The Pleasure of Your Company' Runtime: 91min 37sec - Written & Directed by: Michael Ian Black

Plot Outline:
Initially titled, 'The Next Girl I See' then 'The Pleasure of Your Company' & now 'Wedding Daze', it is a comedy that shows us that love has nothing to do with perfection. After losing the woman of his dreams, Anderson (Jason Biggs) is convinced he'll never fall in love again. But at the urging of his best friend, he spontaneously proposes to a dissatisfied waitress named Katie (Isla Fisher) and an innocent dare evolves into the kind of love that both have been looking for all along.

Overall Impressions:
Even before I saw it, first thoughts based on synopsis, a hindi film in the making, expect an almost direct (minus the sex jokes) remake in a year or so & remember where you heard that first.

I'm intrigued as to how this is getting a British release before an American one, makes change but I wonder why?. Anyhoo, with all the two and a half hour flicks out there at the moment this is a nice short flick, with many laughs. It is even has a death in it :)

Subtle references to the principal cast's previous films Scooby-Doo, American Pie and Loser were a nice touch and no hindrance. Also, looking at their filmographies they've both done a film with the word Wedding in it before, maybe that's why they settled with this title in the end?

From the opening to the very end, it's just a funny film, as a bonus, it also fits the bill for a pretty decent chick flick. With the whole, be spontaneous, believe in love & all that jazz attached, but it doesn't get stuck at this level for it's happily throwing logic out of the window to make it a fun ride. Overall I was left surprisingly impressed.

Light hearted & enjoyable. I'd say it's one of the better films showing at the cinema at the moment. You could wait for the DVD, but if you've seen Pirates and Spidey it's not like there's much else on. Go for it.

Magicians' Tagline: Don't ask how they do it, ask why? Runtime: 89min 58sec - Written by: Jesse Armstrong - Directed by: Andrew O'Connor

Plot Outline:
Lifelong friends Harry (David Mitchell) and Karl (Robert Webb) are the greatest magic double act in the country. But after a guillotine illusion goes horribly and spectacularly wrong, their friendship and their careers are finished.

Now down on his luck and out of cash, Harry sets his sights on the prize money of the prestigious 'International Magic Shield' tournament. But to win he will have to compete against the world's oddest (and saddest) magicians - including his deadly rival Karl, performing under the guise of ridiculous psychic 'The Mindmonger'.

Can new tricks and a news assistant (Jessica Stevenson) to help Harry triumph over his underhanded opponents and disastrous past?

Overall Impressions:
It did remind me a little of Blades of Glory, which is no bad thing except it's not as good. The Webb and Mitchell chemistry certainly works and we can tell that simply by the Mac adverts and this film does the same. Unfortunately, majority of the film deals with them individually and so it has many a funny moment, but it also has many moments that were supposed to be funny rather than 'actually funny'.

A pretty simple formulaic variety film, but good fun non-the-less. Not a cinema or DVD must, but one that'll pass the time if you're bored.

Shootout at Lokhandwala'

Plot Outline
On a calm summer day in 1991, in the bustling Lokhandwala Complex, five criminals including Maya (Vivek Oberoi) and Dilip (Tusshar Kapoor) were counting 70 lakhs in flat no. 32 B, when 286 policemen, headed by ACP Khan (Sanjay Dutt), took strategic positions around their building. A gunfire ensued and the entire nation witnessed the most talked about daylight encounter lasting 6 hours that transformed suburban Mumbai into a virtual war zone.

Shootout at Lokhandwala is the story of how the maverick lawmen chased Khalistani extremists, the story of handpicked cops like Inspector Kaviraj Patil (Suniel Shetty) and Constable Javed Sheikh (Arbaaz Khan) who dared to engage trigger-happy gangsters in a residential locality of Mumbai.

On the flipside it is also the story of the other side of the law - Maya, who along with the like of psychotic Dilip Buwa (Tusshar Kapoor), made extortion the buzzword in the early 90's, dared to disobey the big bhai (brother) of the underworld and fought back a posse of policemen for six hours.

This caused massive controversy afterwards as it was rumored that the 'Big Brother' had asked for the shootings to take revenge on his aides who had fallen out with him using the police as his weapons.

Overall Impressions
Interesting to find a film calling itself based on true rumours, rather than inspired by true events. Anyway, from the very opening this throws at you impressive puddles of blood (quite literally). We find ourselves catching the aftermath of the incident with the rest of the nation being reported live on television.

As the police inspectors are being investigated by officials led by Dhingra (Amitabh Bachchan), it takes us back to the beginning, to the events that led to the current day shootout. The rise of the gang, the formation of the Anti-Terrorist Squad, the progressing tension between the two.

We get to know the characters a little and as the narrative progresses, it is interesting to see the parallels between the two sides. How in the end, the deeds of both sides of the law were not so different from each other. The film is engaging throughout (except the songs which are a total hindrance and only flaw to the film), but the best is reserved for the big finale.

