Thank you very much for not splitting this movie into two parts. As a member of _The Death Cure's_ audience I do genuinely appreciate that.
I am less appreciative however of the movie itself. It doesn't at all pay off the confusion I suffered at the hands of the franchise. My opinion on the _Maze Runner_ series has been mixed, but I feel certain that this one is the worst, and not only that, but it kind of retroactively made me appreciate the first two less.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._
"Batman" certainly can't be beaten just for pure entertainment value. It was a high profile event movie and you can immediately understand why with a stellar cast such as this one on board along with director Tim Burton - just fresh from the successful "Beetlejuice" (1988) at the time - behind the cameras. They have unquestionably produced a fast paced feast for the eyes in every way possible and Gotham City itself is a shadowy, sinister, and menacing place. It is also an extremely good idea to completely remove it from the light hearted and garishly coloured television series and pretty much make the primary colour black with the only exception being The Joker's overly colourful costumes which perfectly reflect the clownish exterior of this truly ruthless and cold blooded killer. This film deserved to do well and it will probably remain a highly enjoyable guilty pleasure for many more years to come.
"Batman" never was my favourite superhero, and although Michael Keaton tries hard here to inject a little soul into the character, I'm afraid I found Jack Nicholson's totally over-the-top "Joker" to be just annoying and the whole film to be little underwhelming. "Gotham City" is essentially an urban jungle under the boot of the menacing "Grissom" (Jack Palance). He and his sidekick "Napier" (Nicholson) - who only has a limited grasp on his sanity - have a bit of a falling out, though, and the latter man is soon swimming in a vat of deadly chemicals... The result? Well his madness is now completely unleashed on his former boss then on the entire city as he attempts to gain complete control. Luckily for DA "Harvey Dent" (Billy Dee Williams) and Police Commissioner "Gordon" (Pat Hingle) the city might just have a chance of salvation in the form of our eponymous, black leather-caped, crusader. Equipped with a bullet-proof car, a super-charged motor bike and some heavy duty kevlar body armour he vows to take on the criminal element and restore some sort of order. He, too, has his demons - which we learn about as the story develops, and it seems they can only be tempered by his loyal retainer "Alfred" (Michael Gough). As the stakes rise, it soon becomes a man-to-man combat scenario that I found all rather too theatrical. The visual effects are solid, the audio and lighting also work well to create an at times intimidating atmosphere, but I just found myself missing the point. There can be no doubt that Nicholson's performance as an actor is outstanding, but for me it created a relentless, almost pantomime-style, character that as it persisted just rather left me looking around the cinema wondering what Burt Ward was doing nowadays. Groundbreaking it was in 1989. In 2023 - well I'm not at all sure. It does look good, though!
Probably one of the first serious attempts at bringing a comic to the big screen with a decent budget. The vision of the world is brilliant. Keaton's Batman is spot on and the Prince soundtrack ties the whole thing together perfectly. Unfortunately, Tim Burton's flamboyance lets things down in the end. But still the most memorable Batman to date. Although Ben Affleck's jaded, grumpy and bulked-out depiction of the character in Batman V Superman is my favourite.
There will never be a greater batman or movie ever. The original is still the only good batman movie out there. They keep trying but they had it right the 1st time, and they messed it up now.
**Batman 1989 burst on the scene shattering the box office and rewriting the rules of comic book films with dark characters and high stakes in ways no superhero movie had seen before.**
Superhero movies of the 70s and 80s were bright and colorful, goofy and optimistic, champions of truth, Justice, and the American Way. Movies like Superman, Supergirl, the original Captain America, and even Adam West’s Batman all fit this vibe and aesthetic, with many overly campy but charming. This made Tim Burton’s darker, more violent Batman a huge gamble. Warner Bros literally sank every last penny they had into the movie as the studio was collapsing and going out of business. A dark superhero film with murder and blood? Michael Keaton? Mr. Mom himself as Batman? It was a massive risk with a tremendous payoff! Warner Bros survived and thrived off the enormous box office profits, and Batman reinvented the superhero genre showing that adults could enjoy superhero movies too. Even though Batman 1989 is a little dated and campy now, it broke every mold when it was released. Michael Keaton proved himself as the incredible star and bankable actor that he is. Jack Nicholson’s Joker stood as the iconic standard for villains for decades. Kim Basinger’s Vicki Vale is still one of the best Batman love interests to date. Tim Burton saved superheroes and movie studios with this dark reinvention of the comic book genre. It’s a true superhero classic.
