Black Sheep

Plot Outline
Terrified of sheep and dosed up on therapy, Henry Oldfield (Nathan Meister) returns to his family's farm to sell out to his elder brother Angus (Peter Feeney), unaware that something baaaad is going on: Angus' reckless genetic engineering program.

When a pair of inept environmental activists release a mutant lamb from the laboratory onto the farm, thousands of sheep are turned into bloodthirsty predators. Along with farmhand (Tammy Davis) and greenie girl Experience (Danielle Mason), Henry finds himself stranded deep on the farm as his worst nightmare comes to life.

Review
It's no big secret that I don't 'like' horrors, but when they take the comedy angle, it makes suspending your belief far easier, this way I'm usually quite entertained. This specific venture definitely falls under that category & it's obvious they had good fun making this. That said, it seemed to me like it wasn't quite enough. Something felt missing.

There are numerous fun moments, and it does exactly what it says on the tin yet somehow I found myself more indifferent about the film afterwards rather than loving or hating it. A possible reason is the character's just weren't all that interesting and it takes a while for the sheep to end their silence. I mean the second-level characters were to become sheep-food or sheep-zombies but the central character didn't have much depth either. I call it a possible reason because, the genre (if you could call it that) doesn't necessarily need it.

Overall, though I can't pinpoint the exact reasons, it's all I expected but nothing more. A cult film for sure, but outside of that nothing special.

The description of this event was such:
Ken Loach will be present to screen a surprise film for a small audience at The Rex. Following the screening, Mr. Loach will speak about his career and take questions from the audience. This is truly a rare opportunity to speak with one the greats of British filmmaking.

The key message here being small audience: (ie; limited spaces, needs pre-booking). As for this Ken Loach guy, I knew his name by reputation, but looking thorugh the imdb listing, I don't believe I'd seen any of his work -- Now I have.

It's a Free World'

Plot Outlne:
Angie may not have much formal education, but she's got energy, wit and ambition, and she's in her prime. She's been messed about in the past and she's fed up. She has a point to prove. This is her moment.

Angie sets up a recruitment agency with her flat-mate Rose, working in a twilight zone between gangmasters, employment agencies and the migrant workers they place. This is a tale set against the reality of the Anglo Saxon miracle of flexible labour, globalisation, double shifts and lots of happy, happy, happy consumers: Us.

Overall Impressions:
Though in quite a depressive morbid fashion the moral of the story sticks. In a world gone mad, as we all chase for our dreams and riches, people along the way are going to get crushed (sometimes literally), so the question is, how far are you willing to go to succeed? Something else to consider is if and when you reach this success, can you live with the guilt? when is it 'too much' ?

With a British contemporary backdrop it is somewhat reminisicent of Macbeth in some ways, in that our hero(ine) is a victim and someone we grow to like, we follow their journey and at some point along the line we feel she's gone too far, thus now making her the villain of the story. This transformation was forseeable yet still highly effective in the narrative. The script recently won the best screenplay award at the Venice Film Festival.

Strangely, the UK isn't seeing a cinema release of the film, in fact it's gone straight to DVD and aired on Channel 4 a couple of weeks back.

The Q&A in a nutshell
Ken Loach has worked in films for multiple decades, it's far to see he knows his stuff, he was friendly and it was good to see a certain honesty in his answers to questions, much of which was wasted on me. I'm not into politics and frankly, I just don't give a damned. *cough* That said, it was interesting to hear that one of his previous films was key in changing a law, quite an achievement I thought. Then when quizzed he mentioned that this film simply wouldn't hit the government radar even though 1 in 20 people of the population is an illegal immigrant because all the parties are focussed on commerce. (& I add understandably so, as it's commerce that makes an economy, and an economy is unfortunately how a country is perceived to the rest of the world.)

