There are some really plausible performances in this quite chilling drama. It's all about "Ree" (Jennifer Lawrence) whose life is turned upside down when her dad uses their mountain-side home as collateral for a bail bond, then promptly skips the scene. "Ree" is left in the lurch, made worse by having to care for her clinically depressed mother and her younger brother and sister. Now she knows that he's mixed up with a local, pretty lucrative, meth lab and so not only might they be facing eviction but with his absconding, what little cash the family did have has dried up too. Luckily, neighbour "Sonya" (Shelley Waggener) chips in to help them out but she's still got to find "Jessup" and that's going to involve dealing with uncle "Teardrop" (John Hawkes) of whom she's pretty terrified. When folks start to think he's dead, or left the state, she finds the clock ticking and the dense Ozark terrain presenting quite a challenge if she is to track him down. It's not the greatest or most original of stories but Lawrence and Hawkes deliver strongly and the gorgeous photography amidst the ancient woodlands - complete with some creative audio effects and a score that does engender some degree of menace - all build to quite a potent climax. It perhaps doesn't show off the finer sides of their rural community as moonshine has clearly been succeeded on the ladder of valuable illicit commodities, and those involved in the manufacture and distribution of this new drug are quite prepared to do what is necessary to keep their supply chain going - with few scruples!

Really good thriller/drama. Cast and direction are impressive, the script is round and the depicting of the surroundings is really genuine.

A total surprise, in the negative sense. The story was very random with little logic in it. Weird characters that also made little sense, and the conversations were poor and uninteresting. It was more like a Japanese anime story because of its randomness, but then not even interesting to watch. One soundtrack kept being played over and got me to the point that further watching was giving me a headache. I tried to finish it, but had to turn it off at 3/4 progress, for the sake of my mental health.

Filmed into the post production of two years of filming the Wuxia epic "Ashes of Time", with low resources, this movie is another example that we don't need millions of USD to make a masterpiece.
Wong Kar-Wai have a personal style of using melancholic characters distorted stories, using elaborate soundtracks in the background. This movie show two drama and crime stories about two lovesick policeman and their search over his relationship with a woman, always in a 0,01cm encounter of distance between them.
The first story stars Takeshi Kaneshiro as a cop obsessed by his breakup with a woman named May (replaced emotionally with letters and old pineapple cans), and his encounter with a mysterious drug smuggler. The second stars Tony Leung as a police officer roused from his gloom over the loss of his flight attendant girlfriend by the attentions of a quirky snack bar worker called Express - referred in the title (Faye Wong).
Both stories circles around Chungking Mansions, a 60's complex of buildings supposed to be residential, but that is made up of many independent low-budget hotels, shops and other services, filled with stores and stalls in the building cater to wholesalers shipping goods to Africa and South Asia, and amid the gigantic Central–Mid-Levels escalator with a length of 800m and one of the two highlights locations of the movie.
Both sequences have a unique visual approach sometimes intimate, sometimes frenetic with a beautiful use of color among the chaos that reminds me of the works of the photographer Saul Leiter.
On the unique soundtrack using ocidental musics we have the use for the first story is Dennis Brown's "Things in Life" and "Baroque", composed by Michael Galasso, can be heard twice during the first part of the movie.
On the second "California Dreamin'" by The Mamas & the Papas plays in the key scenes in the second story, which also features Faye Wong's Cantonese cover version of "Dreams" by The Cranberries.
In the plans of making there was a third movie but since it was too long it was released as a separate movie, Fallen Angels in 1995.
Another must watch classic with a unique style that differentiates it from other Hong Kong productions - I gave it a 8,7 out of 10,0 / A rate.

This is probably my favourite film from Kar-Wai Wong. It tells the stories of two Hong Kong Police officers. The former, the dashing Takeshi Kaneshiro, who is struggling to come to terms with his recently ended relationship of five years. By way of a means to closure, he purchases a tin of pineapple each day with the expiry date of May 1st (then he will be 25 years old). Either they will have reconciled by then, or he must look for a new love - and perhaps an enigmatic, somewhat shady, lady in a raincoat and wearing a blonde wig might offer a solution? The second features the slightly older regular with this director, Tony Leung, who has also split from his long-term partner only to find a new girl working at the stall he gets his meal from in the evening. She is equally enigmatic - and has a penchant for "California Dreamin'" played very loudly too. Both stories are throughly enjoyable to watch, the humour is plentiful and subtle - and we are never quite sure how anything is going to pan out, or even if the two stories are going to end up over-lapping - right until the end. The hand held photography helps the personalities develop well, offering us intimacy and also an opportunity to become more immersed in the two gently developing character studies that are imbued with the colours and culture of this bustling urban landscape.