_**Looks good, but surreal and tedious**_
Tim Burton's "Batman" (1989) is _so_ disappointing! Yeah, the costumes, sets, cast, cinematography and music are great, but the story is unrealistic, goofy and, worst of all, dull; in other words, it siphoned! Tim Burton is outstanding with visuals, but he failed to incorporate an interesting story. What good is a BORING film that looks great and doesn't take its subject seriously? This is a quintessential example of style over substance.
Most of the high ratings are from people who saw it when they were kids and they're just nostalgic. If they viewed the film objectively as an adult, with respect to the true Batman of the silver/bronze/modern age of comics, they'd have to admit that it's not a good interpretation.
Sure, it could be accepted as a sort of an ALTERNATIVE Batman; a friend of mine who's in the comic business said this was the only way he could appreciate it. But if you want to see a serious Batman flick, true to the legend of the Dark Knight, catch "Batman Begins" (2005) and its sequels, they blow this overrated soporific dud out of the water.
The movie's overlong at 2 hours, 6 minutes.
GRADE: C
Vision not fully realised, but still a template of sorts.
It could never have lived up to the hype back in 1989, it was hailed as the film to rival the impact of "Jaws" & "Star Wars" as regards historical cinema conventions, it was, we were led to believe, a new age in cinema, or so it seemed. As it was, the film went down a treat for the modern cinema going audience, it raked in cash galore and spawned a raft of very inferior sequels, even though ultimately critics of the time were less than impressed.
So it makes for something of an interesting experience viewing it again as each decade passes. More so in light of Christopher Nolan's bank busting "Dark Knight" series of films. I remember the hype and marketing campaign (T-Shirts and toys bonanza) that ensured that the film could never live up to the gargantuan hype, and I'm honest enough to say that I was a little underwhelmed on first viewing. Yet time has been very kind to it, now showing that Burton had the nous and foresight to reignite a genre without going purely for kiddie like appeasements.
Visually the film still stands up with the best that today's genre pieces can offer, the sets are incredible, with Anton Furst rightly winning the big award for his work here, whilst Burton's dark and deep tone captures the essence of Gotham City and Bruce Wayne's troubled mind perfectly, but does the cast fully realise the potential on offer?. Michael Keaton as the troubled and vengeful Bruce Wayne, is a fine actor and it would only be in time where his take on Wayne the man would be appreciated, as the caped crusader he is outstanding and he set the bar high for all those that followed him.
Jack Nicholson has the time of his life camping it up as The Joker, and he steals the film for sure. This is not because he is acting with great poise and class, but purely because in a film calling for the battle of two unhinged characters, he is the one awash in colour and overacting the maniacal side of the character to the max. Kim Basinger looks great but doesn't have to do much as Vicki Vale except say her lines right, pout, look scared when required and scream with conviction, and she does all of these. But really any other actress could have done the same thing - though I'm personally relieved that Sean Young dropped out of the film and thus allowed some other actress to step in.
The supporting cast do OK, and the soundtrack by Prince pushes the boundaries of annoying caricature indulgence. Ultimately it's a fun ride, respectful of the source material and giving the comic book genre of fil a shot in the arm. Yet you can't help feeling that there is some great Burton vision here that never got fully realised. And that is a damn shame, and something that Burton himself would come to admit down the line. 8/10
Alicia Wikander picks up where Angelina Jolie left off and after about fifteen minutes, I am fairly certain that she would have wished she had left well alone completely. I certainly wished she had. She is "Lara Croft", left a fortune after her industrialist/explorer father mysteriously disappears. Seven years on, decisions have to be made and she finds herself stumbling over clues that might lead to answers about where pop (Dominic West) disappeared to. That takes her on a series of sterile, well-choreographed, escapades with loads of "Indiana Jones" style adventures, stunts, fight scenes and shoot outs with bows and arrows and guns alike. Fortunately, her newfound foes couldn't hit a cow on the tit with a tin cup most of the time. Except, maybe the mean and moody "Vogel" (Walton Goggins) who at least looks like he is enjoying himself a bit throughout this otherwise unimaginative reimagining. Dame Kristin Scott Thomas and Sir Derek Jacobi must have had tax bills to pay as they show up for a few scenes at the beginning and a few more near the end as the dastardly ploy thickens, but the rest of this - at almost two hours - is really pretty procedural and disappointing. The production looks fine, but somehow the whole thing just never quite gets out of second gear.
