The legendary "Jungle Bunch" are just looking to settle down to a peaceful life when they emerge from their cave one morning to a forest covered in a purple powder. Harmless unless you get taken short, then - well you'll get a bit more immediate relief than you bargained for! With the storm season approaching, it falls to the gang to figure out just who is responsible for this plague and to thwart that plan before the jungle is reduced to splinters and ashes. What now ensues is hardly original, but it's still quite a fun, escapade-driven, adventure story with loads of different scenarios for the various characters to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat from. It's no better or worse than the routine Pixar and Dreamworks fayre that animates a colourful leafy environment and enlivens just about every beastie from a frog to an evil beaver, with some light comedy along the way. There are a couple of entertaining double acts, some gravity-defying wooden bombers and loads of fun pyrotechnics as the quest takes them through perils and pitfalls alike. Not great, nor especially memorable, but it passes ninety minutes easily enough - and that fish in it's bowl packs quite a punch!

Whether _She is Conann_ is faithful to the Conan character, the film is an intriguing and one-of-a-kind experience. The fantasy film has gorgeous, eye-popping cinematography, while the storyline allows love to take center stage. _She is Conann_ is disgusting at times, jaw-dropping at others, and engrossing in between. It’s a gay film at its core, but it’s also overflowing with blood and dog-faced hellhounds.
**Full review:** https://bit.ly/Conann

Jean-Luc Godard's eighth feature film, Une femme mariée (A Married Woman, 1964) is a tale of adultery. As it opens, we meet Charlotte (Macha Meril) at a tryst with her lover Robert (Bernard Noël). Though Robert tries to convince her to divorce her husband, the pilot Pierre (Philippe Leroy), Charlotte's loyalties remain divided.
Godard labeled Une femme mariée not a "film" but rather "a collection of fragments from a film shot in 1964". However, this is much less avant-garde disjointed than one might expect. Godard chooses a fragment-based means of storytelling for the moments between Charlotte and her lover, presenting a sequence of brief dialogues between the lovers in rapid succession. Each of these self-encapsulated moments serves as another brick in the wall of what we know about the relationship. Such compressed storytelling manages to distill otherwise ineffable interpersonal dramas and feelings. The framing in the scenes between Charlotte and her lover is remarkable: close-up shots of their faces or limbs against featureless backgrounds. Generally the face of the person speaking is not shown and we hear only the words.
But while there had already been myriad such tales of love triangles through the ages, this film offers something fresh by combining it with a critique of 1960s consumer society. The characters pepper their conversation with commercial jingles, parrot whole advertising texts, or recite factoids. In shots of home life, the latest fancy name-brand cleaning products and electronics are placed prominently in the frame. Charlotte and her maid read women's magazines and see whether they live up to the standards of beauty that the media prescribes. The Auschwitz trials were going on at the same time as shooting, and Godard chose to work references to this into the characters' conversations. In this way, he underscores how consumer society emphasizes thinking about the present, buying whatever is called must-have now, and thus discourages self-reflection and critically gazing on the past. The film's message remains perennially fresh, and I think many viewers will enjoy Une femme mariée.
Godard would take up the "housewife and consumerism" theme again three years later in 2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle, where this time the housewife prostitutes herself during the day to buy all the nice things that her husband can't. As a critique of consumerism, that later film is more successful inasmuch as it was shot in colour, and thus shows how commercial brands were using brash designs to draw the eye of shoppers. ("If you can't afford LSD," Godard says in a voiceover there, "buy a colour television.") However, Une femme mariée is not just a rough sketch for the later film, and I'd even call it a better film, inasmuch as it tells a coherent story while the elements of the later one don't entirely come together for me.

"Patrick" is a butterfly with a problem. One of his wings is a bit stunted so he cannot fly. When it comes to their annual migration, this means that he and best pal "Marty" - an enthusiastic caterpillar yet to mature, must stay behind guarding the milkweed. Meantime, "Jennifer" is to be tasked with pulling their emergency supply of this fodder as they travel and the two to be left behind decide to stowaway! Of course they are soon discovered, as is an altitude problem for poor old "Jennifer" too, but not before their journey has begun in earnest and the flutter is way more concerned with getting to the "Orange Forest" without getting munched upon by three marauding and very peckish birds. I quite enjoyed this. The animation is colourful and vibrant; the likeable characters - maybe not so much the occasionally annoying caterpillar - offer us the usual qualities of perseverance, loyalty and teamwork while their pursuing nemeses offer up an excuse for some lightly comedic writing and slapstick with some silk and a bin lorry. I quite liked their own team boffin "Cornelius" too - and though it's perhaps a little bit long, it's a perfectly watchable family feature with a few engaging characters.

