James Joyce led an eventful and turbulent life. From the beginning, he was something of an outsider. His childhood was impoverished and chaotic. Nonetheless, his alcoholic father ensured that he was educated at Ireland's elite schools. From an early age, Joyce revealed an impulse to rebel against social conventions. He not only rejected the Catholic religion, but, in his own words, 'declared open war on the Catholic church by all that I write and say and do.' He was a brilliant student - winning numerous scholarships and awards - and he was also sexually precocious, frequenting Dublin's prostitutes while still very young. Then, on June 16th, 1904, he became intimate with a young chambermaid from Galway called Nora Barnacle. That date would become the day on which he set all the action of his great novel, Ulysses. Nora became his lifelong partner, and they spent the rest of their lives outside Ireland. For many years, they lived in miserable conditions, but Joyce was ready to sacrifice himself - and others, when necessary - to further his artistic ambitions. Eventually, he won worldwide literary celebrity, but he continued to live in some chaos, and he was still subject to recurrent eye complaints and other serious illnesses. When the Nazis invaded France, he was concerned for the safety of his grandson Stephen, who was half-Jewish. Eventually, he managed to find sanctuary in Switzerland, but he died just a few weeks after he and his family had arrived there. Since then, his fame has grown, and he is now recognised by a towering figure in world literature, with Ulysses often cited as the most influential work of fiction of the twentieth century. The story of Joyce's life and work is presented by the celebrated Oscar-winning actress, Anjelica Huston. She grew up in the west of Ireland, and has had a close association with Joyce's work for many years. She delivered an acclaimed stage performance of Molly Bloom's famous soliloquy from Ulysses some years ago, and also played the lead female role in the last movie made by her father, the legendary director, John Huston. This was an adaptation of Joyce's most famous short story, The Dead. This is generally reckoned to be one of the finest short stories ever written in the English language. Anjelica has said that, when she first read The Dead, it 'spoke to her soul', and her performance in her father's film is little short of sublime. The Dead is widely regarded as the most successful - and the most authentic - adaptation of Joyce's work. However, it was filmed on a sound stage in downtown Los Angeles. Anjelica brings a passionate understanding of the humanity, the courage and the consummate artistry of Joyce's writing. In this documentary, she is joined by other leading writers - such as Man Booker Prize winner Anne Enright, and David Simon, the writer of the groundbreaking TV series The Wire - as she explores Joyce's work, and seeks to explain its universal appeal. Other contributors include Colm Toibin, Dominic West, Ruth Gilligan, Fintan O'Toole, Edna O'Brien, Frank McGuinness, Jeffrey Eugenides and Elmear McBride.

Joy Levine is shabby and worn-out on the outside while well-kept and filled with joy on the inside. Her family is a mess, her father is losing bladder control, her overbearing mother nags her to find a husband and her brother lost his job, but pretends to go to work each day to keep his marriage together. 　　Joy’s life changes when she signs up as a candidate for a TV show named “Gotta Be Happy”. To her astonishment, she is chosen to throw a surprise party for her parent's on the upcoming show. The show is to be aired right after Yom Kippur, with forgiveness being its theme. Joy is required to get all her parent's friends to the party in order to conduct the reconciliation. However, there is a price to pay for all this: she has to let the viewers into her private inner world and share with them an event that has been overshadowing her family's life for the past 22 years; An event that caused a tight-knit bunch of friends to shun her parent's, Chaya and Yitzhak Levine. 　　Joy is a heartbreakingly unforgettable character and the rapturous Sigalit Fuchs is pitch perfect in her depiction. The film is a masterful work from a director who has the uncanny ability to encompass the endearing and the bleak, the innocent and the contemptible with richly drawn characters. 　　The Israeli Film Academy for Best Actress 　　The Israeli Film Academy for - Best Supporting Actress 　　The Israeli Film Academy for - Best Art Director 　　The Israeli Film Academy - Best Costume Design 　　The Israeli Film Academy Award for - Best Original Music

塔莉娅·莱德、黛安·克鲁格将主演传记新片[乔伊卡]！詹姆斯·纳皮尔·罗伯逊([黑马])自编自导。莱德饰演著名芭蕾舞女演员乔伊·沃马克，“乔伊卡”为其俄语名，她是第二位与莫斯科大剧院芭蕾舞团签约的美国女性。克鲁格则饰演乔伊卡的导师沃尔科娃。托马辛·麦肯齐退出该项目。

塔莉娅·莱德、黛安·克鲁格将主演传记新片[乔伊卡]！詹姆斯·纳皮尔·罗伯逊([黑马])自编自导。莱德饰演著名芭蕾舞女演员乔伊·沃马克，“乔伊卡”为其俄语名，她是第二位与莫斯科大剧院芭蕾舞团签约的美国女性。克鲁格则饰演乔伊卡的导师沃尔科娃。托马辛·麦肯齐退出该项目。

改编自真实故事，劳伦斯饰演的乔伊·曼加诺原本是一名普通的单身母亲，之后她凭借发明“魔术拖把”起家，单凭这一项发明就获得了数百万美元的回报。之后她还改良了衣架、熨斗等家用用品，逐渐成为一名成功的企业家，建立起自己的商业帝国。

改编自真实故事，劳伦斯饰演的乔伊·曼加诺原本是一名普通的单身母亲，之后她凭借发明“魔术拖把”起家，单凭这一项发明就获得了数百万美元的回报。之后她还改良了衣架、熨斗等家用用品，逐渐成为一名成功的企业家，建立起自己的商业帝国。