Saying the film is raw and crude would be an large understatement. The subject demands that kind of a treatment and thankfully the director has executed it accordingly, but they really really should have not included songs. It only helps break up the tension that had been built up so well.

In a nutshell, blood, gore, guns, no good guys per say, just bad guys vs bad guys with Sanjay Dutt and an equally impressive supporting cast, it's right up my street & if that description doesn't appeal to you, you'll probably hate it, but if it does, don't miss it!!

Pirates of the Caribbean
At World's End'

Plot Outline
After Elizabeth (Keira Knightly), Will (Orlando Bloom), and Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) rescue Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from the clutches of the Kraken (that place where he is dead but he can be brought back from), they must face their foes, Davey Jones (Bill Nighy) and Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander).

Beckett, now with control of Jones' heart, forms a dark alliance with him in order to rule the seas and wipe out the last of the Pirates. Now, Jack, Barbossa, Will, Elizabeth and crew must call the Pirate Lords from the four corners of the globe, including the infamous Sao Feng (Chow-Yun Fat), to a gathering that will make their final stand against Beckett, Jones, Norrington, the Flying Dutchman, and the entire East India Trading Company

Overal Impressions:
Plot outline sound like too much is going on? Well, it only covers half of it, if that. If you haven't seen the other 2 Pirates of the Caribbean films (Curse of the Black Pearl and Dead Man's Chest), this film will make no sense to you at all. That said, even if you have, its still all much too confusing to keep up with. The strange thing is I'm not really sure why half of the subplots are even there.

<*Vague Spoliers*>

When getting Jack back, they encounter another dead old friend, when asked if there is a way, they get the shake of the head, and Elizabeth has to be stopped, she can't go overboard in these waters else there is grave danger, yet in the next scene when they start rocking the boat because up is down, we see ample people (Extras) throw themselves over, but this is okay?

The entire plot around Calypso is clear misdirection with Sao Feng suspecting it was one person when it is later revealed it is another. When we do work out what's going on, it has yet another pointless subplot attached, a little love story that has no resolution. Calypso was locked up only to be released by them all, but it (as opposed to he/she since it's actually a ship) would then betray them, however, Does it? Doesn't it? Do we even see it? What happens with it? All a bit strange and unexplained.

The final battle of the Pirates vs the East India Company, huge numbers of fleets await, yets it's all over when one ship goes down? Why? Cutler Beckett's ship get's destroyed and it falls into a trance of a betrayal. "It's just good business" is what Cutler says walking his ship as it's destoyed, spectacular to watch, but what were they getting at? Were we suddenly supposed to feel sorry for him?

As the Flying Dutchman finally gets freed from Davies, the new Captain allows Turner to walk free but he decides to remain aboard. All very well but what about the rest of the crew, should they not be allowed to walk free too?

These are just some instances, there are so many backstabbings and betrayals that make little to no sense, it's as though they are merely there because, well that's what Pirates do right?

Performances are all top-notch, but it all just gets a bit plot-heavy and wordy to maintain your interest. The only thing gripping you is the odd witty one-liners that aren't too cheesy and the spectacular special effects. Direction, sound visuals, all spot on & it's worth seeing for this, even with the huge plot disorientation.

If you've seen the 1st one, it's a good place to stop. If you've seen the 2nd one you're pretty much commited anyway to see this to see how it is all resolved, but amongst the resolution is so much more to get lost in, that you'll probably wonder if it was worth it.

Is it one of the blockbusters you have to see at the cinemas because of the effects? Yes.
Is it one you'll buy on DVD and watch over and over for fun? No.

Good Boy Bad Boy' Runtime: 114min 57sec - Written & Directed by: Ashwini Choudhary

Plot Outline
Rajan Malhotra (Tusshar Kapoor) is a proverbial bookworm, forever lost in studies and completely oblivious to the frolicking of a college dude. He hails from a well-to-do background and his parents are constantly worried due to his somber nature and his lack of interest in any extra-curricular activities.

Raju Malhotra (Emraan Hashmi) has absolutely no time for studies as playing notorious pranks on others takes up most of his time on a daily basis. His father constantly ridicules him for his wayward ways.

As fate would have it, the identity cards of Rajan and Raju get swapped during a new partitioning of the students is in process. The idea is to split them into a hierarchy of academic achievement into different tiers, and so the games begin ...

Overall Impressions
The games begin.. or do they? The film is supposed to be a comedy and so some of the belief should be suspended, fine, but treating the viewer as a total idiot can be a little much. Quite a lot of the ongoings just don't add up, like how none of the other students seem to twig, even near the end when the parents get to see how well their sons are doing, calling them by another name without the parents noticing, I mean really?

The fact that both students do their best at talent that isn't their forte' and manage it, can be forgiven, that (I guess) was the point of the film. To prevail through difficult tasks and strengthening weaker skills, but are you convinced this is what happened? Not really.

From the writing perspective, it's all a bit of a mish-mash. The music doesn't have all that much to add to the enterprise either. Fortunately the performances hold up a notch above these flaws making it watchable.

