I have Richard from FS poking me for a top 10 so here's a quick skim of the 'Non-Hindi' films that left a positive impact with me in 2007 .. as with before, by no means are these the most successful or the best, it's entirely based on 'my' preference .. well here goes ..

28 Weeks Later - Not being a fan of horror, this still had be engaged, more so than its predecessor.

Bourne Ultimatum, The - Without a doubt, best of the trilogy, also holds up as a standalone film.

Die Hard 4.0 - Bruce Willis shows the rookies how it's done, yet again. Fun flick.

Mr. Brooks - Kevin Costner as a calculating killer. He does it so well, who knew he had it in him?

Number 23, The - Fed that number freak in me. The detective novel feel too was welcome.

Rocky Balboa - Finally the Rocky franchise culminates respectfully. It's the way it should end.

Shoot 'em Up - Mindless shootout after shootout after shootout, literally.

Smokin' Aces - Has grown on me after repeat viewings & readings of the script.

Superbad - A genuinely mature film with the immature humour, tough to accomplish, but done.

Waitress - The charming film that had me craving more. Awaiting the DVD!!

Okay then, as the end of year approaches, let's have a brief look at what was memorable shall we? As a disclaimer of sorts, these are in no particular order, (I lie, they are alphabetical). They are the 10 Bollywood films I most enjoyed this year & suggest you watch if you haven't already, this is not to suggest the others were crap (just crapp-er), neither to suggest these are the best, after all, personal preference is too a factor, right? We're all allowed our guilty pleasures (provided they are legal). Well here goes anyway:

Chak De! India

The first SRK flick of the year, though it lacked the initial box office takings expected from a Shah Rukh Khan starrer, word of mouth soon spread like fire that this was a film not to be missed. It's about a hockey coach training a team of misfit girls to play for the world cup. In winning only can he seek redemption from his own people. What came as a surprise was how even though he plays the central character, it is in the end the story of a team.

Cheeni Kum

A bitter 60 year old perfectionist chef finds himself arguing with a 30 year old lady customer. After much banter and passing meetings/dates, a bitter-sweet romance evolves, soon escalating to the point where he must ask her hand from her father. The peculiar father who is younger than him and has a whole new set of dilemmas surrounding him, is the one he must win over at all possible costs.

Guru

Based on the true story of one of the richest Business Tycoons in India, it's the story of rags to riches and the moral dilemmas he had to face along the way? It raises the question of "What would you be willing to do to become successful?" An engaging drama that shows that rules are for the masses but some that are wise enough have further options. It's the man's drive that will keep you engaged through it.

Johnny Gaddaar

Unfortunately, I didn't catch this at the cinema, it wasn't showing anywhere, but boy oh boy was this good. A cross between Film-Noir and modern day thriller. Though not directly lifted, it's inspired in style by the novels by James Hadley Chase and the 70's flicks by Vijay Anand. It has nods to both in the film too. It's a classic crime-thriller. The story is about a gang which does shady deals. Deals that promise a lot of money, until one member makes his own plans.

It follows Johnny (Neil Mukesh), who decides to betray his team during one such large deal to elope with ample riches (and his mistress). What really works for this is, somewhat like an episode of Columbo -- we know from the very outset that it's him, but we watch the tension grow amongst all the other characters, who suspect each other, allowing their emotions and prior grudges to make rash decisions. The background score too gives a nod to the 70's thrillers of this ilk and is integrated spectacularly. Very much a treat to watch. A shame that it's theatrical release was so limited. A total must!

Life in a ... Metro

The story spanning different generations, it's about a number of people, loosely connected by degrees of separation. It's a gritty, reality story. It encompasses a number of love stories, but without the glitz and glamour that people automatically associate with Bollywood. This is aboout the old, the poor, the people that are actually out there, and that is what's engaging to watch.

Naqaab

Without a shred of doubt one of the best thrillers I've seen this year. Like Hansel & Gretel we find ourselves finding our way forward, clue by clue, with small twists & turns, not looking back for the big picture, but when all is revealed, you're pleasantly surprised.

No Smoking

This is a film that you'll either hate because it's not normal or love for its complexity and in depth view at life. It uses symbolism & philosophy to dig much deeper into your heads than the average film. It's a film that is quirky and interesting, but a lot more beyond that, it's trying to give you a much more deep message, but it's not willing to hand it to you on a plate & for that it will not apologise. One that I can say deserves multiple viewings.