A week has passed since I watched this film. I wanted to let it sit with me for a bit before watching it again and giving it a proper response.
Films like this, which are hyped to an unbelievable degree, end up sending an audience to end up watching it with elevated expectations, only to be ultimately disappointed afterwards. It’s a fact that many films suffer considerably from this aspect of our cinephile culture, I’ve experienced it with many films before.
_Chungking Express_ has a reputation that I think may be beyond what it intended, with it being an Out-of-Print title at Criterion, the prices for the Blu-ray being obnoxiously high, and the constant barrage of exuberant reactions from many who’ve seen the film. This kind of superficial intrigue alone can set me up with expectations that are likely to not be met. Every film that is being made does not intend to create this façade of a reputation, it’s just a film. Most creators are not there to make this kind of reaction happen out of their films, and yet, we somehow continue to do so…
I’m rambling, aren’t I? I think this is just my criticism with film culture regarding the hyping of certain films.
And yet, somehow, despite my attempts to condense these (potential) hyperbolic reactions, _Chungking Express_ may have exceeded my expectations. Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite regarding this issue, but then again, if I enjoyed the film to the extent at which it met my expectations (or surpassed them in this case), am I to be negatively looked at for criticizing these actions, but essentially having them work on me specifically with _Chungking Express_? If so, then let it be I guess. Regardless, this film was one of the best experiences I have had in a while.
It is surprisingly easy for me to connect with this film and its characters. All of them have a certain struggle they must deal with, whether it’d be relationship problems, not being able to move on, or even simply failing to accomplish a certain task. It’s all relatively simple if I think about it, there isn’t much in terms of characterization for many of the subjects in the film, and yet, I don’t believe there needs to be that much. Simply leaving it the way it is works extremely well, and I’m willing to believe that Wong Kar-Wai understood this.
There are statements that explain how Wong Kar-Wai essentially wrote scenarios for the film the morning of and shot the scenes later in the day. Easily, this could lead to a jumbled mess of separate ideas thrown together in the editing room at a feature length time. And yet, he stays consistent in the thematic ideas he proposes. Shot chronologically, the ideas set up through the first half of the film, have threads that continue onwards towards the second half.
One of my favorite directors, Krzysztof Kieślowski, uses the elements of interconnectedness within his films. Regardless of how different the stories might be, there is something there that connects each story together. In _Chungking Express_, that idea is essentially brought out brazenly, to the extent at which it initially shocked me. That one moment at the half-way mark of the film, comes at you so fast, that afterwards you’re left gasped for what the film turns into. It’s a brazen switch of narrative, and yet, it’s still leaves the film to be connected altogether.
The expectations for love are very much tricky in it of themselves, as is shown with each character that one sees in the film. It’s not simple, it isn’t black and white, but rather a spectrum that one must align itself with, and possibly adapt to if necessary. To deal with the aspects of love in a film can either be hokey and misguided, or it can be meticulous and interesting. _Chungking Express_ finds a middle ground between these two, not dealing too much towards the intellectual side of these issues, but not straying away too far towards the clichéd. Wong Kar-Wai doesn’t treat these characters as caricatures. Sure, there are some humorous; sometimes childish, moments with Faye, but it doesn’t take away from her character. As with every subject in the film, there is something to latch on to. All around the thematic ideas of love, or the lack thereof, worked together so well, that it leads to these characters feeling authentic. Not simply words on a script.
I really don’t know what else to say. I was awestruck the first time, and I feel even more so now. This is a film that really hit it home with me. More so than other films in the past.
I’ll say this, by the end of the film, I had similar vibes to when I finished _Lost in Translation_ for the first time. Soon afterwards, that film was my favorite of all time for years.
Film culture is fascinating, it may lead to disappointing outcomes based on hyperbolic expectations, or it may lead to a film experience that you never thought were possible.
I’m beginning to lean towards the latter with _Chungking Express_.
What a difference a day made, what a difference a film makes.
---
But then again, it all comes down to personal preference, so for all I know you may hate this film. I don’t know. You do you, and I’ll do me. Got it?

