very important scene (but that's not her fault, of course).
What makes Alpha Dog so important, I think, is that's it's a testament of the times we live in. A time where, apparently nobody seems to be shocked anymore about the fact that young people in their teens and twenties lead a lifestyle of drugs and guns and no respect whatsoever for other people's lives and wellbeing. The ease with which some ideas and actions are executed, exemplifies and also amplifies the anarchy and devil-may-care attitude that lives within the hearts and minds of these people. Who cares if you beat a person to within an inch of his life. Who cares if you hurt, damage or even kill another human being, just so long as you can save your own neck. It's dog eat dog in the hierarchical food chain that is life, and this film is a disturbing reminder of that. I thought we'd moved on since the Dark Ages, but apparently I'm mistaken.
Aside from the heavy, moral message of this film (which, for once didn't tick me off, but really engaged me), I must also praise it on a technical level. It really is very well made, and it draws you in from the very first second with the beautifully edited opening scene. Director Nick Cassavetes ('John Q') has constructed the story into a balanced, properly paced whole, seemingly letting his actors run free and do what they do best, creating a spontaneous, natural feel and environment. The music is excellent and well dosed.
Alpha Dog is a film that you must see at least once if you care about this world and the people in it. It is a portrait of frighteningly laconic individuals and the shockingly low bar to unnecessary violence, and it shows just how easy it is for young people to get involved with all the wrong influences, simply because they have not yet lived enough to know any better, or lack the proper role models to show them alternative ways.
I cannot recommend this film enough. It's heavy - but very, very much worth it.
_(October 2012)_

OK Timberlake fans and haters alike, Calm Down! Largely regarded as "you know, that movie with Timberlake in it." Alpha Dog was enjoyable. And Timberlake did a great job. He is definitely all grown up now. A strong supporting cast of Sharon Stone and Bruce Willis sure didn't hurt. I loved how the cast worked so good together. They were very believable. The movie did a great job of showing us just how crazy and out of control a simple misunderstanding can get. Hopeful Hollywood does force Ben Foster down our throat! Small doses please! NOTE: Alpha Dog has a lot of language in it.

Maybe this looked better on paper, but on a big screen it is a sterile and really rather plodding story. Nicholas Hoult - who takes an annoyingly unrevealing series of hot showers - lives a routine life as a glorified android, his daily grind in his pristine environment; his clothes, food, sleep all exactly the same from day to day. He encounters "Nia" (Kristen Stewart) and over a relatively short period of time (felt longer) the two begin to have a few tingles for each other. Turns out that this is all as a result of some existential event, and mankind is rationing and controlling just about everything that is left - and that includes sex. Can these two break free of their delicate, invisible, chains? Well, what do you think? The thing I can say, is that everything they do is done at a glacial pace. The soporific score adds very little excitement to this really pretty pedestrian affair. Even the one scene of mad "passion" is more a testament to the skill of the cameraman at keeping it rated U, than at relating anything like the desire the two are supposed to feel for each other. The production standards are high, but the dialogue is pretty sparing - their environment renders their conversation about as interesting as their sex lives, and I am afraid that I was just a bit bored by the whole thing.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
Don't get me wrong, I like the movie, but it is HIGH concept, low execution, despite being a beautifully produced and shot flick.
Nicholas Hoult and Kristen Stewart carry the movie, and for those haters Stewart is playing a girl that is not supposed to show emotions so there, but there are some solid actors in support roles as well: Guy Pearce (Memento), Bel Powley (Carrie Pilby), and David Selby (who I thought was Alan Alda from MASH: This was like a Mandela effect: I had his voice in my head.)
There just isn't a lot that is actively interesting to watch a movie where everyone is a robot without emotion, but it is a cool concept, especially when it becomes a survival concept. People who can't manage their emotions as if they don't have them get sent to a place where they're basically electro-shocked into committing suicide if they hadn't beforehand.
The tension of it definitely ramps up a bit, but the focus eventually becomes more on the romantic connection than survival, even during a part primarily focused on surviving.
The last couple of scenes are really subtle too, I actually had to re-watch them to just to make sure I knew how it ended.
So while I like it and there is definitely something to like here, I think less people than more are going to be into it.