Om Shanti Om

There is no disputing this is the most successful film this year. SRK hits the jackpot with his 2nd film not only beating his own box office records, but doing so by miles. What was the formula for this magic? It's a fun film. While the plot involves a man & woman dying and the man being reborn to gain justice through revenge, this was merely a backdrop. The focus of the film is that it's a film by Bollywood about Bollywood. It spoofs what the 70's had on offer in a matter of 30 seconds as the film rolls, and it simply does not stop. When the film moves onto 2007, the current day, he has no issues poking fun at the way things run now either & beyond this it embraces that it may be funny, it may even be silly to you, but this is who we are & we love that!

Salaam-e-Ishq

Integrating 12 people in 6 love stories, this probably sounds a bit like Life in a Metro mentioned above. That comparison holds but ends just there. This is the opposite end of the scale as fas as Indian Cinema goes. This which preceeded the other is an all-glitz all-glamour approach to the idea, total Bollywood ishtyle. A guaranteed fun ride along the entire way. Each story has it's own merits and holds something to bring to the overall cinematic experience. The small crosses & integration of them all is handled brilliantly with a memorable climax in which it all comes together for all of them.

Taare Zameen Par

A late entry just in time to make the list, but it certainly has struck a chord. A film that takes you back to being a kid. It's about a dyslexic child who is misunderstood as disobedient and lazy and his fight to prove them all wrong (with a little help). A definite for parents, or parents-to be, or kids, or kids-to-be ;) Okay, fine, Kids-been.

What I'd say works a charm for this flick is firstly the child actor who's done a very convincing job, secondly the way things remain in focus on the child perspective and thirdly the music. It's a refreshing soundtrack for the film, the emotions match precisely what you see on-screen, to the point where I start daydreaming of the film when I hear it on the radio.

Well that wraps it up, before I do finish I would like to say there are a few films that I didn't get to see & really hope to pick up at some point, I think I should at least mention the ones that I feel had the potential to make this list: Manorama - Six feet Under, Black Friday, Bheja Fry and The Blue Umbrella. An unfortunate case of small releases not reaching the audience that is 'me'.

Not Michael .. but Mike ... like they're college buddies or something .. Don't believe me??? See for yourself ..

I Am Legend'

Plot Outline:
Based on a 1971 screenplay for Omega Man which in turn was based on a novel by Richard Matheson, the story is of

Robert Neville (Will Smith) is a brilliant scientist, but even he could not contain the terrible virus that was unstoppable, incurable, and man-made. Somehow immune, Neville is now the last human survivor in what is left of New York City and maybe the world. For three years, Neville has faithfully sent out daily radio messages, desperate to find any other survivors who might be out there. But he is not alone. He has a dog. :)

Also, mutant victims of the plague -- "The Infected" lurk in the shadows watching Neville's every move waiting for him to make a fatal mistake. Perhaps mankind's last, best hope, Neville is driven by only one remaining mission: to find a way to reverse the effects of the virus using his own immune blood. But he knows he is outnumbered... and quickly running out of time.

Overall Impressions:
Like chinese whispers this began as something groundbreaking in the 50's, (inspiring many a vampire/zombie flick) and is now far from it. That's not to say it's a bad product. I'll leave my thoughts of what it could have been, but before I do, I want it to be stated for the record that I do think the project had a lot more potential. If intrigued, I suggest you read this Hollywood writers' viewpoint, (you'll have to scroll down a bit, or search for "Dinner"), it's drenched with spoilers, but makes a very valid point in dissecting the story & comparing it to its origins.

Okay, moving on. speaking now of the film, as is: A one man film of this ilk, has its fate lie quite firmly on that one man & personally I wasn't sure Will Smith had it in him. I mean he has that universal appeal as an artiste, but could he pull off what Tom Hanks did with Cast Away? Well, to my pleasant surprise.. "Yes". He did a bang-up job of convincing you that he's been alone for a number of years now. Though he is meticulously organised, the fact that the solitude has had it's toll on his mental health, is also apparent.

They have integrated scenes from the past with current happenings throughout the film and this has it's own progression and runs a parallel of sorts with the current ongoings, perhaps so that the audience don't get bored of continuously seeing only the one man on screen, but if that's the only reason, it wasn't needed. I feel however this may not be the only reason to do this. As we see the doctor's mental health deteriorate, the flashbacks leave room for paranoia. A couple of other scenes do the same, leaving you wondering, has our hero gone nuts? Is everything we see through his eyes quite what it seems? Are we missing something?

Following this come a couple of twists in the tale that takes away a large chunk of satisfaction from what buildup we have had upto this point. Actually, I think it's fair to say, the last twenty odd minutes sink this film from being spectacular to 'slighty above average'. Quite unfortunate. Why? Tough to say without going all spoiler guns blazing, but you can probably guess. I'll just leave it by saying, in the end the one man became Legend in a forceful & rushed climax.