"Not dead yet, no sh*t!"
Wanted to see this because I'm a long time fanboy of the game series. Liked the old movies with Angelina Jolie, perfect for a teenage boy with the humor; action and a beautiful lead actress.
Alicia Vikander delivers a solid performance combined with a more realistic plot. Great action sequences with a nice cliffhanger for a sequel.
Only downside would be the role of Daniel Wu as there was no need for a sidekick who isn't really included in the storyline.
Your regular action-adventure that gets lifted above the rest because of the solid and stunning lead actress.
Some of the most generic shit ever put to screen. Don't get how this was supposed to please anybody, Tomb Raider fan or otherwise.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._
As a video game to movie adaptation Tomb Raider works on nearly every level, the only flaw being that there's so much of Tomb Raider to pack into two hours.
I had great expectations for this film and wasn't disappointed in the least. On the contrary, it was a blast from beginning to end with Alicia Vikander lending a nice touch of innocence to Lara, which is a clear nod to the 2013 game reboot which is what the film is based on.
Her tortuous relationship with her dad was predictable, but it wasn't overdone and it's a key element in the Lara story. On the other hand, we're plunged into the action right away and in that respect I was more than happy as the scenes were both exciting and typically Lara Croft. She uses keys, there are puzzles, traps,maps, evil foes and magnificent set pieces that, if you've ever played the games, will be instantly recognisable as Tomb Raider.
Much as has been said about the last two games perhaps giving a conflicted projection of Lara Croft - on the one hand a tormented soul and on the other, a ruthless killing machine. In all the games, she always killed the foes just to survive and the balance was just right here, with Alicia Vikander lending just the right amount of steely determination to the role.
More importantly, I could relate to the film having played all the games - the plane on top of the waterfall, the rolling spikes and the collapsing floor later on - all drew me in wonderfully.
I'll take two please, or preferably three!
Your typical adventure film. Neither Vikander nor Goggins stand out. Though there was the screen debut of Daniel Wu as Lu Phen.
Wow!
ok walking into this movie i knew it was going to be fun not sure how much fun but fun however hen i sat down i got a treat there was a ton of action it was a really good movie too it had lots of adventure too and a good plot i really enjoyed it my only gripe is the begining is very slow but besudes that i say go see this movie
**Great twists. Great Fun. Great acting. Great movie!**
As a sucker for heist/con films, I love this movie! Great cast, a fun plot, and just great escapism. After seeing hundreds upon hundreds of movies, I rarely am caught off guard by "surprising" twists, but this movie took turns I didn't expect, and absolutely loved it! Probably not as great as my rating would imply, but if you love a good con artist flick, you will enjoy Focus thoroughly.
> Kicked off well, kept the momentum, but the end was...
It's a Will Smith's movie, anyway, I was going to watch it, but when the initial cast dropped out, followed by a couple more, simply intrigued me. Actually, I enjoyed the film, but did not like it because of the bad ending. It was a good twist, except the shooting thing. An example how a tiny part can decide the entire movie's fate.
Well written crime-drama, with a touch of romance. After all the obstacles, the final cast were at their best. Heist movies always excite me because of the involvement of the tricks and thrills. Nicky, a con artist who recruits a small time thief, Jess to work with his gang. When the job and the romance advancing smoothly, an unexpected split happens. So the years passed, when they meet again, what comes is the crux of the remaining story.
The first half let us know what kind of character the Nicky is. His overwhelmed dedication for his undertaking and his reliable team's the focus. Overall, it was the best portion of the movie, and the next half goes for the giant kill, but lacks enthusiasm. More like a revenge or jealousy type narration, but only until reaching the climax where it tries being a very clever and happen all the things at a brisk pace.