I'm not exactly steeped on French cinema, let alone 1990s French cinema this apparently targets, but still highly enjoyed this surreal drama with some good direction and fine performances from Maggie Cheung playing a version of herself and Nathalie Richard. Some interesting scenes, especially one at a dinner and another with Cheung sneaking around her hotel in a catsuit. Don't quite understand it all but still thoroughly found it entertaining. **4.0/5**

Romanian builder "Stefan" (Stefan Gota) is quite adept at making soup! With his holidays looming he is clearing out his fridge and hoping to get his ageing jalopy fixed so he can travel. He is also a bit of an insomniac and wanders the streets at night exploring and cutting a rather lonely figure appearing to have few friends. That is until he is walking along a country path and encounters a lady (Liyo Gong) examining the mosses that grow freely. They have met before - in her aunt's Chinese restaurant, briefly, amidst a thunderstorm and he is intrigued with her scientific endeavours. She explains to him what she is doing and why, informing him that mosses were the first plants ever to grow on the Earth. The next few hours see him diverted from his mission to go collect his car, and for the two to share their afternoon together. Might anything come of it? Well, that's not really the point. Instead, this seems to be a gentle reminder of how much easier, especially when empowered by the power of his vegetable soup, it is for people to engage with easy other or friendly and curious terms. It's a momentary observation of not just human existence, but it also showcases the beauty of nature as it exists amidst our man-made concrete and brick environment. The rain also seems to serve an almost allegorical purpose, wiping the slate clean for another episode in his solitary yet open-minded and friendly life. It is a strangely compelling film to watch. There's no beginning, or end - just a middle, and the two actors deliver plausibly imbuing a certain not easily definable chemistry.

EXT. WHY CAME LOVE - DAY
Along Came Love, is it about the relationship between Madeleine and François, or is it? I'm not sure because this film goes in so many directions. I get it, ~Love~ has no boundaries, but storytelling sometimes should; a more focused story would have helped because the film tries to go down that 'shocking' route, leading to a lacklustre conclusion.
**FADE OUT.**

In 1966, Jean-Luc Godard made the acquaintance of some young members of the French Left who felt a strong pull towards Maoism. By looking to China, they sought to escape the traditional division of the French Left into supporters of the Soviet Union, which had lost its revolutionary fervour, and Trotskyist parties, which were impotent. (Of course, at the time the West was still generally unaware of the horrific toll of Mao's policies.) Godard, whose sociological curiosity and political engagement was strong in these years, decided to study this phenomenon, and the result is LA CHINOISE. While Godard would eventually go on to make a few films that were so didactically political that one felt bludgeoned by the message and watching was no fun, this one surprised me in how entertainingly its plot played out and how astute its observations were.
In a Parisian flat borrowed for the summer while one member's parents are away, a group of young radicals lodge together and fancy themselves a revolutionary cell. Chief among them are Guillaume (Jean-Pierre Léaud), Véronique (Anne Wiazemsky) and Yvonne (Juliet Berto). They read daily from Mao, decrying the Soviet Union and French society, and practicing their demagoguery for their occasional attempts to bring their message into the streets. Gradually, they come to decide that terrorism is necessary to achieve their goals, and they gang up on the sole dissenter from violence and kick him out of the flat. Francis Jeanson, a French academic and opponent of the war in Algeria, as well as Wiazemsky's actual thesis adviser, appears as himself in a scene where he attempts to dissuade Véronique from violence, asking just how much support from the oppressed masses does this sheltered girl think she has.
As desperate as he was for a cause to uphold, I don’t believe that Godard really committed himself deep down to Maoism or revolutionary socialism in general. His bitterness against the staid French status quo is palpable, and he likes how the French Maoists at least recognized a need for change, but LA CHINOISE affectionately criticizes its subjects more than it celebrates them. Rather than presenting Maoism convincingly as a way forward, LA CHINOISE ultimately suggests it was only the most recent expression of the drive to rebellion that appears afresh in every young generation. While these characters are Maoists, he borrowed the basic outlines of the plot from Dostoyevsky, who described a set of young radicals well before Marxism-Leninism. The filmmaker underscores how such idealistic young people take themselves too seriously, he shows their adoption of Maoist art as a sort of fashion statement, their use of Maoist terminology as the latest hip slang.
There are some fun touches here, the acerbic humour and amusing dialogue that Godard brought to his storytelling. The occasional use of Brechtian distancing techniques, like when Guillaume suddenly breaks character and talks to cinematographer Raoul Coutard, lead the viewer to reflect more on what is happening. And in spite of Godard's revolutionary sentiments, LA CHINOISE maintains a dialogue with the film tradition (cinephiles will chuckle at the avant-garde snippet that occasionally pops up in the soundtrack, a clear nod to Ingmar Bergman's film PERSONA).
Like Godard's early colour films, this is also a visual pleasure. Much of the first half of the film seems to me a study of faces: Léaud's famous expressiveness, Wiazemsky's quirky overbite and distinct way of moving her mouth to the left when talking, and Berto's sad eyes. The set design is clever, full of little details. It's great that Gaumont has re-released this film in Blu-Ray (with English subtitles), so viewers can appreciate all those touches in high-definition.
I wouldn't recommend LA CHINOISE to someone who had not seen Godard's earlier films, but I rate this pretty highly among his body of work and believe that it will impress anyone who has developed a love for this auteur's style.