... but yea' enough of that stuff, what did catch my interest was some of the technical questions with regards to shooting:

The film was pretty low budget, few and small locations et al & he mentioned that if circumstances provide, it's good to shoot the whole film in sequence, the order the viewere will see it, especially with films where the character is supposed to progress a certain way. This way the first-day jitters and the growing confidence over the days of shoot helps give the character further depth and naturalness. In addition, each actor would be only given their own part of he script, and in parts only a few days/hours before shooting. Too much practise also loses realism. Fair comments inmy opinion, noted *taps-nose*

He also mentioned, he's not a fan of using cranes, trolleys and all the jazz that most the industry raves about as making their livs a lot easier, most his shots are taken by hand or using an old fashioned tripod. -- Well if it works, fair enough, but I'm not in total agreement, maybe just a matter of the things he's used to.

All in all, though it was a strong film with a message, I must admit this wasn't really my kind of film. It was painful rather than entertaining to see this transformation in character. Quite a contrast to Weirdsville and quite what I'd feared, at least they eft it to the next day. :)

I had a plumber/gas/electric check feller who's contracted to check my flat once a year. Me being the busy chappy that I am, rarely see much of my flat and so the only time I could fit this in was Wednesday morning before work. Now considering that I Ieave for work at around 7am when on Fortess of Solitude Shifts, this meant Mr. Handyman had to be done by then, so he was due to arrive at 06:30. He calls me on Monday to reschedule for Tuesday, I think: "oh dear this can't be good for my health", but have pity and agree. This brings me to today (Tuesday 25th).

Wake up: 05:00. Shower and get ready for this man to check the boiler and cooker. Thankfully I'd remembered from last year that he tends to come earlier than the said time. He turned up at 05:50 and left within a half hour. I figure there's be no point napping for a half hour else it's become 2 or 3 hours. I get out of the door and into the Fortress between my scheduled time frame of 08:00 and 16:30.

At 16:30 I had to shoot off to pickup my suit for it needed amending (I've put on a couple of inches waist size since last year), off to Picadilly Circus, grab suit, shoot home, get showered get changed, head back into Central London. If I get the 18:10 bus I can still make the 18:45 showing. Bus to Victoria. Awesome, 10 minutes remainng for a 3 minute Tube journey, I can do this, easy!

"The underground services from London Victoria have been suspended due to overcrowded platforms" ... F@*k!!! Now what?? Well it can't be 'that' far, I'll find a bus that goes there, right get out in the open, lighting strikes, the sky comes dribbling down with rain. My suit's getting wet. Aha bus, run!!! Anyone that knows me, being late for a film is the only time they'll ever catch me running.

"Excuse me, do you go to Picadilly Circus?" ..
"Yea",
"Great, thanks" ... as I hop onto the bus and take a seat, the next thing I know, the driver put on his jacket and walks off the bus. I'm thinking "what the hell??, I need this bus moving, NOW!!!"

What a fricking idiot I think & tell him sarcastically, "I'm sorry I only managed to move an inch" and he replies "Very nice, thanks." with total non-understanding ... Well there you go what can you say to that?! Thankfully another driver turns up at this point and gets the bus moving, it is 7pm -- on a generic show even all the adverts would be done by now. I should probably just give up and go the afterparty maybe? Not a bad idea, it would give me a chance to get some food, but I wanna see the movie. As these thoughts roll around in my head I come to realise the bus is doing the same. Not moving at more than 10 miles per hour it rolls down a long road that doesn't look all that familiar.

Suddenly it does, it's Quarter past 7, I get off realising I'd walk quicker than the bus anyway and head to the cinema just to see if anyone can tell me how long the film is so I know when to pop back to mingle with the crowds. To my glee, there's a huge queue outside. Waiting to get their tickets. I already have mine in my inside left pocket -- courtesy of being a superstud with a press pass it was posted to me earlier in the week. Mission: Accomplised.

The afterparty was all you'd expect, from the excited film makers out to tell you about their screening at some point in the next few days, to bumping into acquaintances from other festivals whose name you can't remember. There was ample free drinks to keep everybody entertained too. It was good seeing a bunch of familiar faces from last year's festival. One of the chaps who delivers all the prints throughout the festival shared the same concern as myself with regards to the atmosphere of the party which hugely depended on the opening night film and as I mentioned in my review we were both pleasantly surprised by the upbeat movie filum. He was a friendly chap, I recall speaking to him most days at the festival last year, b*tching about the horrible films, complementing the awesome ones. I do remember his name, seriously, I do.