Enchanted'

Plot Outline:
In an animated fairy tale world, a young girl Giselle (Amy Adams) meets and falls in love with the handsome prince of her dreams (James Marsden). News of this romance upsets the prince's evil step-mother. For this reason she is banished from her magical, musical animated land and finds herself in the gritty reality of the streets of modern-day Manhattan.

Shocked by this strange new environment that doesn't operate on a "happily ever after" basis, Giselle is now adrift in a chaotic world badly in need of enchantment. But when Giselle begins to fall in love with a charmingly flawed divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey) who has come to her aid - even though she is already promised to a perfect fairy tale prince back home - she has to wonder:

Can a storybook view of romance survive in the real world?

Overall Impressions:
An animated fairy tale meets modern, live-action comedy. It's so simple it's almost genius. Beginning in the animated world meant that once the conflict is built and we are ready for Act II, the transition is huge -- an impact you won't miss. Admittedly the entire venture here-on as clichéd as can be, but it has a going pace which keeps you interested. The contrast between the fantasy world and the real world and how simply allowing the fantasy to live adds a whole new postive vibe to life is wha you'll take away. Though it's be quite morbid, I think the exact opposite too would be interesting to see on-screen. How allowing such fantasy to rule your life leaving you penniless, hungry and pretty much screwed. *uhm* .. yea, so back to the philum at hand .. you probably won't think this because you'll just totally fall in love with Giselle. Being so over-the-top and not becoming annoying is quite an accomplishment.

So as mentioned, though the film totally belongs to Amy Adams playing the good-hearted damsel in distress, lending a helping hand to anyone she encounters with her naive innocent and wise words . It has to be said James Marsden too was a perfect casting decision for Prince Edward.

We Own the Night'

Plot Outline:
New York, November 1988: A new breed of narcotics has swept the great city, bringing with it a ferocious crime wave more terrifying than any in recent memory. Outmanned and outgunned by the new criminal order, the police find themselves burying their own at a rapid rate. An all-out war rages, threatening to engulf the guilty and innocent alike. In the midst of this we have Bobby Green (Joaquin Phoenix) who is caught in the crossfire.

Managing a Russian nightclub in Brighton Beach owned by his mentor and frequented by numerous criminals, Bobby keeps his distance, attempting his best to not get involved. Despite his hedonistic, amoral lifestyle, he is committed to his girlfriend Amada (Eva Mendes) and has ambitions to open another club in Manhattan.

However, Bobby has a secret, which he guards closely. His brother is Police Captain Joseph Grusinsky (Mark Wahlberg), who has followed in the footsteps of their father, legendary Deputy Chief Bert Grusinsky (Robert Duvall). Bobby's already strained relationship with his father and brother is tested when Burt warns his son that this is a war, and he's going to have to choose a side.

Overall Impressions:
This flick came as a little surprise to me, I'd seen posters around London and it looked quite artsy, the fear being perhaps artsy to the extreme, whereby it's 'not' actually entertaining. When I mentioned wanting to see it to Demon his response was, sounds like a vampire flick. A fair assessment from the title I suppose, but as you now know, it isn't. It's a flick about 2 brothers on the opposite side of the law. As the film opened up I did find myself thinking, this is going to pan out like that super-hit 70's Hindi flick Deewar where the two brothers are both good at heart, but on the opposite sides of the law, as the plot progresses the cop eventually gets assigned to capture/kill his brother. I would have been happy with this, and though it still shares similarities, this film doesn't quite pan out this way.

Instead we have one brother getting the chance to make things right by turning witness to a crime syndicate. Having his street contacts, he'd be in a good position to do so. Things are kept interesting and tense throughout. Even his decision to turn to the cop-side isn't as simple a choice as it may seem & it's this journey of his that make the film worthwhile. This Joaquin Phoenix feller does a fantastic job here. He's one of those stars that upon initial contact, doesn't interest me, in fact I'd very easily 'not' like him. No idea why, just he has that look about him. Especially bearing this in mind, he impresses. Mark Wahlberg underplays his role pretty well too.

Alvin and the Chipmunks'

Plot Outline:
Three lively singing chipmunk brothers, Alvin - the unchained leader (Justin Long), Simon - the genius (Matthew Gray Gubler), and the tender rotund Theodore (Jesse McCartney) are living their lives in the forest storing nuts away for the winter when one day their tree is cut down and carried off into the city to become a Christmas tree. They must find a new home and soon find themselves at Dave's house.

Dave Seville (Jason Lee) is a struggling song writer who has no inspiration is inluck for these new-found chipmunks in his house can talk, sing and dance. He has the great idea of making the chipmunks a new show act, singing his songs. All seems to be going relatively well, or does it? As the chipmunks become a big hit and superstars with cute voices and fancy dance moves. The record company executive Ian (David Cross) sees big money in this future and connivingly takes over the act pushing Dave into the background. What will Dave do to save his little family?