Emraan has a natural flair for comedy which appears well for pretty much all of his scenes and though he seems to have cropped up out of nowhere in the acting world, he is actually quite good. Tusshar too is pretty good, in fact I only really watched this film because of him. He's an under-rated actor that just doesn't seem to be getting the right roles to shine. Paresh Rawal as the Principal is competant as always. The women get little scope to do anything here I'm afraid.

So overall, do the performances make up for an otherwise terrible film? Ha, not even close, as I said earlier, it makes it watchable, not good.

Free-flowing traffic is essential to keeping London moving. But it can take just one inconsiderate driver ignoring road signs or driving in a bus lane during operational hours to cause jams and clog up the system. This time, it was me :). In my defence it was a bank holiday Monday a couple of weeks back. I mean seriously, Sundays & Bank Holidays are like free-for-all days, right? Wrong.

TfL is responsible for governing the 580km red route network and carry 35 per cent of the city's traffic. The remaining roads are maintained by the 33 London boroughs. TfL have kindly given me a 50% reduction on my £100 fine, because I paid up within 14 days of their letter, oh I can't contain the joy, a discount. Yipeee!!

I am going to now try and see if I can appeal the matter, wish me luck!

Life in a ... Metro Tagline: One city. Countless emotions. Runtime: 131min 59sec - Written & Directed by: Anurag Basu

Plot Outline
India is shining. The GDP is increasing. The sensex is at an all time high... Malls... Multiplexes ... Cars ... metros ... Everything is growing... Even the distance between the hearts. Emotions run amok in a city that fights for attention. Staying on the top means running someone down; a promotion means sidelining someone else. Love means a 'no strings attached' tryst in a an empty flat. 'Commitment' and 'Love' are words for losers.. or so they say!

But life has a way of turning things around. "Life in a Metro" is a churn of these emotions set in the lives of various people .. people like us.

Overall Impressions
Well, this year we've already had Salaam-e-Ishq and Honeymoon Travels Pvt. Ltd that showed multiple stories running in parallel, this one also falls under the same umbrella in that respect, but similarities do end there. It's a whole different flavour of film. It's a lot more real and gritty. The above mentioned were more glitz and glamour. Also this time round the multiple storylines are more connected rather than a simple one scene crossover.

Rahul [Sharman Joshi] works as a call centre executive in Mumbai. He silently loves his colleague Neha [Kangana Ranaut]. Neha is a smart young woman who has climbed the ladder in a very short time. Partly because She's sleeping with the boss.

The boss, Ranjeet [Kay Kay Menon] is married to Shikha [Shilpa Shetty] with a 6-year-old daughter. As he ventured out on his quest for money and success, he has forgotten his family somewhere along the way. In bitterness and boredom he found solace and a fresh lease of life in Neha.

Neglected by an indifferent husband and bogged down by family chores, Shikha is soon attracted to Akash [Shiney Ahuja], a struggling theatre artist whose wife has divorced him because she cannot stand his failures anymore. As, Akash and Shikha's love blossoms she struggles with the moral dilemma at hand.

Amol [Dharmendra] is a 70-year-old man who returns to India after 40 years. To spend the last few years of his life with his first love, Vaijanti [Nafisa Ali]. The lady lives in an old-age home and is Shikha's aunt and friend. Shikha's sister and Neha's room-mate, Shruti [Konkona Sen Sharma], works at 'Radio Mirchi'. In her 30s and still a virgin, she's desperate to get married. She meets Debu [Irrfan Khan] through a matrimonial site. She doesn't like him much, but it doesn't seem to bother him as he stares at her, smitten.

It sounds quite complex but it all flows quite easily, and that has to be praised in the writing. You're never overwhelmed by the numerous characters or any information overflow. You get to know just enough about the characters, a hard balance to find in such a film. Even the climax and the way each story pans out is a good compromise between filmi & reality.

Particularly the two endings that seem a little depressing, are really not that far from the truth, these things just pan out this way in reality. It's good to see we're not out to simply sell escapism through a happy ending, but throwing in some education too. People do prioritise their culture and responsibilities above what they perhaps should, because this is the way we are brought up.

The music fits around the film well, the use of a band (also called Metro) in all the songs is utilised well to conform a certain theme about the music. However seeing them in every song for a large portion of it, though novel, got quite irritating.

Performances
Seems the spotlight is on Shilpa Shetty these days & it has to be said, she's come a long way since Baazigar where Shah Rukh Khan had the pleasure of throwing her off a building. It's being advertised in the UK as one of her best performances yet, and I agree, it probably is, but let's just say actresses scarcely get scope to improve their acting.

Irrfan Khan is the life of the film, though only in a handful of scenes, he'll be remembered the most. His portions with Konkona Sen are a treat, they both work very well together. Sharman Joshi is good, he's clearly had to underplay the character which he manages to do well. Shiney Ahuja just doesn't get a chance to shine (<-- See what I did there?), but is likable all the same. Kay Kay Menon is someone you'll have no trouble hating, one of the few true villains of today.