As I made the sensible choice of leaving the party before trains came to a halt, it dawned upon me, the end of the day, I knew I had a day off the next day, relaxation started kicking in like the caffeine does each morning with the first latte of the day. And so I thought to myself "well, so it begins"... I'll be seeing a lot of this over the next 2 weeks ... & like some lost tourist I took this snap, before hopping onto the tube back home:

In a nutshell, all's well that ends well, but wow what an extremely busy day. *phew* I'm knackered.

Weirdsville'

Plot Outline:
Royce (Wes Bentley) and Dexter (Scott Speedman) are two slackers who live in the strange little town of Weedsville. When Royce's girlfriend Matilda (Taryn Manning) overdose's on their stash and dies, they decide to bury her in an abandoned Drive-In theater. Things get out of control when they discover Satanists performing a ritual sacrifice right where they were going to bury the body.

Overall Impressions:
The opening film for the 14th RDFF last year (which I naughtily didn't document at all) was quite depressing. It was a film that sent you to the after-party drinking your sorrows away like Devdas gone mad, rather than feeling good & mingling with the fellow film-enthusiasts and film-makers.

Admittedly, I had some reservations that this may end up being a similarly depressing flick or worse, maybe like Trainspotting that shows dead babies & throws you in a horrific limelight to portray the message that it's giving: "Drugs are Bad Mmmmmkay."

Thankfully the opening film for the 15th RDFF couldn't have been any better than this. It was an upbeat feel-good film with ample dosage of laugh-out-loud moments. Though it showed drug-usage and its possible repercussions, it did in a total tongue-in-cheek fashion. The plot does get rather silly and the whole tone reflects with the sense of humour attached.

The star of the show I'd have to say is Scott Speedman, who you probably recognise from the Underworld films. He seems very comfortable in his role here. He definitely has strong screen presence, it surprises me that he isn't getting the commercial success that I would attach to that attribute.

The Director did introduce the film and tis a shame we didn't get a chance to quiz him after the show as the film started quite late, but this lateness actually worked out to my advantage. More on that on my next post.

Though in essense its just another 'drugs are bad' film it's the emphasis on comedy and the way that it's delivered throws it into the above average film category. Certainly worth a watch.

Death Proof

Plot Outline:
Two separate pairs of voluptuous women are stalked at different times by a scarred stuntman who uses his "death proof" cars to execute his murderous plans.

Overall Impressions:
Really that is all there is to it. It helps that it's Kurt Russell who's one of the most bad-ass people in the world, but you're looking for a deep and moving plot, move on already. Sure, it's half the deal we were promised but it's still a film that holds up on its own merits. It's supposed to be a nod to the bad films of the yesteryears that still pulled an audience to the cinema, before DVD's, even before the days of VHS. Bearing this in mind, is it actually any good?

Well, yes and no. To me the film was respectable as a nod to those terrible films. It totally belongs to Kurt Russell. Before he comes on the scene, the babbling between the to-be victims 'really, really' bored me. To the degree where I felt quite pleased when we see their *cough* exit. The second set of girls, didn't appear much differently to begin but here at the halfway point I'd say the film kicked into the right gear. From here to the very end I was entertained.

If Grindhouse had been split down further into 2 parts, I'd say Part 2 was quite good. Part1 not, but you can't blame the guy that set out to make a terrible film from the get go, he partially succeeded.

American Gangster

Plot Outline
In 1970s America, nobody used to notice Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) , the quiet driver to one of the city's leading black crime bosses. But when his boss suddenly dies, Frank exploits the opening in the power structure to build his own empire and create his own version of the American Dream. Through ingenuity and a strict business ethic, he comes to rule the inner-city drug trade, flooding the streets with a purer product at a better price. Lucas outplays all of the crime syndicates and becomes not only one of the city's mainline corruptors, but part of it's circle of legit civic superstars.

Richie Roberts (Russel Crowe) is an outcast cop close enough to the streets to feel a shift of control in the drug underworld. Roberts believes someone is climbing he rungs above the known Mafia families and starts to suspect that a black power has come from nowhere to dominate the scene.