Overall Impressions:
Firstly, let me get my 'one' disappointment out of the way. The theme from the cartoon that I grew up with is missing from the film and I was really really hoping to hear it. As disappointed as I was, fortunately the content of the film allows me to forgive them for this (unlike that TMNT flick earlier in the year). Historically, there is a christmas song from the late 50's that made Alvin and the chipmunks the popular rockstars that we know them as, and part of that is incorporated. (Jeez, the 50's?? I didn't even know they were that old, thank the lord for Wikipedia).

So, the film kicks off with the chipmunks storing away food for the winter and their tree getting angry. As the tree transports them to Dave and Theodore finds the joy of muffics, one thing has become certain, even with the scray posters where the trio look like the boys in the hood, these are definitely the same lovable characters we know.

The story here-on is pretty predictable and simple, but this actually works in its favour. The given simplicity allows the focus to remain on the characters and the humour, which was surprisingly witty. It had a number of laugh-out-loud moments and in the end you'll take that away as it's largest strength. It entertains.

Fred Claus'

Plot Outline:
Fred Claus has lived his entire life in his brother's very large shadow. Fred did try, but he could hardly live up to the example set by the younger Nicholas, who was just a perfect saint. True to form, Saint Nicholas "Santa" Claus (Paul Giamatti) grew up to be the model of giving, while Fred (Vince Vaughn) became the polar opposite: a fast-talking repo man who's run out of luck and money.

Eventually Fred's bad behavior catches up with him and he is sent to jail. His only recourse is to turn to his brother. Nicholas agrees to help his brother on the condition that he come to the North Pole and earn the money he needs by working in Santa's Workshop. The trouble is that Fred isn't exactly elf material and cut out for creating toys and spreading good cheer. With Christmas fast approaching, Fred could jeopardize the jolliest holiday of the year and ruin Christmas.

Overall Impressions:
It's a typical xmas flick that you wouldn't mind catching on TV. Rachel Weisz looked good but sounded weird, sounded as though she was struggling to put on a British accent. Strange for someone born in London. Vince Vaughn plays himself, but now has a leather jacket. Fast talking, hustling and a leather jacket, he's pretty money. Paul Giamatti pulls of stressed ole Santa, but the true talents in the film were subtle, Kevn Spacey in his small bitpart & the little orphan kid Slam (Bobb'e J. Thompson) that visits Fred in the opening of the film. These guys were awesome!

The whole skit at the "Siblings Meeting" was pretty funny too with cameo's from siblings of people we know of, Baldwin was the best of them -- I couldn't tell which one he was, not Alec though :-P The story shows no real surprises, but you wouldn't really expect it to -- would you?

Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, The'

Plot Outline:
This story is the account of the last days of the fabled former Confederate outlaw Jesse James (Brad Pitt). Highly regarded as a charismatic, spiritual, larger-than-life bad man, Jesse James bloody exploits captured the fascination and admiration of a nation transfixed with its hunger for antiheroes. Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) was a young impressionable torn between dedicated worship and murderous jealousy of his criminally rampaging idol. He was "the coward" who coveted Jesse's legend and sought to subsume his notoriety (and blatantly failed).

Overall Impressions:
Sometimes I struggle to say much about a film, this is one of those. It has a good leadup to the incident, it shows what happened to Rob Ford after the incident, but it took a damned long time doing so. The Killing of John Lennon which I caught at the Cambridge Film Festival earlier in the year has also had a recent release - it was certainly the better product. I know it's not the same story but it was far more engaging and a slightly similar theme. This one just spends a lot of time silently admiring the view.

Darjeeling Limited, The'

Plot Outline:
Refreshingly, this film comes in two parts: Firstly, a short film, Hotel Chevalier which is about Jack (Jason Schwartzman) living in a hotel in Paris as a long-term guest to get away from his ex-girlfriend (Natalie Portman) and life. She manages to find him and pays him a visit. Shennaigans ensue. The 13-minute film acts as a prologue to what follows:

The second part -- The Darjeeling Limited. Three estranged brothers, Francis (Owen Wilson), Peter (Adrien Brody) and Jack (who we know already from Part 1), who haven't spoken to each other in a whole year, take a train ride through India, with the objective of finding themselves and bonding with each other, to become brothers again like they used to be. Naturally, plans veer rapidly off-course, they eventually find themselves stranded alone in the middle of the desert with eleven suitcases, a printer, a laminating machine and an iPod. A new, unplanned journey follows and this is that story.