Marcel Carné packs quite a lot into ninety minutes in this superior wartime thriller. It centres around the deserting soldier "Jean" (Jean Gabin) who arrives in Le Harve intending to seek a ship to some far flung neutral port. He needs clothes, though, and money, and food - and he is lucky to meet up with the teenage "Nelly" (Michèle Morgan). She is worldy beyond her years - she has grown up the hard way and is frequently the object of unwanted attention. Fortunately she has the solid "Zabel" (Michel Simon) to keep an eye on her and shield her from the excesses of the local spiv-turned-gangster "Lucien" (Pierre Brasseur). "Jean" is torn. His brain tells him to have nothing to do with this girl - she is trouble. His heart initially pities but soon falls for her and he determines that she, too, ought to find a berth on his freedom voyage. It's a story of love and self preservation this. Even those more unsavoury here are all trying to thrive in an environment forced upon them by war. "Jean" is no coward, he has a courage but it is, initially at any rate, a selfish one. The film illustrates his transformation effectively and there is a gradual evolution of chemistry between Gabin and Morgan that draws us all too willingly into their predicament. Brasseur is perhaps not as menacing - he is a bit too good looking, but the rest of the cast deliver plausibly a story of humanity with all it's hope and vulnerabilities. Will they escape? Well that's no dead cert....

"Sophia" (Magalie Lépine Blondeau) is contentedly married to "Xavier" (Francis-William Rhéaume) - though they sleep in separate rooms, and is quite nervous about meeting the renovator of their newly acquired waterside chalet. Those nerves seem wholly justified when her arrival introduces her to the lively "Sylvain" (Pierre-Yves Cardinal) who tells her that the place is in riddled with carpenter beetles and is in need of tons of expensive modernisation! She's understandably upset and her tears have quite an effect on the man. Soon they are having a beer and, well you can guess the rest... It isn't just an one night stand, though - they can't stop thinking about each other and this doesn't bode well for her marriage. Their friendship, though loving, now throws up some difficulties. She's from a wealthy family and he's a man who works with his hands. Her family - especially her rather obnoxious brother "Olivier" (Guillaume Laurin) rather look down on the man but his mother "Guylaine" (Linda Sorgini) who has a penchant for rather ropey vin rosé and his family do take to her more readily. Can the two manage to make their own affections prevail against an accumulating series of challenges? There's an engaging chemistry between the two as we see their romance build, falter, thrive - is it real love or just an infatuation with both seeking that which they can never have? I'll be honest, the ending rather crept up on me - it wasn't what I wanted and certainly not what I expected, but it's effective nonetheless as auteur Monia Chokri throws down a bit of a gauntlet to impulse, lust and both a psychological and visceral sense of longing. Do we seek love, and would we know it if we found it or does it seek us so it can plays games with us? The story can seem a little contrived at times and it does play to stereotype now and again too, but it's still quite an impassioned watch with two solid efforts at the helm.