Both Lucas and Roberts share a rigorous ethical code that sets them apart from their own colleagues, making them lone figures on opposite sides of the law. The destinies of these two men will become intertwined as they approach a confrontation where only one of them can come out on top.

Review
Based on a true story, the main focus of the film is that it is set in a time where being black and being in power were not things that the people had come to see as mutually feasible. In such a setting who better to define this rising power other than Denzel? I mean, "everybody loves Denzel".

On the flip side, I feared this may have it's toll. Since Denzel has a larger-than-life persona with a knack for looking cool, even when he's doing the more nastier of things (Man on Fire, Training Day), I felt this may become an issue, as it may make the distribution of drugs look cool, which really just shouldn't happen, on or off screen.

Thankfully, the parts about the actual street dealing is kept low-key as far as his character development is concerned and though we are informed of the blue magic brand hitting the streets, with numerous victims of addiction and their tragic consequences, we see Frank quite distanced from it all. His approach to the business is no different than it would be for any other legal product. Getting a name through better quality and at a lower price. To him it was merely an opportunity to be exploited, a highly lucrative one at that.

On the other side of the law we have the character of Richie Roberts who is much reminiscent of the super cops portrayed in Hindi films of the 80's. The one man in a corrupt system that has more enemies than allies on both sides of the law, he is not to be messed with and can not be bought. He is a straight cop that has a passion for what his job is supposed to be - justice. Naturally, a man of such passion has a terrible family life.

Russell Crowe eases into the role like fish to water, underplaying his part in just the right amounts. Admittedly I'm not a fan, but I can't fault him here. He gets into the skin of the character and will surely get applauded for it.

So, with Ridley Scott in the driving seat & the characters both in play how does it all unfold? I'd love to say flawlessly but that's be stretching it just a little. Don't get me wrong, it moves pretty damned well, but it does leave a bit of room for improvement.

Being a total outsider to the facts, picking holes seems a little unfair, but even so I'll say it seemed as though they may have over-dramatised some of the on-goings to fit within the span of Frank's career. I felt they really didn't need to do this.

In particular it stands out that Frank Lucas is made out to be the first black American Gangster, except he blatantly wasn't. His boss before his untimely demise too was black and from the same trade. If approached smartly, a little more detail about him, his mistakes & Frank learning from this could have left more of an impact (in flashbacks perhaps). Currently standing it seemed as though Frank was progressing totally off his own back.

This came across a little inspired by the iconic Godfather figure, backing up this theory there is also much emphasis on the business remaining within the family. Of-course, this isn't so far fetched, keeping it in the household helps, as there is less scope for betrayals (in theory), but re-iterating my above point, if they showed that this was one of the improvements he made to his predecessor, this could have been more interesting.

Putting this aside, the progress of the gangster, running in parallel to the lone team of Richie Roberts and his small posse of investigators is impressively integrated. You can relate to both sides of the law progressing in their motives concurrently, without feeling a jump in narrative from one side to the other.

What also came as a pleasant surprise was that the long duration of the film didn't seem 'too' long. The film is paced well and leads up to a resolution which is highly satisfying. A good example of truth being stranger than fiction.

Following the relationships of Frank with his family, his business contacts, his enemies, it all shows good business-sense, flourish and progress. Something I thought felt quite real was that not all of these angles that we get exposed to have full resolutions, in fact some have none.

As an example: his nephew who wanted to become a sportsman his entire life, is given the opportunity to join the big leagues due to Frank's influential stature, but having seen Frank's success and riches, he decides he too wants just this. It's brought up in conversation at a family gathering & you can see Frank concerned, but it's left there. No further discussion or actions.

The story is about Frank and set within a certain time frame. There is no way everything in this timeframe would be tied up nice and neat. Keeping this sort of reality in the narrative is amongst its strengths. The largest strength to myself, as I mentioned earlier was that resolution to the story is refreshing and again, comes across as interesting and believable.