Overall Impressions:
I'm not one of these big fans of Anderson's work. In fact I've only ever seen The Royal Tenenbaums which I recall not being all that impressed with when I saw it. Perhaps I have grown to adapt to such films since then, or perhaps there's just something charming about this film, but I must admit I enjoyed it all the way through. The crazy thing is that I can't really justify why. Perhaps the mood I was in, or perhaps the fact that I expected a journey and not a destination.

Cutting it down to it's barebones, I can see this as the kind of film that could annoy the hell out of you if you're looking for a story with a point, there is no deep catharsis, you gain no deeper knowledge of these guys, no new knowledge can be extracted and reflected upon, to an extent you might feel there has been no reason for them to tell you any of this, but within this is the joyride. The film to me was unlike the train journey that it takes you upon, but more like a roller coaster, whereby the final destination isn't the fun or the point, it's all about being there, travelling upon it (before lunch).

So once you get past this, it's a humour filled adventure. These brothers go through quite an ordeal, they do get closer, but they're still to a large extent the same muppets you got introduced to 90 minutes back. The performances held the film together neatly as expected, Owen Wilson has certainly mastered that Owen Wilson character that he plays so often. Adrien Brody is superb, one I'm keeping an eye on, I think he has the potential to be much higher rated than he currently stands. Even among such recognised faces, the dark horse of the pack was Jason Schwartzman, who I'd never heard of or noticed upto this point, but he was probably the most noticable of the 3 brothers, the short preceeding the film (& the fact that he is one of the screenplay writers behind the film) may have helped this.

You Kill Me'

Plot Outline:
Frank Falenczyk (Ben Kingsley) loves his job. He is a hit-man for his Polish mob family in Buffalo, New York. But Frank's got a drinking problem and when he messes up a critical assignment that puts the family business in peril, his uncle sends him to San Francisco to clean up his act. Frank is not a touchy-feely kind of guy, but he starts going to AA meetings, gets a sponsor (Luke Wilson) and a job at a mortuary where he falls for the tart-tongued Laurel (Téa Leoni), a woman who is dangerously devoid of boundaries.

Overall Impressions:
I think a comedy about a hitman sounds better on paper than it looks on screen. There are exceptions ofcourse, Grosse Pointe Blank comes to mind when this is said. What we have on our hands here however isn't much of a comparison. It's not as fluffy or light-hearted, it's a darker style of comedy. The comedy does work, but I can't help but think the idea of him being a hitman was an after-thought.

It may not have been but it feels this way, I think the main reason is a hitman needs to be established as a hitman & we don't see Ben kill anyone for quite a while. The film is about a man with a drinking problem. A problem that causes interference in his work and hence a problem that he tries to tackle. This in itself is interesting enough and admittedly, on the plus side it's subtle humour works well for it in this category.

All the performances are well-carried and likable, the dialogue is razor sharp and packs a strong punch but in the end it lacks the raising of after-thoughts to be remembered after the show, partly because it doesn't do what it says on the tin.

If you wondered why this post disappeared for a while, it was the host provider rebooting the server intra-day due to some ip conflicts within their data centre, since they only backup once daily at midnight -- I lost the post & had to re-write it ..

Golden Compass, The'

Plot Outline:
Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) is a young girl living at Jordan College in the Oxford of an alternate world much like our own where everyone is accompanied by a daemon (a physical representation of their soul in animal form). Lyra overhears a strange meeting between her Uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig) and the scholars at Jordan college about other worlds and some magical substance called "Dust" which is link between worlds.

As time passes children around Oxford begin to disappear by the hands of a group known as the Gobblers. When one of Lyra's friends too is taken, she and her daemon Pantalaimon set off on an epic journey to find him. Before she can leave, the headmaster of Jordan College (Jack Shepherd) introduces Lyra to the beautiful Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman). Lyra is immediately taken by Mrs. Coulter and when requested goes to live with her. It also gives her the chance to go north where it is rumoured the kidnapped children are taken. The morning of Lyra's departure, The headmaster calls her urgently into his office and gives her a strange instrument called an Alethiometer (The Golden Compass). He tells her that it is capable of telling the truth but that it is up to her to read it. He also pleads with her to keep the Alethiometer to herself... what follows is the epic journey, of the prophecy girl, her new-found protectors, witches, foes & a big armoured fricking polar bear (voiced by Sir Ian McKellen)!!

Overall Impressions:
To a degree, you can probably judge how enthusiastic I am about seeing a film based on how close to its release I go to see it. (On occasion this isn't accurate, it's just the awkward cinema timings, but moving on..). You've probably also gathered by now how this philum is far from my favourite genre(s) of film. Yet, even so I tumbled along to catch it on it's day of release. The reason being, the trailer actually appealed. Maybe it's because I was deprived of teddy bears as a child, maybe, but the big fricking bear made me watch this and in the end I don't regret it.