So overall, it's not a must go see at the cinema film, but it's certainly worth seeing.

Zodiac'

Plot Outline
Based on the Robert Graysmith books about the real life notorious Zodiac, a serial killer who terrorized San Francisco with a string of seemingly random murders during the 1960s and 1970s who taunts the police with letters and cryptic messages. We follow the investigators and reporters in this lightly fictionalized account of the true 1970's case as they search for the murderer, becoming obsessed with the case, the focus is the lives and careers of the detectives and newspaper people, including one cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhall) who also becomes quite involved with the investigation. Interestingly, this cartoonist is the character of the writer of the novel that the film is based on.

Overal Impressions:
If you don't particularly like these murder thriller type films, I think it will still keep you interested, up to a point, but in the end you may find it a little long. On the flip-side within the genre it's done pretty damned well.

Obviously in my case I found it even more interesting because the principal character is a writer. Following him through his journey of what in the end becomes a book is quite an interesting process. Although it's his obsession into the events that forces the writer out of him rather than the other way round. It easily reflects the obsessive behavior when a writer gets lost in the creative process.

Highly recommend to the crime thriller fans, writers, just about anyone who gets a little obsessed with their jobs, they can take over your life.

I have decided to stop rating films out of 10 -- for one simple reason above the rest, it's just not accurate or fair, I can see a film and become a worshipping little minnion giving it a full 10 out of 10 and then watch it 3 months later and think nye' .. it was okay, 6 out of 10 .. it's vairiable really, rather then a constant. I'll try and thinkup some other kind of rating system, if you have any thoughts let me know.

That's right, Batman Begins Again / Batman Continues / Batman takes his Dog for a Walk .. well thankfully the job of naming the film was left to people who were willing to think out of the box and call it The Dark Knight. Official Site now up .. Word on the street is Teaser Trailer comes with the next Harry Potter film ..

28 Weeks Later'

Plot Outline
28 Weeks Later, the follow up to the higely successful 28 Days Later, picks up six months after the rage virus has annihilated the Brtish Isles. The US Army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that reconstruction of the country can begin .. but they could not be more wrong. As the first wave of refugees arrive, and a family is reunited, a terrible secret is revealed.

Overal Impressions:
I never expected much from this, because it always looked to me like an unnecessary sequel to a pretty decent stand-alone film.

Especially when I found out that Danny Boyle has left the director's chair. My thoughts were, well he's moved on, studios have realised there's money still to be made here, let's not waste this opportunity, I may not be wrong, this may be why they did it, but I don't think so having seen it now, because the sequel is extremely good.

I've stated a few times before, I'm not big on horror, in fact I'm easily irritated by it, so to impress me with a horror in itself is quite something. What sold it to me is the beginning, we're pretty much at that 28 Days Later stage of 'the infected' who I shall refer to as Zombies, hunting down the few human survivors. The entire setup was flawless.

They introduce Don, (No, this is not why I liked the film) played by Robert Carlyle who discusses with his wife how it's been a gift to them that their children are far away from all this and safe. That they'll get through this and as expected before you can say 'you sank my battleship', their abode gets attacked by the zombies, there is a key moment here where Don has to decide whether to run for his life or try to save his almost dead wife, like most human beings would, he runs. This opening had me hooked, it seemed straight out of life & real.

As the film then moved onto 28 Weeks Later, the whole US army on the ready scenario, the return of some refugees, it was all well paced, the calm before the storm, and what a storm.

The very moment where the virus gets back into motion was a shock even though you know it has to happen. From here it's all very much what you expect and more, but for once I actually cared for the characters on-screen as opposed to hoping they'd just die miserably. The zombies are efficient, their stealth certainly adds to their 'scare' factor (which reminds me I need to get my ass to the gym more often and work up one of those 'stamina' things, currently I'd stand no chance at survival).

There is use of shaky camera around the zombie attacks, but unlike what I've heard people say, this isn't a hindrance at all, in fact its highly effective. The ending is quite predictable, but you wouldn't really have it any other way. It's what you'd expect and plausible.

One of the main things that I liked about this film is that there is more to it than a simple zombie-fest, I won't spoil it but there is a sense of depth in the narrative which I don't think you'd normally find in such horrors. Another huge plus, that I think it's be wrong not to mention is the background music, which if I'm correct was also in the original film and is highly effective.

Overall, if you haven't seen a horror in a while and fancy it or are just curious, make sure you see this one, if you're a horror fan you're certainly in for a treat, if you're squirmish and are likely to get a heart attack because you're not cut out for horrors, stay clear, this one's probably not for you.

Lives up to expectations & more. One of the best horrors I've seen. (7.5 out of 10)

Though my current readership here is probably quite low, the general feedback (mostly negative) that I've heard around Spider-Man 3 has got me thinking about my film posts. I mean conventionally what I have done thus far is put up a synopsis and my 2 cents (I wouldn't call it a review really), as to whether I found the film entertaining or not from quite a personal stand point, with the odd standout points, that made me feel one way or another about it.