**The good, the Bad and the Ugly sides of the FBI force!**
The post Harry Potter series, apart from awesome in 'Horns', Daniel Radcliffe struggled to find his character, where he fits in. I mean he tried many different ones, but I think in this he was so good. Initially I thought 'whaaaat?' Because with his physique, he did not qualify to play an FBI agent. He was like when the Captain America first came to the army recruitment. And then when the story progressed, I realised the character was designed that way. So I found it kind of fun, though the topic it was dealing, especially knowing it was inspired by the real, this is definitely an eye opener.
The first 5 minutes reveals the film's whole plot. Though the opening was the end part of some undercover operation taken by the FBI. It does not show us how it all had happened, but with a new mission, another similar kind of event follows which is what this film.
Some people call it a propaganda, but I think it was a good message film for the common people. For how misused the homeland security force. I mean they were doing their jobs, but for achieving big within the force, they take the risks which unfortunately transforms the barking dogs into the biting ones.
So basically the infiltration means, they are the one to encourage those bad guys to act, in order to get them red handed. If it was for a good cause like if they nab the real culprit, then it's okay, but the innocents should not be turned into evil and punished. Like there are no bad guys, but they make one and take into the custody. If you watch it and think about it, you would relaise what I meant.
It was a better film than I anticipated, and the performance by Daniel Radcliffe was the highlight of the film. Some newcomer directed it and decently done his job. Not a must see, but surely I force you to watch it to learn the good, the bad and the ugly sides of the FBI force.
_7/10_

Sisters tries really hard. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler certainly have chemistry and some of the best moments of the movie come from that chemistry. Still, the film falls flat on its face more than once.
The movie is mostly cringe humor. It's filled with one character or another doing something embarrassing. While this can be done really well if used correctly, Sisters seems to hit everything with the cringe hammer until it cries.
This isn't really expected, and neither is the abundant use of bodily and sexual humor. There are some great moments in the movie relating to these, as well.
The real issue with the movie is it feels like the writers went at it with a list of "funny" situations and tried to fit them all into a loose theme. Throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks inevitably means there will be a bunch of junk laying on the floor.

> What it is like to throw a grand teenager-style party at your 30s?
Don't assume it's a high school party movie, but the big girls'. That's where everyone's are wrong and expresses their disappointment. For me it was a nice comedy, but not comparable with other great ones. It might won't work on teenagers, but there's no issue for adults with the open mind to enjoy it. A part themed movie for the grown-ups.
From the director of 'Pitch Perfect' another woman oriented comedy. Both, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were not that funny, hence not a rocking combo, but did not fail either and worked okay on this. They are the sisters with the opposite character. When they visit their childhood home, they decide to throw one final party before handing it over to the new owners.
John Cena's cameo was excellent. In this chick movie he's the only one who gave manly appeal compared with the other men. The story was decent, but most of the movie was a regular party that goes wild. So expecting development of the characters or the story is silly. What I meant was, it is an entertainer, not a biopic or a documentary, so it delivers its purpose.
7/10

Aspiring model "Valentine" (Irène Jacob) is driving home one evening when she runs over a dog. Luckily, it's not seriously injured and after a trip to the vet she repatriates it with the "Judge" (Jean-Louis Trintignant). A quick look around his home though and she realises that he is a snoop! He listens into all the private conversations of his neighbours, records their chats and their peccadillos - all of which is, of course, illegal. Caught between her disgust at his behaviour and her gradually developing affection for the man (and the dog) she finds herself in a bit of a catch-22 scenario. How will that play out when someone reports him to the gendarmerie and his own court appearance looms? Their's is not the only relationship we see here, and using "Valentine" as a conduit, we are exposed to a couple of other people whose issues with loyalty, trust - and fidelity - are there for us to observe and to challenge. Of the three of these entertaining Kieslowski films, I probably preferred "White" - but this is a close run thing. This is quickly paced with humour and pith in the writing and featuring a strong and amiable performance from an on-form Jacob. I did not love the conclusion - even if it did serve to pull the threads together with the previous two films, but if you can see all together in one (marathon) go then I think you cannot fail but to be entertained in a thought-provoking fashion by these stand-alone but interconnected themes of humanity and personality.

**A very good ending to Kieslowski's trilogy.**
This is the last film in Krzysztof Kieslowski's “trilogy of colors”, and focuses on the unusual friendship between a young and beautiful catwalk model and an elderly retired judge who entertains himself by listening, illegally and without no one knows, the telephone conversations of the neighbors. Why? Out of sheer cynicism. He is a man alone, bitter and unhappy. What follows is a trip in which both characters will go through very similar situations.
The film continues to have notable points in terms of cinematography, sets and costumes. As in the previous films, the title color is present in all scenes and is persistently part of the sets and props. Despite being elegant, the music is intense, almost a prop for the scene, and contributes to the overall harmony of the work. As in the previous films, the duo of central actors is responsible for an interpretive tour de force, which is absorbing and impressive: Irene Jacob is an excellent actress, but it turns out to be Jean-Louis Trintignant who stands out the most.
The script is quite interesting, for the way it explores the cynicism of the judge's character, and for the way it addresses interpersonal relationships, the honesty and sincerity of love and relationships, the application of the law and the moral and philosophical consequences of judgments. humans. There are some details that are a little unbelievable, like how the judge's character evolves from someone resentful and intractable to a more human person in a short period of time. However, it is a film that is really worth it.