A whole number of co-incidences trail together introducing numerous friends & foe. It's fair to say the film is rather predictable, it's only one twist revealed early on (& even in the trailer), but the journey we take with ickle Lyra manages to keep you engaged. The introduction of Iorek (the bear) only adds to the drama and gets the snowball rolling. I'd say I'm quite surprised at how much I found myself enjoying this.

If I am to complain about anything it would be that the ending takes perhaps one minute too long. It's the first of a trilogy and it sets up the idea that adventures shall continue, but for some reason they do it twice. I didn't see the point to this. Maybe the writers saw a black cat twice or something *shrugs*.

Sleuth'

Plot Outline:
Remake of a 1972 film of the same title, written by Anthony Shaffer that was incidentally also later turned into a play. It's the story of two people.

On the one hand we have an aging writer (Michael Caine) who matches wits with the other who is a struggling actor (Jude Law) who has stolen his wife's heart and comes to him requesting him to divorce her.

Overall Impressions:
Having not seen the original (which is in IMDB's top 250 list), no comparisons are going to be made, except perhaps that since Michael Caine was in the original & has now reversed his role, he looks older. Now since that's done with onto the film.

I like short sweet films that're under 90 minutes, it gives me a preconceived hope that they knew from the very outset what the progressive structure of the film would be & haven't wasted time making up lethargic situations so that they can get from A to B. This film throws this concept out of the window. Why? because getting from A to B could have been a 10, maybe 20 minute journey. I don't mean it would make an interesting short film. What I mean is, this film entirely focusses on that verbose tension between point A and B. It's strength lies within it.

Considering there were only 2 people in the frame for pretty much it's entire duration, it was strangely gripping, the first hour just flew by, just like that. Even the very end was impressive, but that 30 odd minutes before the climax was a bit of a strain on the patience, which is a shame since it had pulled it off upto this point so well. I think partly this is due to the character in charge of the scene. Without giving anything away, I felt I understood the climax, but didn't understand the pre-climax, I'd go to the extent to say nor did they.

The performances were as expected of the cast, nothing spectacular, but they pulled it off. What was interesting & allowed them to oull it off was the situation & the dialogue. At points it did get a bit full of itself with its intelligent vocabulary, but hey, the guy was a writer, there we go, explained, forgiven.

August Rush'

Plot Outline:
Lyla Novacek (Keri Russell) is a brilliant cellist who has just finished performing a concert in New York City. Lyla goes out on the town with her girlfriend and ends up isolated at a party near New Yorks Washington Square. This is where she meets Louis Connelly (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) an Irish guitar player. They share the love of music and end up truly falling in love together that night.

Lyla promised to meet Louis again but her father forces her not to. They are like two ships that pass in the night, never to see each other again, except for the fact that Lyla is now pregnant with a child. Sadly, Lyla is in a car accident and the unborn child is lost.

August Rush (Freddie Highmore) is that lost child, born with the gift to hear music in all things around him. A music that he believes will bring his parents together to him. This is the story of his journey. His journey from an adoption home, leading him to the city & the very place that this all began.

Overall Impressions:
I know a bunch of people that won't watch a film unless they have a vague idea what it's all about. Sometimes that approach means you really miss out. I knew nothing about this except Keri Russell was in it. The lovely waitress that makes a pie for every occasion.

From the very first scene which starts with the boy, feeling the notes in the air as he hears the wind, I was totally dragged into this, as the plot develops, we learn about how the present situation has come about in a number of flashbacks and this works spectacularly well for the narrative.

It's like a number of different aspects of the story that lead to one specific ending & I really liked that. It reminds me of how people are brought together from all sorts of backgrounds and walks of life, everyday under some strange coincidence, but sometimes that collision means something more.

The music throughout matched the mood too, which is obviously more crucial when it's a film about music & musicians. What surprising was also how good the kid was, he wasn't annoying, I mean really what are the odds?

Beowulf 3D'

About the film:
Beowulf is based on an Old English heroic epic poem of anonymous authorship. Its creation dates to between the 8th and the 11th century, the only surviving manuscript dating to circa 1010. At 3183 lines, it is notable for its length. It has risen to national epic status in England.

In the poem, Beowulf (Ray Winstone) a hero of the Geats, battles three antagonists: Grendel, the monster who is attacking the Danish mead hall called Heorot and its inhabitants; Grendel's mother; and some years later in life, an unnamed dragon.The film makes some creative changes but is in essence the same plot. Hero comes to rescue town & fights some monsters.