An interesting email trail between myself and a friend of mine led to me seeing that a lot of critics approach their reviews quite differently to what I have been doing here. Take for example: The Guardian and their review of the film. Please do read it to see what I am saying. Even in the initial blurn before he decides to dicuss the actual film, he just sounds plain bitter about the fact that there are sequels of films around. In fact that whole blurb merely says to me "Summer is here & there are too many sequels thatI'll review, boo hoo".

As you read on, it's more than apparent that the guy did not enjoy Spider-Man 3, my issue with his review is not this though, my issue is with the way he goes about saying this. I do find the Guardian reviews generally quite painful to read because they just attack the writers, actors and directors quite personally. Like a cussing match in the playground that were one-way.

Nothing wrong with that in theory, I mean if they didn't do thair job well, they may deserve it, & even I've done it in the past, however they should get their facts straight and they really don't in this case.

"All superheroes have to be "dark" now of course, to demonstrate their seriousness and non-geekiness, and Spider-Man is no exception. This, evidently, is the film in which he goes over to the dark side"

What is he talking about? Peter was still geeky, his talk of the physics of acoustics in the opening at the theatre & the fact that he takes the sample of this new suit to his professor at college to analyse are just a couple of examples to show he's still a geek. As for all superheroes having to be dark.. Let's see ... Superman Returns wasn't dark, Fantastic 4 wasn't dark, The Incredibles wasn't dark, you get my point.

Next up, "Peter Parker gets bitten by a sort of sticky, spider-webby stuff that has peeled off a meteor recently crash-landed in Central Park - and, er, that's it. A meteor. That's the only explanation. A plot development that must have caused writer-director Sam Raimi a good 20 seconds of Biro-chewing."

Again, get your facts straight, Raimi didn't write the source material himself, it's based on a comic book after all, he can only adapt it so much, else it wouldn't be the Spider-Man story. I mean we've suspended our belief enough to accept he got bit my a radioactive spider that gave him powers, so why the hell is a meteor so far-fetched?

The film did have its weaknesses, but these were not it. Anyway, moving on to a good rant on another blog that I ocassionally post on over at madaboutmovies.net. Now this man didn't think much of it either, but it was easy to read by comparison & to empathise with him, because he is explaining it as a spidey-fan, his expectations and how they were not met. Funnily enough though it is a rant by a fan rather than a review it covers more structural analysis than the above stated so-called review did, okay so the guy that ranted also has a site called Cinema Fusion but that's not the point.

Extract: So, do I blame Sam Raimi for the mess that was Spider-Man 3? Not completely, but of course, to an extent. First and foremost, it just felt like his heart wasn’t in this movie. He was determined to make it known that he didn’t want Venom in the third movie. When it was finally announced by the studio that Venom would make an appearance, the reluctance in his words were apparent. He simply didn’t want to do it - but Marvel producer Avi Arad told Raimi, “You did the first two movies for yourself, do this one for the fans. They want Venom.” .. full post

Back to my mail trail mostly about the film and these two articles, we narrowed it down to one major difference in approach that was apparent: If you know the characters well (via the comics) you're looking for a real life-version of Spiderman, else a real-life Superhero film about a man who becomes The Human Spider.

So, should an ideal film critic approach the film as a film only, to see whether it stands on its own merit and delivers all the complexities of story, plot, character, action, drama & development? Should it also be taking in to account what's gone on previously in the film world to perhaps compare with? (ie; groundbreaking stuff, or not?).. or should it suffice to just do what I do and just blurt your initial reaction?

I'm not suggesting I plan on any huge changes here, though I am toying with the idea of breaking down a film into its structural components, I think that'd be interesting from a writer perspective, just for practice, but anyway .. Your thoughts??

UK Rated: PG - Runtime: 155min 52sec - Directed by: Siddharth Anand - Written by: Habib Faisal

Plot Outline
Rajveer Singh (Saif Ali Khan) is a pit-crew worker in a racing team with a passion for driving who gets discovered by a team manager, Harry (Jaaved Jaaferi). The same day he accidentally bumps into a music student, Radhika (Rani Mukerji), who he falls for instantly.

He gets drafted into ‘Speeding Saddles’ – a failing race team and transforms from Rajveer Singh to “RV” – the race car driver. While his racing career takes off instantly, his love life also blossoms after a whirlwind romance. A few months later, he is both a happily married man and one of the country’s best racers.

Fatherhood and greater success both follow and soon he is the Number 1 race car driver in the USA, as well as the proud father of two precocious kids – Priya (Angelina Idnani) and Ranveer (Ali Haji), but as a result of a bad racing accident, RV is hospitalized for a few months.

When he tries to make a comeback, he realizes that he has been mentally scarred by the accident and has lost his edge. His life now takes a turn for the worse and after a string of failures, he is forced to auction his house and move with his family to a run-down neighborhood. However, RV and Radhika decide not to tell their children the truth and construct a skillful masquerade of a reality show where they have to live a poor life in order to win a mythical grand prize.