I usually enjoy French courtroom dramas. There's none of this "yes m'lud" and "no, your honour" deferential obsequiousness. They are normally much more of a bun-fight with the lawyers, witnesses, jurors and the accused all chipping-in to ask questions and sling plenty of character-assassinating mud about the room. This one is at the livelier end of that scale as the eponymous, self-confessed, robber (Arieh Worthalter) takes to the stand to defend himself from accusations the he shot and killed two pharmacists. I can't say I'd every heard ever heard of this left-wing firebrand, but as the film progresses his quick-wittedness and common-sense approach to his defence, coupled with his uncomfortably plain speaking - especially for his lawyer "Kiejman' (Arthur Harari) - makes for a most unconventional presentation of a scenario where the court president (Stéphan Guérin-Tillié) seemed to be doing most of the questioning and then most of the judging. It's the very lack of the ore traditional static formula that makes this a compelling watch. I found Goldman's character to be smug, self-satisfying and opinionated but his sharp honesty along the lines of "why would I?" begins to cut more and more ice as the prosecution becomes increasingly flabbergasted by his generalising outbursts that provoke temper tantrums from all sides and, more importantly, expose some of the less attractive characteristics of all concerned. It's almost two hours long, but the very natural, at times angry, nature of the scripting and it's delivery gives us a really plausible setting that's more gladiatorial than judicial. He's quite a sarcastic fellow, as is the prosecutor, so there are a few laughs to be had here as they successfully manage to wind each other up, and the close confines of the court - which we never leave - condenses it all nice and tightly. In the end I felt I knew what the verdict would be, but did I necessarily agree with it? Hmmm...?

So here's a question. Imagine you live in a flat and one of your fellow residents has a job that works late into the evening whilst her two sons are at home on their own. "Jean-Jacques" (Félix Lefebvre) is the older and "Sofiane" (Alex Tonetti) is the younger with a penchant for chips/fries at 3am. When he has an incident with the hot oil that necessitates his brother taking him, in a shopping trolley, to hospital and the authorities decide maybe he is better in care what would you think? Never mind the issues around responsible parenting. What about the risks to the other folks living there who might well wake up amidst the ruins of their possessions, if they wake up at all? Returning mother "Sylvie" (Virginie Efira) couldn't care less about us, indeed as this drama unfolds it appears that she couldn't really care much for anyone as her struggles to get her young "Froggy" back become all consuming. I couldn't help but wonder that, given her circumstances, maybe the lad was in a better place and we were all just that extra bit safer at night! That distraction rather pointed out to me just how one-dimensional this story was. We are clearly being encouraged to feel sorry for "Sylvie" and to take against a system this is portrayed as thoroughly unsympathetic, understaffed, and not even vaguely inclined to the welfare of the young "Sofiane". I hate feeling manipulated by a film and so despite a really strong and passionate effort from Efira, an equally solid and perceptive one from Arieh Worthalter as the estranged dad "Hervé" and from Lefebvre as the "other" son, I just thought the whole thing did an outrageous disservice to professional people trying their best to juggle plates whilst underfunded, under-resourced and under-acknowledged. Certainly, it does shine quite a light on the visceral nature of the relationship between mother and younger son, but it relies far too heavily on that innateness within the audience and doesn't really build any of the characters beyond the hysterical and reactionary to earn our respect. There are way better films out there dealing more fully with this scenario and the fanciful denouement here rather summed up the whole film.

“All to Play For” is a mostly by-the-book family drama that’s executed well. Director and co-writer Delphine Deloget‘s story explores the struggle faced by single working parents and a system that seems to be against them at every turn. Deloget’s film makes fair points on both sides of a complicated issue, even if the narrative itself isn’t complex.
Sylvie (Virginie Efira) is a single mom to her two children, Sofiane (Alexis Tonetti) and Jean-Jacques (Félix Lefebvre). She works late nights to make ends meet, and often leaves her sons alone at home while she does what she can to make money. One evening, Sofiane burns himself while trying to make a snack, and the incident is reported to the authorities. In the blink of an eye, child welfare agents place the boy in foster care, ripping him away from his loving (if imperfect) home life. Sylvie must rely on the legal system to overcome what feels like an insurmountable amount of bureaucratic red tape to prove she is not an unfit mother before she can get her little boy back in her arms.
It’s a universal story about family that’s relatable even if you aren’t a working mom. Sylvie is a sympathetic character despite the fact that she’s very self-centered and seems to care more about her rotating door of boyfriends, throwing drunken parties, and getting in her daytime naps than actually parenting her two sons. She keeps screwing things up, but she’s a loving mother who would do anything for her boys. Deloget captures the way society looks down on someone who has been deemed an unfit mother, and it’s especially heart-wrenching to watch as Sylvie has to beg her friends and family to write letters of support so she can get Sofiane back. Some treat her with kindness and others, scorn and shame, but she’s a single mother who is genuinely trying to do better and is making a real effort to change.
Not only is the system stacked against Sylvie, but Sofiane suffers as well. When the judge puts him in a foster home for six months while his mom is required to enroll in group therapy and parenting classes, Sofiane has a screaming meltdown. It’s tragic to watch, especially because it’s evident what sounds like something that’s in the best interest of the child on paper is in reality something that is horribly detrimental to the entire family unit. Even worse, Sofiane is diagnosed as “emotionally unstable” and the system wants to pump him full of drugs because he’s a danger to himself and others. It’s ridiculous to force him to take Ritalin as it obviously is not what’s best for the child.
The film presents different perspectives of all involved, from the mother, the legal system, child welfare agents, and the most tragic, the eyes of her child. There’s a slightly cynical tone that expresses how policies can make us lose sight of our humanity. There’s a self-fulfilling prophecy at play here that has the potential to destroy families: put a child under extreme stress, over-medicate them, and they eventually will crack. It’s a frustrating cycle that is all too real.
“All to Play For” doesn’t explore anything that new or different than similar films, but a good story and excellent performances make this a solid family drama.