Created through motion capture, a technique similar to that used by Zemeckis previously in The Polar Express (which I haven't seen). So as you can tell by the poster, it looks interesting visually. I was intrigued and so I went along to see it.

Overall Impressions:
Firstly I should say the 3D stuff, as gimicky as it is worked well, very well. Thinking back I can't imagine this in 2D, so much of it would go wasted in 2D it seems, that said I'm not going back to see how it compares. No way. As you all probably know by now, this whole fantasy, dragons, monsters & lark is just not very me. Even that isn't the reason that I wouldn't watch this again -- the reason is the words I uttered to my friend just as the end credits rolled: "Oh, dear".

The whole motion capture thing was pretty cool for the first few minutes. Afterwards, I wouldn't say the novelty wore off but I guess you get used to it and start seeing the characters for the characters rather than the effects -- which is good. That said all through the film I found myself chuckling for the wrong reasons, it just felt lost in itself, trying to be 300 or some other epic hero, rather than its own individual self. The only saving graces were the amazing visuals & Ray Winstone saying "Monster" in his cockney accent.

Good Luck Chuck'

Plot Outline:
Based on a ahort story by Steve Glenn, it's the story of a young man named Charlie Logan a.k.a Luck Charm Chuck (Dane Cook), as a young child, a woman scorned left him with a curse. Love shall rain all around him but will never be his. Since the curse as made him wildly popular with single women: "Sleep with Charlie once, and the next man you meet will be your true love", little did he know how true this was, until he finds the one he wants to keep (Jessica Alba).

Overall Impressions:
It's a silly little film just as the synopsis suggests. The thing with silly little films is they need to entertain. This one does but only in parts. It has the feel of something like Super Bad or Knocked Up, but frankly lacks the laugh a minute punch that's really needed for it to work (the mentioned are far superior films). Don't get me wrong, it has a number of moments, but some parts are just plain weird, (even for me) and so, as a whole it's just not upto the bar that it's trying to reach.

Stardust'

Plot Outline:
Based on a novel by Neil Gaiman it's the story of a young man named Tristan (Charlie Cox) trying to win the heart of Victoria (Sienna Miller), by going on a quest to retrieve a fallen star to prove his love. His journey takes him to a mysterious and forbidden land beyond the walls of his village. On his odyssey, Tristan finds the star, which has transformed into a striking girl named Yvaine (Claire Danes). However, Tristan is not the only one seeking the star.

Lord Stormhold's (Peter O'Toole) three living sons (and the gosts of the dead ones), and an the evil witch Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) too seek the star, each for their own reasons. As Tristan battles to survive these threats he encounters new friends Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro) and his crew and new foe (above mentioned + more). Somewhere along the way, his quest changes to now win the heart of the star for himself, as he discovers the meaning of true love.

Overall Impressions:
Well, the whole fantasy world thing doesn't appeal to me all that much, that said once in a while I'll find one I feel the urge to go see & enjoy, the last one was funnily enough about a year ago -- Pan's Labyrinth. Since then I haven't come across any that I felt I 'must' watch, Stardust inclusive. The only reason I went to go see it was that I had heard good things, plus it was conveniently showing soon after a meal I had with a friend this saturday afternoon.

Now that I've seen it, I'll say it's a 'nice' film. One of the cosy films I could see myself watching when it's raining out with a cup of cocoa. Still no patch on PL but even so it falls under the better fantasy films I've seen. It has all the ingredients of a romantic fantasy flick requires and it holds together pretty well.

The only negative I could attach to it is perhaps that it doesn't go any further beyond the expected. Now I might just be fussy here, but looking back at it, you can almost see the number of checkboxes being ticked off. Characters: Evil Witches, Pirates, Competition to Royal Heritage, Boy, Damsel in Distress, Spare Girl for Boy to think he loves before he meets DID ... Storylines: Getting to the Star, Character Developing, Learning about True Love, Freeing Mother, Defeating Witch .. I'll stop before I fill this with spoilers -- you get the idea. The Robert De Niro track was pleasant & the ghosts integrated into the background too was a good touch, otherwise, a bit same same.

After Hairspray, it's yet again great to see Michelle Pfieffer on screen -- she's still got it :), Charlie Cox as Tristan was plain okay, he kinda almost got on my nerves, but thankfully Clare Danes was there to divert my attention in most scenes & she and her 'glowing' personality is what I think I took away with me.

Planet Terror'

Plot Outline:
After an experimental bio-nerve gas is accidentally released at a remote U.S. military base in Texas, those exposed to the gas turn into flesh-eating, mutating zombies. An assortment of various people including a stripper Cherry (Rose McGowan), her shady mechanic ex-boyfriend Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), a strong-willed doctor, the local sheriff, and a whole bunch of local misfits must join forces to survive the night as the infected threaten to take over the whole town or worse -- the planet.