The family struggles to survive a life that they are not used to, using a mixture of fantasy and cheerfulness to pull through in the face of adversity. But an incident forces RV to reclaim the life that was taken away from him.

Can he, once again and perhaps for a last time, face down his inner demons on the race track? Can the family remain together in the wake of what could perhaps be their biggest challenge yet?

Review:
Since Shakalaka Boom Boom a few weeks back, we now have another terrible title, in an otherwise decent enough film. Seems to be the 'in thing' these days. It's beyond my comprehension, but it's not like a terrible title will put 'me' of watching a film so moving swiftly on to what the film is like?

Though encompassing a couple who struggle towards and beyond married life, thankfully this isn't primarily a love story. It's about a passionate racer who's family depends on him who goes through a major crisis, trying his best to come through it, and this is the stronger part of the enterprise as it is done extremely well.

The race sequences and stunts are totally believable and something the Indian audience has to date never seen to this level of quality. With Krrish, Don and Dhoom 2 up our sleeves, we do seem to have picked up the pace when it comes to special effects and stunts, that's for sure.

That said, it certainly isn't flawless, in fact the flaws though minor, stand out too sharply to be over-looked as blemishes on this occasion. These include the cliche'd stuck up father-in-law looking down upon RV as the enemy. Also, the unnecessary integration of the romantic scenes and songs in a huge flashback. Though the flashback includes necessary setup of our protaganist, the romance quota though little still seems over-served. It doesn't help that the songs themselves are pretty weak, which certainly comes as a surprise for a Yashraj film.

Music:
You only really walk away with the theme tune in your head (which was utilised better in the theatrical trailer for the film).

The picturisation of the songs are pleasant but pretty generic-fare of the New-York, big-budget film variety. In fact I even felt like I've been at some of the locales (though I've never been to the US) due to having seen earlier Yashraj ventures such as Kal Ho Naa Ho, and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna. Repeated usage of the same landmarks, definitely a no-go, but this is my perspective and passable otherwise.

What does stand out is the kiddie song in the latter half, merging live with animated characters at the Disney store, impressive visually and it certainly catches your attention as the animation here matches international quality, however it is random as hell. It's what I'd expect of perhaps a breakfast cereal advert rather than a feature film.

The substance of the latter half is much more interesting, The plight and stuggle of the family really does moves you. From skipping meals they fund the children's school fees and as the children realise this is the case they themselves secretly decide to raise some money too by skipping meals at schoo. The son even picks up leftovers from the throwaways of others. It's all rather painful yet totally believable. A great setup for what is to follow.

The high point of the film as it should be is the last half hour of the film. Right from the moment RV breaks down into tears as he finds himself struggling, resorting to driving a Taxi, to the pre-climax where he needs money urgently and storms into a hotel, asking for a loan of $65,000. Here kicks in the adrenaline, old friends and new friends unite and roll-on the climax race scene. All superb, almost allowing you to forget the comparably terrible first half, almost.

A slight glitch with the climax in my opinion is it didn't seem much different (except reversed roles) than the interval point -- correction the part I though should have been the interval point. In fact it seems like the exact same scene but with reversed cars. The supposed villain gets his due, but does this not 'literally' reverse the roles pushing our hero into a rather dark side? I wonder. I also wonder if this would indeed be feasible, but I guess this is passable, after all this is fiction & not a 'based on facts' documentary.

Jaaved Jaaferi is the hidden ace in the pack, he is likable in a more serious role. (More serios than his outing in Salaam Namaste previously with the same Director/Producers). The children Angelina Idnani and Ali Haji are not annoying, which is all I tend to ask of child artists these days.

On the whole, Ta Ra Rum Pum isn't the best of films churned out by the Yashraj banner, but they do only pick the best so they can't all be the best of the best. Though it has to be said with great performances and the racing stunts in its kitty, it will certainly do wonders for their reputation individually.

It's a shame I walked out with mixed feelings about the ending, also reminding me of the prior parts that I wasn't too impressed with. It certainly had a lot more potential than the end-product they have churned out.

A good attempt at a an underdog story of survival, however comes a little short. (6 out of 10)

Highlander: Search for Vengeance'

Plot Outline:
In the new tale, the lone warrior Colin travels with the wise-cracking ghost Amergan across a desolate landscape searching for the immortal despot Marcus Octavius, who killed his lover Moya on the Celtic plains tens of centuries ago.

Will Colin lead the people to freedom or become consumed by hate? The answer may lie with the beautiful yet tough freedom fighter Dahlia, who has a mysterious connection to Moya. Colin must confront Marcus in a showdown where the future of all men will be decided. In the end, there can be only one.

Overall Impressions:
It takes for granted that you know the highlander franchise, even though the story makes sense and is explained fully, it's the smaller things, like the Quickening and the Holy Ground that are not explained in much detail. The whole package is another cliche' central.