There's a lot of much deeper things to say about this film and what it does and what it means, about the crushing routine of everyday life, about the nature of the worlds we live in, the stories we tell, but for now I just wanna say this movie is incredibly hypnotic and genuinely engaging and passes by far quicker than any movie this long and with this little happening rightly should. Good stuff tbh.

Yes, it's 3 hours, but we have to forgive that it's from an era before MTV and the resulting cultural ADD. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was the inspiration for Aronofsky's Academy Award-winning film 'Black Swan (2010). Well, actually, I don't know better. Maybe it was.
The premise is similar. Here we become the spectator of one woman's descent into madness. It's kind of riveting in a ghoulish sort or way.

“The Taste of Things” is a romantic drama that’s also a historically accurate period film about food. Set in 1885, this is a slow moving love letter to the art and style of French cuisine, and director Anh Hung Tran takes great pleasure in his celebration and joy of all things gastronomy.
Famous restaurant owner Dodin Bouffant (Benoît Magimel) has relied on his esteemed personal cook Eugénie (Juliette Binoche) for over two decades, admiring her natural culinary talents and creating inspired dishes alongside her in his palatial home’s kitchen. Since the pair have spent so much time together sharing the same stove and an unyielding passion for food, they’ve grown quite fond of each other. The feelings that have developed between Dodin and Eugénie are a bit complicated, and his marriage proposals have always been quickly dismissed by the freedom-loving woman who has no intention of any sort of romantic commitment. But as they grow older, Eugenie may be finally warming up to the idea.
It’s a sparse and simple love story that’s mostly about food. The first twenty minutes of the film show nothing but the characters cooking and preparing dishes in the kitchen. There’s no musical score, just the sounds of a kitchen like the sizzle of a sear, the rattle of an iron skillet, the bubbling of boiling water, and the rhythmic chop of a knife. This is a film that’s comprised mainly of cooking and eating scenes, aimed at foodies who will inherently have a greater tolerance for watching a repetitive cycle of cook-eat-savor-repeat. It’s not boring, but it does feel indulgent.
As would be expected in a film about cuisine, the food is drop-dead gorgeous. The culinary artistry and food photography is gorgeous and mouthwatering, and everything from the saucing to plating is done with a beauty and precision that honors traditional techniques. The characters cook everything from the fanciest to the most simple dishes, which drives home the idea that these aren’t food snobs, but true connoisseurs.
The casting is spot-on, and it’s delightful to see a story that seamlessly blends the romance between food and people that features more mature actors. Binoche and Magimel make a charming and believable pair, and you’ll hope they do finally end up together in marriage.
“The Taste of Things” is lovely, but in order to get the most satisfaction and enjoyment from the film, it helps to have a love and appreciation for food that runs deeper than the average person.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

"Dodin" (Benoît Magimel) and "Eugénie" (Juliette Binoche) have a synergy in the kitchen that creates mouthwatering and innovative culinary treats for their friends. She does the cooking, he more the design; she shuns the limelight, he is more gregarious - but it's a professional relationship that has worked well for the last two decades. It's probably fair to say that they are both a bit slow off the mark, but gradually now their relationship begins to become one of a more personal, intimate, nature but she is still uncertain. How to win her round? Well he starts to prepare delicacies to tempt both her palate and her heart. The path of truth love never runs smooth, though, and soon their dynamic is facing a testing time that will likely see unwelcome change for all concerned. What I actually liked about this film is that there's not a great deal of dialogue. It looks great and the two actors genuinely convince as they prepare their gourmet dishes using ingredients and techniques that are way more fascinating than the unfolding drama between their characters. You can almost smell the food! It also doesn't shy away from some of the culinary curiosities of rustic French cuisine, so be prepared for a few dishes that might not do for your appetite what they do for those on screen, but by two hours in I found myself genuinely invested in what I was watching - and very glad I'd eaten first. Cooking is an art form; so is good cinema - we get both here in abundance.