**Overall : A murder mystery with a creative sci-fi time-bending spin that is fresh, compelling, and thrilling!**
Another movie on the list of greatest movies you probably never heard of, Frequency innovates the typical murder thriller with characters working across time to catch a prolific serial killer that killed someone they loved. Frequency skillfully builds the tension throughout, starting as a warm story of family and turning into a thrilling hunt using evidence and crime reports in the future to stop a killer before he kills a loved one in the past. Frequency's themes of family, loyalty, maturity, and hope elevate this film from a clever crime thriller to an extraordinary story with rich character development, high stakes, and an innovative plot.

Very funny and interesting. There waiting for grand dad to kick the bucket. Before he dies he sets up a quest for them to have a race. He gives them clues and they have to be the first person to figure it out and get to him first. Whoever is the first on wins his estate. It's a race, it's a race!

Given the ensemble talent involved, and the director, this should've been so much better. I did manage to laugh a few times here and there but otherwise never quite worked. **2.75/5**

Well, this is one of those movies that hinges on a singular performance. In this case it's Danny Glover who is absolutely amazing in his role, probably the best performance of his career, and one of the best that came out of the 80s.
But Goldberg and Oprah really stink. I don't know what was going on there but they were all over the place.
However, despite them, Glover does carry the role, and Spielberg realized that this was a film adapted from a play. He kind of took that and ran with it, so the performances (minus two notable ones) were as earnest as you would get in live theater, the set designs, the camera movements, it all felt less like a movie and a lot more like, well, like you were seeing it live on Broadway.
And, honestly, I think that worked. It was a unique approach and it made it wonderful to watch.

**Not the worst thing I have ever seen, but Statham has made far better.**
A Statham action flick with a small amount of action and a patchwork plot that makes for a mediocre romp through Vegas with an unsatisfying ending. I mistook the various plot holes throughout the film for possible exciting clues to the main character’s backstory or foreshadowed twists, but it was neither - just bad writing. I did enjoy the action in the few moments it appeared, the Vegas at Christmas setting, and the typical Statham swagger and charm. But the random nudity, pointless gambling scenes, and the unnecessary side character that illogically provides resolution to the film all reduce the awesome standard Statham action film to a haphazard mess. The list of better Statham movies is long.

I was very pleased with this film. My gf and I appeared to be the only ones in the theater without kids. And the auditorium was full. The movie is very kid centric and does not rely on crude or off color humor to keep the adults interested. Many, many times the kids laughed out loud. As did many adults. And much to my surprise, a good majority of the audience applauded at t he end. I've seen a few movies where some of the audience clapped. But not one where the vast majority did. I recommend it going and seeing it if you have kids. And even if you don't.

Great watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
Keri Russell does quality crazy lady, and this movie is basically what "Paranormal Activity" should have been combined with a good version of a Slenderman movie.
There's a very satisfying conspiracy meat to the plot: the escalating defenses combined with a literally conspiracy theory "nut".
Part of the fun of this is that it is all presented in a very real, believable manner. The atmosphere the movie creates is reason enough to watch it.

**A dark force from out of the world!**
It was one of the long due film, despite releasing just 4 years ago. Those who saw it said me not to miss it. But they also warned me it was a common horror theme with a slight change in the storyline. Since horror is the least average rated genre in my collection, I was not expecting it to be a masterpiece. That could be another reason why I liked it. Yeah, the same old blueprint horror flick, even though it was not as bad as what some people are saying. Except the opening quote reveals most of the film's twist. And the twist at the end was not actually a twist if a person knew it before.
A small family struggling with finances, lately witnessing some strange events in the house. But once it takes a serious turn, now they must find a solution for it, or else the unity might fall apart. After getting some idea of everything happening, they meet an expert and gain some important inputs. Now their fightback begins, the challenge they are about to face going to decide the future of the family. Their plan and its execution, the remaining film is to tell us what happens to them.
The JK Simmon's role was one of the most overused roles is horror films. I did not like that, but I liked his appearance. It is also an open end if this film gets a sequel. Like usual when a family struggling, people around them going blind were a cliché. Yeah, I know horror films can't get out of such thing. It's very rare to see a film out of these platforms. Yet it was an okay film, if you prefer a decent entertainment over an experimental film, which is not guaranteed entertainment. But usually it is an enjoyable flick by most of the people. Despite familiarity, one would have a nice time with it.
_7/10_