Amergan is in essence a bitter old Obi-Wan telling Colin how crap he is throughout the film, amusing, but rather pointless, definitely not inspirational in the least. Overall I had a lot of hope for this one but I came out of this thinking, damned another crap sequel. They had it right the first time, I guess in the end there can only be one. (All the sequels were pants too).

Though has a moment or 2 worthy of the Highlander label, overall pants! (4 out of 10)

Paprika'
London Premiere

Plot Outline
29 year old Dr. Atsuko Chiba is an attractive but modest Japanese research psychotherapist whose work is on the cutting edge of her field. Her alter-ego is a stunning and fearless 18 year old “dream detective,” code named PAPRIKA, who can enter into people’s dreams and synchronize with their unconscious to help uncover the source of their anxiety or neurosis.

Having developed such a form of psychotherapy with the invention of a machine, when the device is stolen by a "dream terrorist," it is up to Atsuko to track down the apparatus and save the world from total madness. After all, with great power comes great responsibility & all that ;-)

Overall Impressions:
Such a surreal film, I fell in love with it in the opening sequence. It was so vibrant, colourful, and extreme yet pleasant to watch. It made sense instantly that this would be a dream. I didn't know the plot beforehand, so I thought it did a pretty good job of getting you clued up in the first five minutes with what to expect.

The quirky team around the Doctor all have their place in keeping a parallel line of humour running throughout. As the investigation progresses, it becomes even more and more important for it to be resolved, as dreams start crossing each other and taking over reality.

A special mention to the big guy, who ate like how I used to back in the day, Bravo! The background music also was in tune with the mood of the ongoings and the artwork spectacular throughout.

One of the strangest yet best films I've seen this year!!!. (7.5 out of 10)

Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society'
UK Premiere

Plot Outline
The story takes place in the year 2034, two years after the events in Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C 2nd GIG. Major Motoko Kusanagi has left Public Security Section 9, an elite counter-terrorist and anti-crime unit specialising in cyber warfare, which has expanded to a team of 20 field operatives with Togusa acting as the field lead.

Section 9 is confronted by the mysterious suicides of thirteen operatives of the disbanded Siak Republic, remnants of which found asylum in Japan. They manage to catch up to Ka Gae-Ru, a former Siak Colonel who has taken a hostage in the hope of gaining safe passage out of the country. Gae-Ru says fearfully that "Kugutsu Mawashi" is coming before killing himself.

The investigation begins..

Overall Impressions:
Sound like quite a mouthful to follow? Well it's not all that bad. I'm pretty behind myself with the whole Stan Alone Complex scene, I've seen some episodes from the 1st Gig but I don't remember them, so it can't have done me all that much good. That said, it definitely is a thinker.

I must admit I was quite impressed, particularly with the fact that it was firstly self-contained which came as a pleasant surprise and secondly had a clear undertone of deep and meaningful thought which you only realise as the plot itself unravelled.

A smart film. I understood it and it did get me thinking, however it is probably worth looking at in more detail to get the full benefit of it. I get the feeling it's quite heavily layered. It has certainly caught my attention enough to now try & get my hands on the series.

Highly watchable as it's an animated action thriller, with a mystery. (6.5 out of 10)

Plane Dead
UK Premiere

Plot Outline
Flight of the Living Dead, previously advertised as 'Plane Dead' this film takes you aboard a routine flight from LA to Paris, a renegade scientist is transporting a coffin containing the body of a colleague killed by a genetically-engineered virus.

The jumbo jet collides with two massive thunderstorms and the turbulence triggers the release of the 'flesh-eating' scientist from the cargo hold. And she is very hungry! As the creature feeds, it passes on the deadly virus, working its way through the passengers and crew.

No government will let the aircraft land, and there is talk of blowing it out of the skies. Stranded in the air the remaining passengers are running out of places to hide.

Forget Snakes on a Plane, think zombies on a plane – priceless..

Overall Impressions:
I've had many a discussion with many a people about how they just don't make good 'bad' films anymore, but it seems once in a while they do and this fills a certain hunger I have. From the initial get-go it begins to fill you in with the "cliche central" characters.

The celebrity golfer with club at hand, the retiring pilot on his last flight, the hero cop with attached con artist criminal, the pretty heroine flight attendant, the slutty flight attendant, the nun, the villain doctor who is the one to blame for the whole zombie fiasco and ofcourse the token young couples who will make out in the toilets at the wrong time.

It's all about the setup, which is done to a calculated perfection in my opinion. This is certainly no ground-breaking feature, its a parody in essence, but this is where it scores. The lead-up is the stronger portion I have to admit, but here-on as the sequences of unleashed zombies on a plane kick in, you know you're in for a comical ride. Each and every character that has been introduced play their part in keeping you entertained. I would say it falls under comedy more than it does horror, but there is ample blood-spray and decapitation, so I wouldn't recommend it to the squealing variety of audience.

There are a couple of sequences of "let's go into the basement one by one" and I thought this was hilarious, it really fit the cliche' which we've seen many a time except back then you were supposed to be taking it seriosuly (i think). The whole film to me had a very Family-Guy / Southpark kinda humour about it. -- Pink-Eye in particular.