There's something quite unnerving about this film. It all starts when the young "Rosalie" (Nadia Tereszkiewicz) is essentially dowered out to bar owner "Abel" (Benoît Magimel) so her father can be rid of her and so that her new husband can be rid of his debts. "Abel" is actually quite a decent man, recently returned from the wars, but he is ill-equipped for what he discovers on his wedding night. She suffers from the rare condition of hirsutism and he is repulsed by it. Her dowry didn't quite settle his bills with landlord "Barcelin" (Benjamin Biolay) and with his future on the line, she decides that it's time to go on the front foot and display her beardedness. Initially sceptical, it appears that the community are less intimidated by her than "Abel" had feared, indeed there seems to be an attraction developing between her and "Barcelin". The main drawback she faces, though, is an inability to bear children - that which she wishes for most. His solution is that they adopt, and this is when true colours are displayed and the story takes a slightly more predicable turn - especially as she begins to fall prey to the exploiters who see her as little better than a circus act. It's a love story, one of despair and one that illustrates not just power of superstition but also the continuing role of women in a society that saw them as goods to barter. It looks authentic, and though could maybe do with a little tightening up - there are quite a few repetitious scenes that don't really add much, is well delivered by an on-form Tereskiewicz and from the understated but potent Magimel which coupled with an emotive score from classical and Hania Rani sources to augment it too, makes for an interesting drama that is well worth a watch.

Biopics are among the most common films being made these days. Some are great, some are decent, and others are more than a little conventional, following rote formats so meticulously that they can turn out shallow or dull. But, when it comes to telling the story of someone wholly unconventional, someone larger than life and the embodiment of surrealistic sensibilities, the tried and true simply won’t work. And that’s certainly the case with enigmatic artist Salvador Dalí, whose unusual paintings nearly always defied description and classification. He was also a shameless self-promoter with an ego the size of the planet and a capricious personality as eccentric as his creations. He often spoke about himself in the third person and spouted statements that required those skilled in the cryptic arts to decipher. So, with a subject like this, a formula biography simply would not work. Fortunately, that’s precisely the thinking that writer-director Quentin Dupieux employed in coming up with this outrageously funny, eminently bizarre offering about a one-of-a-kind individual. In many ways, the film is a cinematic experiment in storytelling, enlivening its narrative in a manner as surreal as one of Dalí’s works. It’s rarely grounded in the straightforward, taking on dream-like qualities with running jokes, repeated but altered sequences and recurring characters that intertwine with one another in unexpected, truly out-there ways. The picture loosely follows the efforts of an aspiring journalist (Anaïs Demoustier) to secure an interview with her subject but who is routinely met with unrealistic, unforeseen obstacles (nearly always whimsically implemented by Dalí himself) in her attempts to pull it off. And, as the movie unfolds, it becomes impossible to follow any sense of reason in trying to figure out what’s going on and where it might be headed (so don’t even try). Instead, just sit back and enjoy the absurdity of it all – the very same attitude that one needs to employ when gazing upon one of the artist’s paintings. This highly fitting approach to telling Dalí’s story works brilliantly, especially coming from a filmmaker who has his own offbeat sensibilities about art, as seen in such prior releases as “Deerskin” (2019) and “Smoking Causes Coughing” 2022). In fact, “Daaaaaalí!” is so quirky and breaks the mold in so many ways that it even features five different actors (Edouard Baer, Jonathan Cohen, Gilles Lellouche, Pio Marmaï and Didier Flamand) portraying the protagonist. And, to his credit, the director thankfully keeps the runtime short at 1:18:00 so as not to overstay his welcome and let the innate joke become tiresome. Still, some might find this a frustrating offering to watch, but, if you’re willing to suspend logic and convention (as you’re clearly supposed to do), you’re likely to find that this hilarious little gem will tickle your funny bone in myriad, unanticipated ways. After all, if the film’s subject defies easy categorization, the last thing a director should do is needlessly confine him to a claustrophobic little box. And, fortunately, that’s exactly the pitfall this release successfully manages to avoid.

Pandemonium superficially offers a rather classical Christian view of hell and damnation but fails to cash in, on the core premise.
I guess for atheists like myself, it reaffirms why religion offers little appeal. That said, I don't mind a hellish horror tale yet this is really more sad and depressing, than anything else.
In essence what you get is a "sort of anthology' that offers up essentially three tales, all of which are rather tragic but ultimately fail to deliver anything of real meaning or interest to the viewer. Aside from re-affirming how awful, life can be.
In summary, well acted but feels a little pointless and ugly. I'm not sure on what basis I could recommend this.