The film was better than I thought, after learning it was criticised, mostly very badly. Would have been a bit better if the writing was cautious for the crucial parts. Importantly, like I said the end part. 'Yes' for the entertainment it provided and 'no' for one of the best products of the year,
6½/10
"Focus" blends two different movies in roughly equal measure. One is a movie about con men, scam artists and hustlers, in the tradition of "The Sting," "Ocean's Eleven," "House of Games" and "Shade." The second movie is a romantic comedy between two people who are strongly attracted to one another, but who cannot and do not trust each other.
The movie about con men is brilliant. The hustles and scams are clever and cleverly executed with excellent skill and tradecraft. Dramatically, the double-blinds and double- crosses are well executed. The players con their marks, one another and the audience with finesse and aplomb. The cinematography, choreography and editing are crisp. The reveals are plausible within the film's cosmos of reality.
The romantic comedy is not bad. One can understand and believe the attraction between the two characters. Will Smith's character is hunky, clever, confident, successful and wealthy. Margot Robbie's character is gorgeous, sexy, vulnerable, clever and charming. But the major plot points in this boy finds girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back subplot seem contrived, while the intriguing aspect of their relationship (How can two con artists with a history of deceiving one another learn to trust one another?) isn't explored in a satisfactory manner. Instead we get a breakup for reasons that are never explained, a repeated gag involving a wallet, and a massive coincidence that leads the audience to believe one of them has a hidden agenda involving the other. The relationship between them works best when they are conning one another, but it needs resolution.
Technically, the film is beautifully done. Cinematography, locations, wardrobe, make-up, editing, audio -- everything is polished. It's a movie that merits a second or third viewing, not only to see the cons played out, but also to appreciate some of the subtle foreshadowing.
Excellent movie for Legos ;) . Great for the whole family as well as adults. I had quite a few chuckles from this film and enjoyed it the whole way. Animation was great and the movie had a fairly decent plot as well. I give it 2 thumbs up, I could see myself watching this a second or third time with the familiy.
Sylvester Stallone is "Rocky", an enforcer for a small-time Philadelphia mobster who works out in Burgess Meredith's gym ("Mickey's") and is keen on the sister of his friend "Paulie" (Burt Young), the shy and retiring "Adrian" (Talia Shire). Meantime, World Heavyweight Champion "Apollo Creed" (Carl Weathers) finds his impeding tilte defence kybsoshed by an injured challenger. At this point serendipity takes a hand and "Creed" decides to pluck a challenger from obscurity - and he chooses the "Italian Stallion". What follows is a solid, engaging tale of grit and determination as the champion assumes it's all in the bag and together with his tight-knit team, the challenger is focussed and determined to, at least, go the distance. Sure, Stallone isn't an actor in any traditional sense - he is more of a character, he oozes the part rather then portrays it - and that is what makes this work. You are subsumed into his life, his love, his training and his ambition - almost as the then aspiring Stallone would have been whilst writing and making the film. The action scenes are first class, and the charisma offered by the star, and by trainer Meredith help this stand the test of time well. There are holes in the plot - but they are fairly easy to overlook if you allow the sentiment and strong performances to take and keep hold of your imagination. Great stuff.
Rocky is an inspiring story about an ordinary man who takes advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
I do have to say, the movie has a rocky beginning, as the dialogue is pretty clunky and awkward at times. But after about twenty minutes, the movie really gets into its groove and had me locked in till the end. My favorite aspect of this film is the humanity it has; it takes a look at a big and intimidating fighter in Rocky and explores his emotions and insecurities. My favorite scene is when he lays in bed next to Adrian with the sudden realization that he cannot win this fight. It was an incredibly vulnerable moment for him and worked really well.
As I said before, the dialogue is very inconsistent, especially in the scene at Rocky's house with Adrian. It was very unsettling to watch because she is written as if she does not want to be there, but then the next second she is in love with him. It was very weird and creepy. On the other hand, in some scenes, the dialogue is written very well, which lends itself to boosting the actors' performances. But when it is off, the acting on display is negatively affected. Despite that, this movie gets a lot more right than it does wrong in the script department.
Technically, this film excels. The score is fantastic, with one of the most iconic songs in cinematic history. The cinematography is top-notch, with some incredible shots in the city and very creative angles used during the training sequences.
Overall, this film lived up to every ounce of hype it had behind it, and I thoroughly enjoyed every second spent with these characters.
Score: 98% |
Verdict: Masterpiece
This was the ultimate Rocky story wasn't it?