本作是由遊戲改編而成動畫的,原遊戲的內容將力求原汁原味地保留在動畫中,相信玩過這遊戲的人必定蠻了解故事內容,不懷還是稍微為沒玩過的人稍微介紹一下故事內容。故事描述主角--JOE,一個平凡的青年,最大的興趣就是觀看超級英雄--Captain Blue的電影,以及收集相關的週邊產品。某日,JOE聽說戲院將播映傳說中從未上映的Captain Blue電影,立刻慫恿女朋友--Silvia一起去看,正當Captain Blue與邪惡的敵人們展開一場正邪大戰時,出現了不可思議現象。首先,無敵的Captain Blue被敵人打敗了,Captain Blue駕駛得機器人--Six魔神竟然從電影跑到真實世界中,還倒在JOE的旁邊,可是Captain Blue卻不見人影。更怪異的是剛力怪人,竟然把Silvia抓走了,JOE為了救Silvia,也奮不顧身的衝進電影中。這時Captain Blue又出現了,他跟JOE說他已經老了,希望JOE能夠繼承他成為新的超級英雄,就這樣,新一代的超級英雄--Viewtiful Joe登場啦。一部充滿美式卡通風格,在加上2頭身造型的人物設計,就故事而言也是美式的超級英雄VS邪惡的敵人,完全有別於日式的動畫,對於喜好美式動漫的人是一個不錯的選擇吧,而且從1,2集來看,似乎也有蠻多搞笑的場面的,打鬥場面十分有趣,看看笑笑不錯啦!!

爱德蒙·罗斯丹快到三十岁，结婚生子后创作陷入低潮，江郎才尽的焦虑令这位巴黎十九世纪剧作家沮丧不堪。这时缪思却来了，一个令人心动的女孩宣示命运的嘲弄。他唯有通过协助好友追求女孩，同时把情事化为戏语，超越一切嫉妒与痴狂，终成就一代喜剧英雄、一出边写边排的神作。

约瑟夫·博伊斯(Joseph Beuys)，德国著名艺术家，以雕塑为其主要创作形式。这个总是戴着帽子的男人，离世三十年后，仍是个超出自己所在时代格局的预言者。他曾公然解释为何金钱不应该被物质化——因为他知道金钱会削弱民主。除此之外，博伊斯打拳击、谈判、演讲、向一只死兔子的介绍摄影作品……他笑着问：“要不要来一场没有欢笑的革命？”他所拓张的艺术疆界至今还深深影响着社会问题的讨论。

The first thing to strike you about this DVD release is its content: a single film, totalling only 10 minutes and 30 seconds, and absolutely no extras. Admittedly that film does come in two versions – with or without its burnt-in English subtitles – but this provides a choice present solely for language reasons; in all other respects both versions are completely identical. As such we’re not faced with the greatest of enticements – beyond the fact that this is already a disc which will sell only to niche audience – but then Beuys isn’t your typical offering. In spite of its barely there running time it manages to be a dense, playful and provocative work; it shouldn’t be gauged simply by the number of minutes it lasts for, but rather the number of repeat viewings it prompts. Indeed, once you’ve selected which version of the film you wish to watch the disc then happens to play on a continual loop – a fitting quality as you’ll wish to return to it immediately. 　　Ostensibly, and as the title should hopefully have suggested, Beuys is a documentary on the German artist Joseph Beuys, a renowned figure in modern/contemporary art circles and one recently treated to a major retrospective at Tate Modern. This may put the film in the same category as, for example, Clouzot’s La Mystère Picasso, Rivers and Tides (on Andy Goldsworthy) or Right Out of History (on Judy Chicago), yet for each of their respective qualities these works offer essentially conventional records of their subjects. Beuys on the other hand takes a more conceptual approach and as a result perhaps shares a closer kinship with Gilbert and George’s contemporaneous feature The World of Gilbert and George. Here we find Beuys effectively given free rein – his is the only voice, indeed only sound, which we hear; he is the only person to appear onscreen, and in a single take at that; and even the opening credits seem unnaturally hasty in their efforts to move out of his way, having been written directly onto the celluloid and over in seconds – but crucially he doesn’t figure in the expected manner. Rather we find him facing a wall, with his back to the camera and placed in a spotlight so that he becomes almost a silhouette. 　　Indeed, all we see are the hands behind his back and his equally stationary right ear, the rest of his body having been engulfed by a hat and sizeable coat. Under such circumstances he resembles nothing more than a big screen gangster, one in a firing line perhaps or an informant trapped in an intense spotlight. Moreover, the décor seem to match such an interpretation: the walls are painted white and are completely bare save for some electrical fittings which presumably no longer work; apart from Beuys himself the only other visible object is a radiator of standard persuasion. All told it appears that we’re in either a disused factory or some abandoned warehouse – either way it’s a stark environment, but also one teeming with atmosphere. 　　So quite how do we take the film? Have directors Werner Nekes and Dore O. got Beuys in the firing line, forcing him to issue some “famous last words” as it were? And if so, are they this from a “friendly” perspective or perhaps something a little more aggressive? Certainly, he’s the star of the piece and gets his name in the title and even though we never see his face, would not a conventional ‘talking heads’ approach have been the more familiar, and therefore anonymous, approach? Indeed, in this instance he’s afforded a great deal of charisma, treating us to long pauses for maximum dramatic effect, sharing the attire, as said, of a movie star, positioned in such a way so that every movement becomes apparent, and, most importantly, able to command our attention from the very first syllable he utters. 　　Of course, there’s a major possibility that Beuys’ conception would outweigh its content, but really this isn’t the case. Rather the film’s true heart lies in what its subject has to say for himself – his theory on art and perception, how this fits into his own artistic output, and the ramifications it will have in the future, during “the next cultural epoch”. The key question to ask ourselves is not whether the concept is more important than Beuys, but whether it has the desired effect. Had Beuys been a conventional documentary portrait would we be paying it so much attention? Would we return to it time and again? And would it still feel, even on the umpteenth viewing, as though it still had secrets to share?