Overall, I found that the strengths heavily outweigh the minor blemishes that I've pointed at. With powerful performances by the Academy award winners in their principal roles, as well as the remainder of the cast playing their integral bit-parts that move the story forward, I'd put this up there as one of this year's better films. A must watch when it releases nation-wide in November.

3:10 to Yuma

Plot Outline:
The legendary outlaw, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his gang have just robbed an armed stage coach carrying the Southern Pacific Railroads payroll. They kill everyone onboard except Pinkerton guard whom Wade shoots in the belly. A poor rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and his two sons find the guard and take him down town to find him a doctor.

Ben Wade too is in town, alone and with the aid of Dan the sheriff immediately surrounds the hotel and Ben Wade is captured. The railroad representative asks for paid volunteers to join the posse to take Wade to the train station in the town of Contention three days away. The train is due at 3:10, and they must put Wade on the train's prison car bound for Yuma. Once Wade arrives in Yuma, he will receive a quick trial in Federal Court and be hanged.

Dan desperately needing money to save his farm, agrees to help transport Wade to Contention provided he is be paid $200.

Overall Impressions:
So, the spree did come to an end. This film was alright but no 'must see' like the previous two films I watched. (I did manage to get 3 in a row though as I did catch Shoot 'em Up again too). I find it quite surprising that this one is rated so highly on imdb though. Don't get me wrong it's decent enough, just a tad predictable and quite slow.

Overall, did I enjoy it? I guess so. People getting shot always gets some credit. Christian Bale was superb as always. Russell Crowe on the other hand has quite an ambiguous character. He's supposed to be the big hero who is evil but isn't 'so' evil. This is where it goes a bit grey and blurry for me. All said and done I did find it quite moving, particularly the end. Though predictable it does tug at some of those emotional muscles amd tissues, that and the leadup to it being it's largest selling point.

In light of the other releases this week, I'm going to say you can give it a miss & catch it later.

Superbad

Plot Outline:
After facing the fact that both Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) will both be going to different colleges next year, it seems more imporant than ever that they go to a high school party, and achieve some of their long time goals; including, but not limited to, losing thier virginity with the girl of their dreams by getting them wasted and being their "regret hookup."

Their awkard friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) gets a fake ID, with the name McLovin and agrees to get liquor to bring to the girl's graduation party. All seems to be going well until McLovin is suckerpunched in the liquor store by a robber. When the police come they question McLovin and offer to give a ride home making a few stops along the way.

Overall Impressions:
Note how the principal characters and the writers have the same name. Coincidence?? I think not. These guys have lived what you see on-screen, there's no two way about it. I mean I'm sure its been dramatised and restructured but this stuff is just too random yet funny to be made up.

I think it's very much a guy film. Not saying the ladies won't appreciate it, just feel they may not fully understand some of the guy-to-guy love perhaps. The strange thing about this film is that though it's totally drenched in innuendos and the likes, it still has a pretty mature resolution.

Well-written, totally appropriate star-cast, with plenty of jokes that are inappropriate for the innocent crowd, if such a thing still exists out there. I totally recommend it. A DVD must-buy. That's two hilarious films worth seeing one after the other, can the spree last?

Shoot 'em Up

Plot Outline:
Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) is waiting for a bus when a pregnant woman runs by, chased by a group of thugs. Smith kills them and delivers the baby, but the mother is killed. Chased by the evil Mr. Hertz (Paul Giamatti) and an army of goons, Smith enlists DQ (Monica Bellucci), a lactating prostitute, to help him care for the baby.

Overall Impressions:
It doesn't surprise me that this one has the same writer and director. There is more action than dialogue, and though the action is mindless and silly, it is total gold. The dialogue isn't far behind. The whole film takes liberties as far as being realistic goes, but that entirely is its charm. If you liked Crank or had a love for action films where over-the-top to you meant 'cool', do not miss this.

Paul Giamatti is hilarious as the assasin focussed on getting the baby. Smart, witty, quick to shoot his gun, as well as answer his phone to his wife, he is the yin to Clive Owen's Yang in the film.

If Clive Owen didn't get the role of Bond, he's certainly not lost out. Bond went into good hands and Owen has had the opportunity to show that even though he is a man of limited facial expressions, he's a star.

