陈默自掏腰包为村里修建防涝泵房，却被周老歪造谣中伤，村民集体逼他拆除。特大暴雨来袭，全村鱼塘被淹、血本无归。走投无路的村民终于醒悟，跪求陈默原谅。陈默放下个人恩怨，出资重建泵房，用科学方法带领大家重启养殖。面对王老板的诬陷与破坏，他依法维权、公开检测，用事实赢回声誉。塘溪村从此产业兴旺、人心凝聚。

安东尼（艾尔伯特·杜邦迪 Albert Dupontel 饰）是一名外人看来非常成功的广告商，和妻子西西里（玛丽-乔西·克罗兹 Marie-Josée Croze 饰）结婚多年，夫妻两人之间感情一直十分要好。某日，在约见一位非常重要的客户时，安东尼一反常态的情绪非常的暴躁，不仅辱骂了客户，还撕毁了合约。回到家后，安东尼对待妻子也十分粗暴，妻子怀疑他有外遇了，对比安东尼并没有给出任何的辩驳或结识。 朋友们偷偷的为安东尼筹备了一场派对想要逗他开心，哪知道在派对上，安东尼和所有人都产生了冲突，其中包括漂亮性感的魏吉妮（克里斯蒂亚娜·耶里 Cristiana Réali 饰），没有人知道安东尼到底是怎么了。

盖伊·马丁受邀到塔尔·贝拉的电影学院时，和学生们一起完成的一个短片，改编自著名先锋电影导演László Moholy-Nagy写的一个剧本构思。（László Moholy-Nagy的原剧本构思介绍：https://blogs.princeton.edu/graphic arts/2010/12/l_moholy-nagy.html）

他们知道，一旦被发现，一切都会结束。 一对高中情侣努力守护他们的秘密恋情， 在嫉妒、误解和被发现的恐惧中艰难前行。 他们的爱情始于学校空无一人的体育器材室。 他们立下一个约定： 「如果有人发现我们的关系，我们就分手。」 他们相爱——却不得不隐藏。 一个关于两个少年在冲突、距离与脆弱中学会爱的动人成长故事。

One of America’s foremost practitioners of the essay film presents a major new work inspired by the writings
 of Gilles Deleuze on cinema. The Thoughts That Once We Had is a richly layered journey through cinematic history, masterfully edited as it playfully moves across decades and genres, and suffused at every turn by the renowned filmmaker and critic’s lifelong passion for the movies.

七年项链，领证当日女主竟提出要与朋友结婚三年，以此完成业务经营考核。她笃定男朋友会原地等候，可他心灰意冷，决然斩断过往，。随着工坊审计、技术授权与千万贷款的真相层层败露，女主如梦初醒，她失去的从来不止一纸婚约，而是再也等不回来的真心。

退休老中医陈青山倾尽积蓄帮扶女儿一家，却遭女婿冷漠算计。一盒葡萄引爆积怨，心寒的他毅然离家，回老街重开小医馆重拾医者尊严。女儿在婚姻受尽委屈后幡然醒悟，果断离婚自强，追随父亲研习家传医术。历经前夫恶意刁难，父女二人坚守医者仁心，终传承医术、安稳相守。

上世纪50年代，女主角林波儿随养母到香港艰难营生。但她坚持传承南音，在闽南侨胞的帮助下一举成名，被东南亚影迷誉为“一代旦后”的传奇故事。

Saratan is a film made in 2005 by the Kyrgyz director Ernest Abdyjaparov, with financial assistance from Germany, and distributed in the West by a German company. The film was made more than ten years after the demise of the Soviet Union - when the various socialist republics suddenly found themselves with unexpected independence – which brought with it an economic malaise following the withdrawal of Moscow’s subsidies, and an ideological vacuum which together left Kyrgyzstan and its neighbouring Central Asian republics facing economic hardships and social upheavals. It centers on the lives of people in one small Kyrgyz village, a snapshot of life with happy and sad elements side by side. It can also be seen, however, as providing a comment on the country’s history, society and culture in the period following independence, “where the average citizen is struggling with a sheer insurmountable number of difficulties.” Fourteen years into independence, there are several things that just don’t seem to work in this small Kyrgyz village: the farms are not working; the people are poor without prospects for a better future although a few “rich” people have benefited – to the disadvantage of the average villager, employment is virtually non-existant and the little money that is earned is, all too often, spent on vodka. More than 40 characters populate the film and provide a kaleidoscope of personal stories and relationships. Amongst them are: drunkards, thieves, philanderers, hypocrites, adulterers, layabouts, a malicious jester, a shaman, a cheating wife, a mullah who oversleeps and has to rush to conduct morning prayers in which no-one seems to take an interest, a traffic policeman directing non-existent rush-hour traffic in the village square, the local mayor struggling to cope with an apathetic community in which seems to take him seriously, a Jehovah’s Witness missionary who finds an avid in the Communist die-hard as they share a prison cell, a cattle thief and his family who utter an Islamic prayer fused with nomadic gestures when slaughtering a stolen lamb The “heroes” of the film, however, are the “Kyrgyz people” – who, despite the trials and tribulations of everyday life in a depressed economy, nevertheless manage to overcome them and find ways to cope with the apparent hopelessness of their situation. Two phrases used by reviewers in describing it are: ”a happy-sad snapshot” and “tragicomic tales of politics, tradition, modernity, pride and honour”. The humour is underlined by a elements of satire, cynicism, self-mockery, a sense of absurdity and occasional moments of “slapstick”. It was made on a small budget – just USD120,000 – and has been shown in a number of film festivals in Berlin, California, Cardiff, London and Marakesh – where it was the “Golden Star” prize, and in Russia where it has also won prizes. Abdyjaparov says: “As far as context is concerned, this film is about difficulties of Kyrgyzstan for the last 10 years after it became independent from the Soviet Union. I showed it [the history of Kyrgyzstan] through a small Kyrgyz village, its history, people, social, economic and even philosophical issues and developments. I tried to show the whole country’s fate by showing one village,” .