Enter Sandman.
Dark Skies is written and directed by Scott Stewart. It stars Keri Russell, Josh Hamilton, Dakota Goyo, Kaden Rockett and J.K. Simmons. Music is by Joseph Bishara and cinematography by David Boyd.
Two possibilities exist... Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. - Arthur C. Clarke
Movies involving alien visitations are notoriously tricky things to execute, there's a very thin line between cerebral willingness and crummy construction. Dark Skies unsurprisingly is another in a long line of sci-fi/horror movies that divides the respective genre followers.
Plot finds the Barrett family home suddenly succumbing to mysterious phenomena, suicidal birds, time lapses, poltergeist activity, nightmares and body markings et al...
It's a film that most definitely didn't deliver the spook fest that the (mixed) marketing campaign suggested, while it unfortunately comes off as a collage of well known genre titles of recent pasts. Add to this some less than great acting from the adult leads, the complete waste of J.K. Simmons in a very promising role, and unoriginality of concepts, then it's not hard to see why it has been the victim of venom in some quarters.
However, Scott Stewart is not guilty of taking the easy route to genre cinema as per production. There's no over reliance on CGI, or for big booms and crashes to startle in the name of cheap thrills, in fact the scare scenes are well placed and well timed. He also proves to be a very good purveyor of slow burn atmospherics, itself something that can alienate the more boisterous and excitable genre fans.
The vision of a suburban American family under siege is well played out, the little trials and tribulations of a working class family not swamping the big objective, so when things gather apace and the child actors come to the fore, time invested by the patient is rewarded.
If at times it doesn't have the courage of its convictions, Dark Skies at the very least doesn't resort to alien abduction clichés to seal its deal. There's a number of "issues" with it, especially if you are either into clinical alien abduction science (history) or edge of your seats underwear shocks, but this is above average and worth a viewing for those interested in such dalliances. 6/10

Well, I guess the good new is that you don't have to worry at all. It is not historically accurate, and by that I mean it falls under the title of "revisionist." Normally I don't care if a film is historically accurate, I understand it is Hollywood...but I do care if it is a total re-write of history.
This is a rewrite, it is so far from accurate that it is a clear attempt to change people's knoweldge of the historical figures and the era.
But, the good news is that where is lacks in historical correctness it more than makes up for in political correctness. And that might be at the route of why it veers so far from depicting actual real life events. It's focus was elsewhere, it's focus was on appeasing the people that support censorship and wish nothing more than to revise history to suit their political agenda.
But, the good news is that they do a great job of breaking down a tense political and religious struggle to sex.. sex... sex, which seems to be the real driving force behind man characters in the film, forsaking what would have otherwise been an interesting and story of political intrigue

Unfortunately there are just too many flaws in this depiction of the life of Mary Stuart to itemise. The writing rather clumsily imposes a 21st century slant on 16th century Scottish history and seems more bent on imposing the morals and opinions of the former on the times and scenarios of the latter. Neither principal performance is particularly engaging; and Jack Lowden and Joe Alwyn are frankly hopeless as the sexually ambiguous "Darnley" and "Leicester" respectively. The Oscar nominations for Make-up and Costume are certainly well deserved, but really do epitomise the style-over-substance emphasis of this weak adaptation of one of history's greatest rivalries.