What I enjoyed the most was the play between the con and the cop, the dialogue between them was totally inspired. You can tell that must have had great fun making this & they're got exactly what they intended.

Perhaps back in the day films like this were made simply because it would be financially viable, and because adventurous sci-fi was less so, but I really think these B-movies have a place to fill in the current day industry too, and I'm really glad they are still doing this.

Nostalgic in itself, a great modern-day interpretation of the B-movie genre. (7 out of 10)

I also wonder if it was based at all on this webcomic of the same title?

Spider-Man 3'

Plot Outline
Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has finally managed to strike a balance between his devotion to Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and his duties as a superhero. But there is a storm brewing on the horizon.

When his suit suddenly changes, turning jet-black and enhancing his powers, it transforms Peter as well, bringing out the dark, vengeful side of his personality that he is struggling to control. Under the influence of the suit, Peter becomes overconfident and starts to neglect the people who care about him most.

Forced to choose between the seductive power of the new suit and the compassionate hero he used to be, Peter must overcome his personal demons as two of the most-feared villains yet, Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) and Venom (Topher Grace), gather unparalleled power and a thirst for retribution to threaten Peter and everyone he loves.

Overall Impressions:
The plot outline doesn't even contain a reference to Harry Osborne and his revenge upon spiderman and with good reason. Three villains, that'd be a bit much right? Well, it's not as bad as I thought but I agree partially, there is a little too much for one film, but it sure ensures you don't get bored at any point. The action has definitely gone a notch up since the last film, as have the villains. I don't mean to sound like I hate him, but it's good to see spidey get beaten around a fair bit, makes it more realistic believable.

The fans of Venom may be a little disappointed with his duration of screen time, but while he is on, it sure is a treat. There are a couple of plot holes, I think, but probably best not to discuss them in the post, perhaps in the comments, if anyone cares.

The routine of Peter, M.J and they're little soppy love story have their place in a spidey flick but thankfully it's kept short this time, making it overall a pretty decent comic-book film. Admitedly I wasn't all that impressed by the first two, this one, I'd say is worth it.

Quite Impressive Visuals. Plenty of Action. Best of the 3 in my opinion. (7 out of 10)

Wild Hogs'

Plot Outline
It's a story of four middle-aged friends who decide to rev up their routine suburban lives with a freewheeling motorcycle trip from Cincinnati to the Pacific. Taking a long dreamed-of breather from their stressful jobs and family responsibilities, they can't wait to feel the freedom of the open road.

When this mis-matched foursome, who have grown far more used to the couch than the saddle, set out for this once-in-a-lifetime experience - they encounter a world that holds far more than they ever bargained for.

Taking their motorcycles, these "Wild Hogs" tear up the road and eventually stop in New Mexico for a drink not knowing that the bar belongs to the "Del Fuegos", a real-life biker gang who are less than amused with their novice approach. As they go looking for adventure, they soon find that they've embarked on a journey they will never forget.

Overal Impressions:
William H. Macy probably deserves the most credit out of the cast ensemble. The others are good but this one is exceptional. I would say it's a film where the performances & the simplicity of the plot keeps you interested. It has some laugh-out-loud moments, but on the grand scale of things it's probably quite a forgettable film.

Though the whole thing is pretty much slap stick, switch your brains off stuff, it still managed to annoy me by taking ittoo far in the climax. Trust me it won't spoil it for you, but how the hell could they afford the gift in the end? It makes no sense even in the world they'd built for this film.

A funny little road trip about America and Freedom & all that stuff. (5.5 out of 10)

Straightheads'

Plot Outline
When a home security alarm installer (Danny Dyer) is invited by a beautiful, confident older woman (Gillian Anderson) he has just met to accompany her to a lavish party in the country he knows he is going to have the best night of his life.

That night, exhilarated by the sexual chemistry they share, and the highly charged sex they have just had, Alice and Adam speed away from the party down a wooded and desolate road in Alice’s fast car. In a moment of distraction, their attention fixed on each other rather than the road, a fateful collision occurs which catapults them both into the path of a most vicious and brutal attack, the consequences of which leave them emotionally and physically scarred.

Overall Impressions:
The film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements due to its lack of focus in all of them.

The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula, in this case, the writer seems to have attempted something more adding a deeper more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail & though I can see this being interesting on paper, it doesn't really work on screen.

Even though the initial pains are gruesome and disturbing, worthy of some payback, the revenge gained is somewhat even more gruesome, making it a little conflicted as to who you like, especially with a buildup of the principal cast being the good guys, the victims. In the end you're not all that sure you like any of them enough to relate to.

You walk away with a feeling of Kill Bill (amongst many others) glorified revenge and this flick attempts to do the exact opposite. The performances deserve positive credit and even the direction is spot on, a little more focus on future writing would be my advice to the chap.

A good attempt at a revenge film, that lacks focus. (5 out of 10)