"Alain" (Matthias Schoenaerts) is a bit of a drifter who must look after his young son "Sam" (Armand Verdure). They head to Antibes where they will live with his sister and where he hopes to get a job. He's no slacker - he's not into drugs or booze and so manages to get a job as a nightclub bouncer. He also augments his income with some bare-knuckle fighting thanks to his manager "Martial" (Bouli Lanners). It's a terrible accident at the local marine park that introduces him to "Stéphanie" (Marion Cotillard). Thanks to this accident she has been left without her lower legs, and slowly the pair begin to bond. He is soon helping her with her mobility and a visit to the beach allows her to swim - a freedom she enjoys. A few prosthetic limbs later and she is much more mobile, a little more content and their relationship starts to become more physical. Ostensibly it's just sex, but as she begins to manage his boxing activities both find the casualness of that relationship isn't maybe what they want for the future. All the while, "Alain" is having to maintain a relationship with his young son and the story rather inconclusively ends in a scenario for that relationship that comes perilously close to disaster. To be honest, not a great deal happens here. It's a gradual development of their characterisation and in that it proves quite engaging. Both of these individuals have their flaws, and it's their burgeoning rapport that is enabling a degree of self-assessment and prioritisation. Cotillard is throughly convincing and her opposite number does all that is required of his less developed, but still pretty poignant role. There is something everyday about this film, the story - though exaggerated for dramatic purposes - does ring true and though one or two of the sub-plots just clutter it up, it's a solid story well told.

Marion Cotillard and Matthias Schoenaerts stun in this exceptional drama/romance.
Driven by intense inner demons, Schoenaerts destroys everything around him, only to build it back up in a gripping climax that nearly had me in tears.
This was amazing. I have loved everything that I've seen Schoenaerts in and I look forward to exploring more.

We dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig…
Disney produce and Andrew Davis directs this wonderful adaptation of Louis Sachar’s Holes. Miscreant youths are sent to Camp Green Lake for character building, the bulk of which involves them constantly digging holes in the parched desert. New inmate Stanley Yelnats IV (Shia LeBeouf) is about to set the wheels in motion that will unearth the secret of the digs.
It’s a blender is Holes, part drama (there’s plenty of edginess here), part coming of age tale, part action adventure – cum – detective mystery – cum - Western and part comedy, in short it’s a bona fide piece for all the family. The narrative, awash with whimsy and enchantment, is triple pronged, and it’s with great credit that the three story arcs are seamlessly put together to create one delightful whole. The child actors, led by LeBeouf, are excellent, really bringing life to the various characterisations, while Sigourney Weaver, John Voight and Tim Blake Nelson have a great time of things as the camp enforcers, and Patricia Arquette in a two-fold characterisation, scores very favourably with charm, grace and menace in equal measurements.
Mature and intelligent kids films are a rarity, Holes is like a little gem dug up in the desert. 8.5/10

The itsy-bitsy spider crawled up the water spout; down came the rain and washed the spider out.
When a photographer is bitten and killed by a spider in the Venezuelan jungle, his body is shipped back to his home town of Canaima in California. Unfortunately something has hitched a ride in his coffin...
Mixing "B" movie conventions with a modern day fun sensibility, Arachnophobia sees Frank Marshall direct and Jeff Daniels, Julian Sands, John Goodman and Harley Jane Kozak line up in the cast. Though horror and comedy on the surface doesn't seem to be a that hard to blend together, it's actually surprising over the years just how few horror comedy movies can claim to be successful, and crucially, have been able to to win over a like minded audience. In fact, if we move away from the likes of "Sean Of The Dead", the "B" movie creature feature, especially in modern times, has few offerings of worth. We can certainly mention the awesome (and best of the modern bunch) "Tremors", which turned a small Worldwide profit, and then we turn to "Lake Placid" and "Arachnophobia". Both of the latter made considerable amounts of cash (for the genre) and are propelled by a degree of star wattage.
What was in Arachnophobia's favour was that spiders strike the fear of god into many people, thus, as director Marshall said himself on the publicity junket, "People like to be scared but still laughing at the same time". Arachnophobia achieves this in spades, mixing real spiders (the Avondale breed) with model and magnet work, where the effect achieved is full on nervy giggles coupled with some creepy goose flesh also putting in an appearance.
The cast work hard to make it work. OK, Sands remains as wooden as he always is, but in this case his pompous bug professor actually calls for it. Daniels as the modern doctor hoping to start a new life in the country, is an excellent lead, a fine actor who's no show on the "A" list of Hollywood remains an utter mystery. However, it's with the big jolly blunderbuss that is John Goodman where the pic gets its frothy "B" movie fun. His inept, half witted but knowing pest controller, Delbert, engages in that small town Americana way. He is an innocent to the terrors of the world and that makes for a nice play off with the Arachnophobic Dr. Ross Jennings (Daniels).
Nicely shot around Cambria, California, to fully realise the small town under arachnid siege, Arachnaphobia is the perfect comedy creeper for all the family to enjoy. So squirm and giggle together and watch out for any creepy crawlies in the corners of your home... 7/10