We have a scourge upon our land. 'Tis worse than pestilence and famine. 'Tis a woman with a crown.
Mary Stuart's (Saoirse Ronan) attempt to overthrow her cousin Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie), Queen of England, finds her condemned to years of imprisonment before facing execution.
Directed by Josie Rourke and written by Bau Willimon and John Guy, Mary Queen of Scots is the latest in a long line of historical costumers that fudge history to suit heir own ends. From a technical standpoint it's top draw, design, costuming and lead acting performances are quality - though Mary herself ends up being more cartoonish than anything resembling a tragic historical figure. Sadly, though, the narrative goes round and round in circles and ends up in a politically correct fog.
The pace is laborious, which makes the two hour run time something of a chore to get through. There's little dangles of spice, with attempts at gay acceptance and oral pleasure etc etc, and things hit an upward curve in the latter stages, there's even some smarts in the narrative where obsession with rites and rules of succession threaten to turn the pic into exciting politico/religio waters. Alas, it's a false dawn, to the point where the costume design becomming the best thing in a production speaks volumes about a badly - on the page - historical drama. 3/10

This movie is complete trash.
Watch only if you want modern politics shoved down your throat.
The movie focuses more on LGBT rights then events related to the setting the movie takes place.
Poor casting choices, horrible acting from A-list actors and low budget sets.
Not worth streaming. Not worth pirating. Not worthing Seeding.
Not worth the popcorn.

Thinking about them just in terms of their visual appearnce, Saoirse Ronan probably should have played Queen Elizabeth I instead of Mary, and Margot Robbie probably should have played Not In This Movie.
Perhaps it could have performed better, had it not come out the same year as both _Outlaw King_ and _The Favourite_, as its content lies somewhere between the two, but its quality pales to either.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

"Duncan" (Liam James) is a typical fourteen year old boy. He keeps himself to himself, and isn't greatly looking forward to his family holiday with mother and her boyfriend and his older teenage daughter. Determined to get away from this domestic bliss, he heads to the "Wizz" water park where he strikes up a friendship with one of the animal keepers "Owen" (Sam Rockwell). The latter sees something, perhaps of himself, in this younger lad and allows him to help him. As the summer progresses, both help the other to find an inner strength to deal with their demons - and, gradually, a newly empowered "Duncan" emerges ready to assert himself a little more. Whilst this isn't a great film, there is something about James's strong and personable performance that merits watching. His teenage angst is cleverly, subtly even, presented to us and his relationship with Rockwell, not an obvious friend for the boy, evolves by degree - and not always positively, either. There is way too much dialogue, and I found the family sub-plot with his over-bearing step-father "Trent" (Steve Carrell) and his really irritating daughter "Steph" (Zoe Levin) whom would cheerfully have left in the shark pen, got in the way of the intensity of this otherwise quite engaging exercise in bonding and maturing confidence. Worth a watch.

_**A boy coming-of-age near Cape Cod and more**_
A 14 year-old boy (Liam James) struggles to fit-in with the family & friends of his mother’s new beau (Steve Carell) as they partake of a vacation at his beach house in the Cape Cod area. The teen finds a quasi-mentor (Sam Rockwell) at a water park while developing a friendship with the cute neighbor girl (AnnaSophia Robb). Toni Collette plays the mother, Allison Janney a friend and Amanda Peet a flirty woman.
“The Way Way Back” (2013) is a coming-of-age flick that meshes elements of films like "The Squid and the Whale" (2005), “The Summer of ’42” (1971), “Meatballs” (1979), “Swimming” (2000) and “Lawn Dogs” (1997), but this is arguably the best of them.
Part of the genius of the movie is that the potential stepfather (Carell) isn’t made out to be totally evil nor is the seeming mentor (Rockwell) perfect. They’re both flawed men with presumably good intentions toward the boy, but only one proves that he’s a worthy father-figure. Moreover, the all-around writing/acting smacks of real life.
AnnaSophia is super cute on the female front while Zoe Levin is alluring as the pouty, bratty stepsister. Meanwhile Andria Blackman has a standout cameo as the girl in a yellow bikini.
The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes, and was shot in the Cape Code region of Massachusetts: Wareham & nearby Onset; Marshfield & nearby Duxbury.
GRADE: A/A-