He's choosing his films carefully. With his Secret Agent cameo in the Pink Panther film, Inside Man, Children of Men and now this, the guy's going places, that's for sure. It does amuse me when people criticise actor's for limitations. I mean look at Al Pacino, voted one of the best actor's ever & yet has he ever done a film where he doesn't play the 'Al Pacino' character?

One of the best films I've seen this year. I will be watching this again. Very soon.

Dhamaal'

Plot Outline:
Roy (Riteish Deshmukh) believes that he is the best detective in the world. Manav (Javed Jaffrey) happens to be the biggest idiot in the world, but is blissfully unaware about it. His elder brother Adi (Arshad Warsi). has an encyclopedic half knowledge about everything, full knowledge of nothing. The final component of this group od misfits is Mr. Scared of everything. Boman (Ashish Choudhary).

These four loveable idiots live and work together. Their idea of work? Doing small time con jobs. The thought of earning an honest living has never even crossed their minds. One day, while trying to save a dying man. Bose (Prem Chopra), they get their big break. Their life is made as they are given the location of a treasure. Unfortunately for them, Police Inspector. Kabir Nayak (Sanjay Dutt) has been chasing Bose for the last ten years and finally finds him. Dead.

Desperate for his promotion, he questions the suspicious looking foursome, inadvertently they blurt out the secret before managing to escape and so the race begins.

Overall Impressions:
Inspired loosely by Rat Race, there is little room for logic to reside if you want to enjoy this film. That said, it was a cracking laugh, a defnite progress from its inspiration. Sanjay Dutt is absolutely gold as always.

The little crack with the little heap of sand will probably go wasted on anyone that hasn't seen Sholay (1975), but then again, very few Indians haven't. I mean it ran at the cinemas out there for close to a decade and it didn't occur to me until later that there were no actresses, no love interest.

No cinema must, but one to catch on a weekday afternoon for a good chuckle.

25th September - 7th October and the festival calendar is now up here.

Bearing in mind these reviews are intended to make you watch the film ;-) here's some of my work for them:

Congorama - Exhibit A - Red Like The Sky - Summer Scars - Valerie

Run Fatboy Run'

Plot Outline:
A chunky, clueless guy (Simon Pegg) leaves his pregnant fiancée (Thandie Newton) on their wedding day only to discover -- 5 years later -- that she is his one true love. But in order to win back her heart, he looks to finish his first marathon while making her realize her new man (Hank Azaria) is the wrong guy for her.

Overall Impressions:
I've little to say here. It was funny. Pretty generic, to some extent a little bland, but the jokes keep the pace going. Based on the title, I felt there was much scope for a lot more. Simon Pegg isn't really fat though is he? Fundamental flaw. They should have cast someone big, I mean porky BIG. Truffle shuffling along the entire way. *shrugs*

Watchable comedy, but no big deal if you don't.

No Reservations'

Plot Outline:
Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is the master chef at the trendy 22 Bleecker Street Restaurant in Manhattan. She runs her kitchen at a rapid pace as she co-ordinates the making and preparing of all the fantastic meals and personally displays the food to perfection on every dish. She intimidates everyone around her, so her boss sends her to therapy. Kate's sister is killed in a car accident and her nine-year old daughter Zoe (Abigail Breslin) moves in with Kate.

With all of Kates problems, the boss orders her to take some time off and hires a new chef to join the staff. Nick (Aaron Eckhart) is a rising star in his own right and could be the head chef of another restaurant, but he wants to work under Kate. Kate begins to feel threatened by Nick. With all that is going on in Kates life, falling for a man is the last thing she was looking for. This particular man? Definitely not.

Fate however has something else in mind ;-).

Overall Impressions:
The overall kitchen them reminded me of Cheeni Kum a few weeks back which was the superior film of the two. I wouldn't feel the urge to watch it again in any hurry, but it was okay -- up to a point. The performances fare well, but the pair don't quite gel and look a bit awkward. That said, I did find myself entertained for about 90 minutes, then I got bored and just went all critical and object oriented on it, snipping it down to its bare bones.