The pacing is terrible, too many minutes are wasted on characters screaming and crying about irrelevant things. The soundtrack was probably made by the director's sister and that's why it's in here at all.
The main characters are annoying as hell most of the time.
If you are terrified of spiders, this is your movie. Otherwise, don't bother.

A trio of best friends decide to risk their lives to capture some man-eating spidernators in the desert. Why, you ask? Money, of course! These suckers will sell for as much as 20€ in very exclusive backrooms of select convenience stores in French 'burbs! Sorry, les bûrbs. Of course, you have to pay the seller and the middlemen, arrange and pay for freight, etc., but still - a euro, baby! Oh yeah!
So in this desert, right. It's daytime, which we know because the sun tells us high noon and the screen brightness is about 50%. HDR, baby! This makes sense, because almost everything in real life is brighter than the desert under a cloudless sky at noon. What do you mean, what? Like, a kitchen in France, or the red overhead lights in a bathroom, of course! What do you mean, who has red overhead lights in their bathroom, shut up!
Okay, so anyway, these friends' quest to make all the euro belong to us by way of spider backfires when one of the little guys smacks one of brave spider hunters over the head, making him topple over and start screaming uncontrollably. But fear not - one of his friends grabs his machete, summons all his friendliness, and hacks him to death while looking very stern, heck, even angry. Why did he bring a machete to the desert where's there literally no shrubbery, you ask? Well duh, obviously this is the kind of machete we all carry around for emergencies in case one of our friends should start freaking out and needs a good hacking. At least I do. Totally normal where I come from. How else would you make someone stop freaking out?
Well, good news, now the two other guys could make upwards of TWO euros - EACH! Ka-ching!
And this is where we know this movie is gonna be AWESOME, and we definitely shouldn't consider turning it off. And if we were even the least bit in doubt, perhaps the best music score in recent film history starts rapping over the awesome spidery credits. We're sold.
Okay, so now we're in France, right. And a not at all annoying protagonist appears. Not unlike Jesus, he is. I mean, you remember like how Jesus would talk all the time? Like how you would wonder if he ever took a breath or if he simply absorbed oxygen through his skin? And also how he sold stolen shoes together with that friend who stole bicycles... What was his name, Abraham? Thomas? I forget. The name isn't important, this guy is just eerily much like Jesus.
So Jesus buys the spidernator from his convenience store friend, right, and brings it home to his friends in the ghetto. Sorry, in le ghèttô. And this is where the movie gets really good. I mean, the other Jesus in le Biblé could do that thing where he spoke constantly, and unfortunately we can only imagine how cool it must have sounded. But not only do we get to hear it in this masterpiece, but imagine if there were like twelve Jesuses, and they all spoke together at the same time! Yes, we get that!!! Now, a lesser man than me might call it a cacophony of mentally deranged word vomit, but really, it's like a choir of angels, bringing the whole experience to a whole new plateau of cinema brilliance. Sacre bleu!!!
Okay, but hang on to your hats, because it's definitely not going to get worse from here on out. But I have to warn you, a bit of a spoiler is coming up. Oh, wait, my wife is freaking out, I gotta go hack her to death with my machete. Better put on my angry face. Sorry! Gotta go.

I can't say that I enjoyed this as much as the first outing for this new breed of musketeers, but it's still an enjoyable and authentic looking adaptation of these timeless and honourable Dumas characters. We know that "Constance" (Lyna Khoudri) has been kidnapped and that the enamoured "D'Artagnan" (François Civil) is determined to get her back - but how? Well the almost fatal attack on the king (Louis Garrel) has galvanised everyone - friend and foe, and the musketeers determine that they must get to the ringleader of that plot before it is eventually accomplished and the kingdom is plunged into chaotic warfare. Now everyone suspects the malevolent Cardinal Richelieu (Eric Ruf) but surely it's not in his interests to kill Louis XIII? The Queen (Vicky Krieps) and her not-so-secret English lover Buckingham (Jacob Fortune-Lloyd) might be in the mix, or maybe just a disgruntled nobleman? "D'Artagnan" is first with a clue after he inadvertently rescues "Milady" (Eva Green) from a prison (after she fell off a cliff!) armed with a secret, coded letter. What does it mean? Can it help find his love and save the kingdom? Meantime, we start to learn a little more about this enigmatic "MIlady" and of her relationship with "Athos" (Vincent Cassel) whilst his two pals "Aramis" (Romain Duris) and the affable "Porthos" (Pio Marmaï) do their bit for the story and the country too. It looks great - the settings, the costumes, the combat scenes all smack of effort having been spent on making the scenarios ring true. I'm still no great fan of Eva Green, but here she starts to exude just the tiniest hint of menace as the story builds to the conclusion of this search for love and traitors. It's a wee bit more earnest, this time around - there's less humour and I missed that. I don't mean laugh out loud stuff, but here we rarely see all the musketeers together; their camaraderie isn't so obvious. This is essentially Civil v Green and that doesn't always work so well. Still, it's a solid and quickly paced adventure story that I found passed two hours effortlessly.