It was inspiring with the training, it was inspiring with the fight, and it was about the characters and the characters are what makes a great story.
The down side was Creed, he was a little under-developed in this wasn't he? They make up for it in Rocky II, III, and IV, but in Rocky he felt like a faceless nemesis didn't he? He was Mohamed Ali without real depth in this and the story could have used to develop him a little more in the first one.
But... we got it in the sequels.
The biggest selling point was the love story... I know mushy, right? ... but they did a great job of making it awkward and at times intimidating as well as absolutely sweet and charming and it was completely realistic and believable.
You could sit down and watch it and understand how they fell for one another. You got a sense of who they were and that carried over into Rocky II... but kind of ended in III and we only caught a glimpse of it here and there until Balboa.
Still, it was the low budget movie that stole out hearts. And it was the inspiring story about the underdog, and Rocky movies are best when they inspire.
**The following is a long-form review that I originally wrote in 2012.**
Jesus Christ. What just happened to my brain?
I was worried that _Cabin in the Woods_ was gonna be a letdown, ‘cause I had built it up so much in my head, and it seemed such a ridiculous concept that it would have been nearly impossible to pull off flawlessly. And maybe it won’t go to join the ranks of my favourite films in existence, but it was… So. Fucking. Good.
Drew Goddard (who wrote _Cloverfield_) is no stranger to working with Joss Whedon (_Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Avengers_) and my God do they ever make a team. Joss Whedon is my unopposed all-time favourite person involved in the film industry in any way, shape, or form. Which is quite the claim, given my interests. He’s had a couple of fuck ups, and been fucked around a few times too, but all in all, nobody captures me quite the way he does.
I’ll try and aim for not-spoilers, if you watch the trailer you’ll get that this isn’t a typical horror movie. You’ll also pick up on that if you watch the first 5 minutes of the damn thing. I won’t go into the finer details, but let me just reiterate, it is NOT a slasher film. There’s a fair amount of horror, some action, some sci-fi, a bit of fantasy, some short but sweet comedy, a bunch of thriller, a little monster-movie, a bit of homage and a healthy (but not overdone) dose of parody. Joss Whedon tends to do that, his work is usually less in the horror genre and more in the… Genre genre. If that makes sense.
I seem to recall it performing kind of averagely at the box office, but critical reception was fantastic. And rightfully so. And fan-aimed movies as good as this always manage to fall into their cult, so there’s a pretty avid group of people who are super keen on it, too. Again, rightly so. I think the best (as well as most important) thing about _Cabin in the Woods_, is that it pumps some new blood into horror. Sure, it wasn’t 100% original, but then it never claimed to be. At least it wasn’t a sequel or another bloody remake.
Seriously, I hate on remakes much, much less than most, but come on people! This is all rather ridiculous. Imagine if the Wachowskis had said “Hey, we’ve got this great idea for a dystopian, industrial sci-fi type thing called _The Matrix_… Actually, you know what? That sounds like an awful lot of effort. Let’s do an over the top American remake of _The Castle_ instead!” Yeah, sounds like a great world to live in. Fuckin’… Lazy ‘n shit…
Lost track there, anyway! _Cabin in the Woods_! Fuck! Good! Watch that shit! Make up your own mind of course, but I really dig it. There’s something to be said for being fucked up and going with it. I’m sure some people will dismiss _Cabin_ entirely, because it’s so out there. And I’m sure even more people will get pissy about the ending. But if you have no expectations, and just try enjoy the ride, then I think you damn well might.
87%
-_Gimly_
This is another one of those movies where I cannot understand why so many people give it so high scores. Sure it’s not a really bad movie but, personally, I found it only moderately good. I’m not sure whether the movie was intended to be scary or funny or both. It wasn’t very funny though and only moderately scary.
It has been presented as a not-your-usual-teenage-slasher-horror movie. Well, it sure has an interesting twist but…it is still a teenage slasher horror movie. The twist could really have lifted the movie but unfortunately this good idea is pretty much wasted in a poor implementation.
Instead of holding on to the surprise it’s spoiled right away with that eagle flying in to the force field (since when did we learn to build force fields by the way?). Another thing that really drags down the film are these utter morons in the control room. If this was really a matter of survival of mankind then you would have thought that it would have been left to professional people and not these jerks.