When "Eric" (Stanley Tucci) is let go from his risk analysis job on Wall Street, his successor "Sullivan" (Zachary Quinto) soon realises that the firm is sitting on a time bomb that could cost them all their jobs. He brings it to the attention of his boss "Will” (Paul Bettany) who in turn shares with "Sam" (Kevin Spacey) who quickly alerts “Cohen” (Simon Baker) and before we know it, the helicopter arrives bearing chairman "Tuld" (Jeremy Irons) who hastily convenes a 3am meeting to discuss their options. What now ensues is a tautly directed observation of venality and self preservation that is really compelling to watch. Irons is way better than usual - indeed his plan to basically on-pass their debts to their unsuspecting clients as if they were getting a great bargain seemed almost reasonable. Spacey comes across well as his conflicted sidekick who at least has some semblance of scruples, and there's also quite an engaging effort from Penn Badgley ("Seth") a young man whose dreams of wealth and success are about to get throttled before they really begin. Sadly, Quinto is not a very versatile actor, he has a look (akin to bewilderment) that he offers to the camera - but that's about all, which is a shame as his character is actually quite crucial as this story progresses. This film doesn't really have a beginning or an end, but offers us an excellent glimpse at just how some people can put a smiley face on deceit and still, somehow, come out intact. This is a much more subtle and menacing look at just how the 2008 financial crisis started, at how some people - even at the last moment - believed it could be manipulated to their advantage, and is really well worth a watch.

Masucci delivers a completely realistic and utterly deranged Hitler, which, combined with the real reactions of people on the street, produces hilarious scenes and good comedy. Er ist wieder da!
9/10

> He's obviously the same person, but his intentions are?
I enjoyed the director's previous works like 'Combat Girls' and 'Wetlands'. Those were young women oriented subjects, yet filled with sensitive topics. But now he turned his focus towards the screen adaptation of a bestselling satirical novel of the same name about Adolf Hitler. Well, this is not his best work, not a bad movie either.
Quite fun to watch, but not logical, especially the basic ones. Since it mocks a most hated person in the human history, there's no issues on portraying him in whatever angle they wanted, because nobody cares. Yet the film talked some serious current issues of Germany.
This is like when 'Borat' meets 'The Dictator'. A man who wanders around a city looking for some answers. That's none other than Adolf Hitler, who wakes up in the middle of where some young kids showing their football skills for a tv programme. Then he embarks to learn where he's and what year it is. Meets a person who helps him and ultimately end up with some tv guy where they begin their journey throughout the nation making videos before landing in an actual tv show. The man who killed millions of people wants the best for Germany and its people, how he turn things around were narrated in a quite interesting perspective.
The initial narratives were like the aimless, that tells us what people think of the Adolf Hitler's return. Looked like most of them were shot like a documentary style, outside the official shooting spots. You can see lots of real people's faces were censored. We know that he wanted to be an artist, but he draws some funny sketches in this. Likewise there are many scenes about his qualities that were dragged in to make fun out of it.
Can people accept the words of one who is considered a villain. He came from a different timeline, but he quickly absorbs the situation and gives some important tips that should come into force. From the common people's perspective, it is an entertaining product, but from the political viewpoint, there are stuffs to consider severely about.
> "When you have rats at home, it is called not a clown but an exterminator."
To me there's nothing controversial about this theme. When he failed, the final pages of his history book were written by his enemies. Otherwise, there's no difference between him, Alexander and Genghis Khan. Every greatest kings who ever lived on the earth dreamed of conquering the world.
I think the present world is same, except the form of conquering is changed, like some want to rule the world with their strong economy like the US and some are on their cheap industrial products like China. Like that all the other nations are on the top of the chart with something in what they're good at.
Adolf Hitler was a politician, not a king, but he had his reasons for his actions. So if we go by the rule books, nothing seems rational. To me this film was a decent entertainer, I just wanted to enjoy what it offers and I think I did. I advise the same that you should not mix up this with the reality. Because that might take us to the unwanted territory.
He's the same person who came from the past, but I was keen to know his intentions, especially what the writer intended to draw out of him. Because he's alone, not with his army, so he had no power, but his interaction with people brings up some discussable topics. I'm not a German, but it made me think when he spoke about current issues that Germany is facing. Every nation has to think about its internal affairs to improve it, you can't live forever with the past shame.
This film might be a comedy, but you can't ignore some of the points the main character talks. I felt the movie was a double strike where people can have some laughs and in other side to learn the reality of the state. This the best satirical film about Adolf Hitler I've seen after the Charles Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator'.
7/10

This is a wonderful notional career retrospective of filmmaker "Salvador Mallo" (Antonio Banderas) who has a reached an age where he struggles with painkillers and mobility issues - and so embarks on a bit of nostalgia reliving his life. This will one day be described as a classic. Almodóvar at his most pure, grafting the fiction to the fact in such a beautifully crafted way that it is almost impossible to know how you feel whilst you watch it. Banderas is wonderful. He delivers the emotion and the humour - and there is enough of the latter to adequately temper the more emotional aspects of his performance - with consummate skill. Penélope Cruz who always seems more stunning every time she appears on screen plays his mother and even sings - what more could you ask for? In theory, there ought be little joy in this retrospective, but the self-discovery delivers a surprising amount of fulfilment and there is humour to be found here, too.