The story starts out with an interesting concept. Island mysterious things happening, sect behaviour but hastily becomes something that isnt remotely believable. The writing is subpar and the characters are isnt believeable. Some are kids but some are himmler or goring. This is just a mishmash of random evets and eventually it just spirals out of control.
When people are waiting to be executed the just stand there instead of throwing that skinny ass little woman over the edge.. LOL so dumb writing it isn´t even funny.
Women in hand to hand combat with dudes weighing way above twice their weight. One hit and it would be goodnight.
Started out as something interesting but escalated to nothing more than a soap opera.
Maybe that's why it was cancelled.

Love it! Can't wait for season 3

S1: A great comedy-action series, which works great as a screwball comedy where everybody is out to get everybody else, littered by a colourful cast of characters , portraying the India of this time authentically. Raj and DK have created characters which like characters of go goa gone , plays well of each other. But like Go Goa gone, there nothing deeper into this series i.e, it is a one and done watch , you will remember this cast of pana dhari tipu or char cut atmaram, who feel straight out of some 80s movies burst into the screen with both in equal measure of their wackiness and seriousness. Special shoutout to its child actors, they are terrific , their dynamic reminded me of my own school dynamic. The show is a W for nostalgia and , I will remember it for its character, dialogue and beautiful setting, and a delightful plot that all converges and explodes in the end like a long fuse to a bomb., Like another work by the same director go goa gone, you are just here for the roller coaster ride. but unlike movie it is a series , which severely limits the strength of this product by Raj and DK, therefore this roller coaster ride often feels dragging because you can only take this concept so far w/o engaing audience emotionally with these characters or laying out an organic thematic trail across the series that concludes with the climax of the series. This series have exactly opposite problem of the Fallof the House of Usher, HWere the Fall of the house of usher where the mmessaging of the show overpowers its setting and character, nnone of the cast is memorable as they ameant tio represent a represent everthing wrong with corporate america. Meanwhile the world of Guns and Gulaabs have the later in plenty but sorely lacks a beating heart ,w hich puts it just below A show like one piece where colourful cast is paired with a beating heart to produce a truly memorable experience(though I would still rate guns and gulaabs over one piece LA because my fondness of Og Onepiece restricts my ability to judge s1 Fairly ). Hope the second season rectify this sole issue ,

Neha Sharma looks gorgeous & hot, brilliant acting, Overall a good series that will keep you on the edge of your seat...
Murder... Mystery... Suspense... and Neha Sharma.. what more could you ask for.

In the quirky chaos of District Court Patparganj, justice unfolds amidst a colorful cast of characters. From eccentric employees to unexpected twists, "Maamla Legal Hai" delivers a delightful blend of humor and legal drama. As the wheels of justice turn, each case brings its own surprises, keeping audiences entertained and engaged. With its unique premise and witty storytelling, this courtroom comedy earns its place as a must-watch with a solid rating of 4/5.

Okay! I really don't know why people got super hyped over this movie. I mean, there's nothing inside the movie to be hyped about.
Besides all these odds, there is something in the film. It has an uncountable numbers of cliché dialogues, an easily predictable story, so many plot holes, unprofessional dialogue delivery, presentation of some ungroomed actor/actress etc.
For example: the heroine (Idhika Paul) used the local and proper Bengali in the same scene. Where is the coherence between the languages? No one mixes proper and local language together. This is just one example, and I assure you there is more.
But what it really got is some really good cinematography. Some shots are too good to judge. Other than that, I didn't find anything to praise about.
Wasted my precious 2 hours watching this. If I had slept without watching this, the time would not have been wasted.

While the hostage takers' motivations are in the right place - standing up against persecution and preserving their culture - it's clear that the film is strongly opposed to their methods. 'Saturday Afternoon' is a shocking and abrasive assessment of terrorism, and will be especially confronting to Western audiences. As the finale fades to black, we'll never know the real outcome - only that many lives were unnecessarily lost.
- Charlie David Page
Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-saturday-afternoon-a-shocking-and-abrasive-assessment-of-terrorism
Head to https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/sff for more Sydney Film Festival reviews.