The movie isn’t all bad though. With the exception of these major flaws it does pass as a decent slasher/horror movie and makes for a reasonably entertaining hour and a half of not too intelligent movie watching. The part nearing the end where all the monsters goes on a rampage is rather fun to watch. I was not very impressed by the end itself though. That was rather uninspired I would say.
Finally got around to The Cabin in the Woods. 8/10, great fun. A Joss Whedon-(co)written (also co-written and directed by Drew Goddard, who wrote Cloverfield) take on an old horror staple in which 5 stereotypical teenagers (an academic, a jock, a stoner, a slut and a "nice" girl) venture out into the woods for a dirty weekend. It's no spoiler to say that these unfortunate young naïfs appear to have been cherry-picked and are being heavily monitored all the way into the woods by some very (very) high-tech manner of... what? Government agency? It's with these fellows that we visit first, before we ever meet our protagonists; two middle-aged, white collar I.T. types, a little brow-beaten by what appears to be a fairly monotonous job (although it really ****ing isn't) but full of typical office cameraderie and essentially confident in their own competence and that of the numerous other departments that make up this rather large-scale operation. Whoever is watching our heroes/heroines, they're big-time. So, what's happening? To say more would be to start giving things away, but those kids are very deliberate archetypes, placed in a very deliberately typical horror scenario. Because it's an American film set in America, it's called The Cabin in the Woods as is befitting the conventions of God-knows-how-many American horror flicks. Were it a J-Horror set in Tokyo, it would be called The Freaky Long-Haired Schoolgirl Ghost, an assertion ably illustrated in the film itself to great and rather humourous effect.
Decent performances all-round, even the deliberately irritating characters are kind-of likeable. A pre-Thor Chris Hemsworth is particularly good as is Richard Jenkins (Nathaniel "The Dead Patriarch" Fisher from Six Feet Under). It threw me a bit, this film, because in purposely not looking too deeply at what it was about prior to seeing it, I mistakenly thought I was about to watch a seriously scary and effective horror, and this isn't the case at all. It's a slick product with what looks like a decent budget as you'd expect from a Joss Whedon project (in case you've been under a rock somewhere, he of Buffy/Angel and latterly of The Avengers fame) and it's loaded with nods to other horror literary and cinematic classics (The Evil Dead, Hellraiser, The Strangers and HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos are all fairly explicitly referenced), but it's not especially gory, it's intentionally funny more often than it's intentionally scary and it's a real thrill-ride, a slice of fun. It's not quite there, but it's a damn site closer to "Horror-Comedy" than it is to balls-out "Horror". It's not perfect by a long way - it instills bags of concerned curiosity in the viewer, but provokes almost zero real tension whatsoever. And late-on a special effects extravaganza treads clumsily into Night at the Museum-for-grown-ups territory. But it remains a great way to spend a couple of hours.
Hilarious and frightened: shaken, not stirred.
Great movie, one of the best in this "genre" for quite a while.
Oddly enough, I did prefer this to the original (2005) outing for this not so very fab-four. This time the "Reed" (Ioan Gruffudd) and "Sue" (Jessica Alba) romance is about to tie the knot when the army intervene to enlist their help is dealing with the menacing threat posed by a mysterious "Silver Surfer" (who looks like an award your eight year old might have got for a Californian surfing competition in 1975). Anyway, it turns out that he is but a precursor to the far more deadly, planet gobbling, "Galactus" who is hungry - and Earth is on his menu. Meantime, good old "Victor Von Doom'' (Julian McMahon) has not forgotten his shabby treatment from the last time, and so has his own agenda that will manipulate the army and the messenger and, he hopes, give him world domination. Can the four put aside their differences and save the day? What do you think? This is about as unmenacing and devoid of jeopardy as any adventure film could ever be. Again, Evans - now even more cock-sure than before, has all the best lines and action scenes (such as they are) and the special effects are well presented. The casting and writing, though, continue to let the whole thing down and the plot really does lurch along to an ending that - like "Galactus", you could see from space! Hopefully the last of these, and it's now pretty clear why "Hornblower" isn't going to make an Hollywood star anytime soon.
CinePops US / International 
CinePops Spain 
CinePops France 
CinePops Italy 
CinePops România 