If you were to tell me that ‘Pain and Glory’ was Pedro Almodóvar’s final film, I would be inclined to believe you. Rarely has the act of looking back on one's past been so vividly and honestly depicted, and so richly and emotionally satisfying. You can feel the need for this film to exist in every frame, a need to understand and reflect and celebrate and mourn. It is a portrait of an artist at a crossroads, entering the last act of their lives, looking back at what they have created and the battlefield left in their wake, and facing the terror of never creating again. ‘Pain and Glory’ is an intensely beautiful film, one that hangs in the air around you like a perfume for days after. The more I think back on it, the more certain I am that I’ve seen a masterwork. I cannot wait to see it again.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-pain-and-glory-almodovar-delivers-a-rhapsodic-masterwork

The visuals in Trip to the Moon, produced in 1902, are still impressive, surreal, and unique, even by modern standards. Méliès' use of special effects, executed with hyper-stylization, makes them somewhat timeless. Méliès was undoubtedly regarded as a wizard at the time, and the film's creativity is admirable. However, after 120 years, it's difficult to stay actively engaged in the story. The experience is more about passively admiring the visuals than being actively involved in the narrative. Nevertheless, Trip to the Moon is still more engaging than many contemporary films, despite over a century of technological innovation. The film's accompanying score was also noteworthy, as it was modern and perfectly matched the movie's atmosphere, demonstrating how far ahead of its time Trip to the Moon was.

There is something almost Arthurian about the opening to this short feature as an ensemble of astronomers gather complete with pointy hats and telescopes. Why? Well they are discussing the likely prospects of a trip to the moon. As you might expect, the conversation gets a little heated but eventually we see the familiar shape of a space module under construction - again amidst considerable discord, though by now we have reverted to ordinary attire. To grand ceremony, their ship is loaded into an enormous gun and they are blasted into space... This is good fun, especially once they have got off the ground and the crew are seen wandering around the moon as if it were the Bois de Boulogne on a sunny Sunday. The sets are of course basic, but given it was shot in 1902 they are still effective as the crew settle down for a nice night's sleep under the eyes of the gods. A spate of what looks like snow forces them underground where they enter a Vernean style environment with huge mushrooms and what I can only describe as a lunar equivalent of "Ben Gunn" before discovering that there is life on the moon after all and it's none too friendly - forcing them to beat a rather hasty retreat. Science this is not, not even remotely, but it's really quite an entertaining film with plenty of movement, acrobatics and even the odd visual effect.

_A Trip to the Moon_ (1902), initially titled in French as _Le Voyage dans la Lune_, is director Georges Méliès' most famous film out of the more than 500 films he made. He stars as Professor Barbenfouillis, who, along with several other astronomers, boards a bullet-shaped spacecraft fired from a long cannon onto the moon's surface. Once there, the astronauts explore the moon, sleep under the open stars, and after a snowstorm, they flee into a cavern where they discover moon inhabitants (called Selenites after the Greek goddess of the moon, Selene). After being attacked, the astronauts return to their spaceship and fall from the moon back to the Earth, where they are welcomed as heroes.
There are multiple versions of this film, both in black & white and hand-colored versions. The 2010 "restored" version of this film is colorized, and it features a modern-day score by the French musical group, Air (with members Nicolas Godin, Nicolas Godin, Jean-Benoît Dunckel, Jean-Benoît Dunckel). This version is a surreal, psychedelic acid trip (which has a long-lost parade scene at the end of the film). The black & white versions, with traditional string scores (and often narration), are easier to watch.
This film gets 3.5 stars mostly because it was the earliest science fiction film and the earliest film containing animation which I have seen.