Breaking it down (with spoilers, but seriously I'm not sure you can call them spoilers, I mean it's a chick flick, you knew how it'd go by simply the trailer surely, but anyway):
Kate can't quit the kitchen because it's her entire ife as far as she's concerned, but it isn't explicitly said. She ends up getting this little girl as an addition to her life, in comes the strapping hero, as an additional staff member with a totally different personality with a common interest of cooking -- End of Act I -- So far so good. The variables have all been put in place and established their identities.

What follows from here: Motherhood is a difficult thing for Kate, but with the aid of a father figure too, slowly and steadily we find she learns to cope & see the advantages of being like a family. She has issues with him and their differences and these are resolved. It seems to have gone quite smoothly and seems like a happy ending. It seems like Acts II and III have been done with. I begin looking at my watch. It felt like it should have ended, but it hasn't, there is the conflict at work of Nick getting offered her job. Wait, what?

We then get the realisation moment where Nick tells her the restuarant isn't her whole life as he dramatically decides to walk out. It was okay the 1st time, as we kinda knew she'd have to stop him. This time though, I shake my head an cringe a little. Further issues with little girl establishes she's no good at this alone.

She speaks to her counsellor who's a lovable old man (whose glasses remind you of Arvin Sloane from Alias), asking him why life doesn't have a recipe book telling her what to do at each step. He replies in a language she might understand: The best recipes are always the ones you make yourself (or something to that effect. She swallows her anger & confusion & we get happy ending resolution (take 2).

Though the penultimate scenes do work, it would have been perrfectly fine to end earlier. It felt a little long because of it. Just me anyway.

Generic chick flick, nothing exceptional but with the void of any others in the market currently, I'm sure it'll do well. No must, but a typical date-film.

I could be sipping champagne with Keira Knightley right about now, but I'm not. There was a screening of Atonement this morning followed by a press junket, but I had to pass because I haven't got enough holiday. Such is the cost of earning a living. :(

1408'

Plot Outline:
Based on the short Stephen King horror story of the same name, 1408 surrounds supernatural writer Mike Enslin (John Cusack), an author of two hit books focusing on supernatural phenomena.

As research for his latest book & based on an anonymous tip that it's a room 'not' to stay in, Enslin is determined to check out the notorious room 1408 in a New York City hotel by personally staying there as a guest in the fabled room. The intention being to prove that 1408 is just a myth perpetuated by stories and rumor that Enslin has collected for his past works.

However, hotel manager Mr. Olin (Samuel L Jackson) has strong objections to Enslin's stay and only warns him of possible danger to come. But Enslin is determined to go through and convinced that the horrific past of 1408 is just mere coincidence and a myth. But what Mike Enslin is about to experience is no myth, as 1408 truly is a room where the guests don't check out.

Overall Impressions:
In a day and age where the term 'horror film' seems to have been taken over by appearing like a visual seizure or to have ample guts and blood, this film holds up as a reminder of what horror should be like. Chilling, intimidating, playing with your mind rather than being plain revolting to watch and it scores in every aspect. If this type of horror were to return as standard, I'd be far less restrained to go watch them.

All praise from me. A definite must see.

Death Sentence'

Plot Outline:
Based on the novel by Brian Garfield, this is the story of Nick Hume (Kevin Bacon), a mild-mannered executive with a perfect life, until one gruesome night he witnesses something that changes him forever. As he watches his son die from an attack, he becomes transformed by grief, eventually coming to the disturbing conclusion that no length is too great when protecting his family.

Overall Impressions:
After watching a terrible remake (RGV ki Aag) of an awesome revenge flick (Sholay) yesterday, which left me disgusted, this promptly renewed my faith in modern-day revenge flicks. It's simple, maintains a realism about it, though the character is going nuts, we can still relate with him as a father & a family man. It's clearly out to please a certain sub-section of the audience & does a good job doing so, simple as that. I respect that the bloody violence isn't for everybody, but for this genre & story at least it is appropriate & not merely there for the sake of being there.

Kevin Bacon goes all 'Man of Fire' on them all in this well-paced revenge thriller. Not for the faint-hearted, but recommended otherwise.