Overall Impressions:
As everybody I know had suggested, this was a notch above the other Grindhouse film (Death Proof). I enjoyed the trailor for Machete too, but that's the only 'one' trailer we got. The plot is just as silly as it sounds, but it's good fun to watch. In contrast to Death Proof, what certainly worked for this is they don't waste any time & get straight on with the story. Enter the zombies, it gets worse, and worse, to the point you didn't think they could go. (When you see Quentin's last scene you'll know what I mean).

The mayhem that this film is reflects quite easily by the sheriff in the lines: "Don't shoot yourself. Don't shoot each other. And especially...*pause* Don't shoot me." It gets gutsy gorey, but not in a sick twisted way like Hostel, or Saw, or those types of horrors, this one goes back to Rodriguez old-skool. Its more reminiscent of films like From Dusk Til Dawn.

Lookout, The

Plot Outline:
An admired high school hockey player (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) foolishly takes a drive in the night with his girlfriend and two others with his headlights off with devastating results. Left with a brain injury that prevents him from remembering many things for extended periods of time, he compensates by keeping notes in a small notebook to aid him with his routine.

Obviously, with the mental incapacitation, he is unable to have a meaningful job. He works by night as a cleaner in a bank. A blast from his past (Matthew Goode) re-befriends him and gets him involved with a young woman (Isla Fisher). Only after they all get close do their true intentions unfold.

Overall Impressions:
Once in a while you get a film enter the horizon that manages to surprise you. This one fits the bill. It's an interesting little flick, leaving you wondering what's going on & how it will pan out while watching it. Thankfully it doesn't leave you disappointed with the result either.

It kinda reminded me of Memento and The Score in it's story but the way it's been handled is novel, it also maintains a sense of mystery after the show is over. Being a pretty small-time film, it may not be one you 'look out' for, but one you'll enjoy if & when you do catch it.

Rendition

Plot Outline:
When an Egyptian terrorism suspect (Omar Metwally) "disappears" on a flight from Africa to Washington DC, his American wife (Reese Witherspoon) and a CIA analyst (Jake Gyllenhaal) find themselves caught up in a struggle to secure his release from a secret detention facility somewhere outside the US.

Overall Impressions:
Simply put, it's not bad, but I went in expecting far more than I got. I came out feeling somewhat unfulfilled. As per numerous reviews I have read, there are some nice surprises, backed by some great performances, showing that a freshness in the industry is still there, when they put in the effort, but all great intent & jazz put aside, on the grand scale of things I saw it as rather a pointless film. The subject just didn't click with me. The big bad government can make people disappear. Whoopee-doo. The enemies are strong and well organised, they even blow stuff up, yawn. Sometimes people get stuck in the middle, okay, got it, seems logical. Oh that's it.

Saw IV

Plot Outline:
Jigsaw and his apprentice Amanda are dead. Now, upon the news of Detective Kerry's murder, two seasoned FBI profilers arrive in the terrified community to assist the veteran Detective Hoffman in sifting through Jigsaw's latest grizzly remains and piecing together the puzzle. However, when a SWAT Commander is abducted too and thrust into the game, the last officer of the team untouched by Jigsaw has but ninety minutes to overcome a series of demented traps and save an old friend or face the deadly consequences.

Overall Impressions:
I went in thinking, surely this can't work, came out thinking, okay, so it can work, but it's still no patch on the previous films. I definitely still think they should have stopped after the 3rd instalment.

It has all the ingredients of the prior films as far as traps, gore and nifty little surprises go, but the overall statement that Jigsaw was giving about having value for life, seems to have fizzled. For people like me who dismiss the gore as a mere aftereffect, this means it loses its soul. I fel this was happening earlier in the series, but then it was explained. Here, unfortunately, they've resorted to confusing rather than explaining. I get the feeling to make this work they have pulled together irrelevant parts of what we have already seen and added depth to it, which is reasonable, except for the part that it feels that way.

It does have some more positive parts, like the background behind Jigsaw and how parts of the prior films actually came about, but even this doesn't outweigh this feeling of "stop, you're ruining it".

If it's Halloween it must be Saw?? No, not really. They've got a lot of people in this time due to the curiosity of "Seriously? How can they??" but I doubt instalment #5 will even have that advantage going for them.

Ratatouille'

Plot Outline:
Remy is a rat, constantly risking his life because of his love of good food, as well as a desire to become a chef. Yet, obviously, this is a rather tough dream for a rat. But when fate places Remy in the sewers of Paris, he finds himself ideally situated beneath a restaurant made famous by his culinary hero, Auguste Gusteau.

Despite the apparent dangers of being an unlikely - and certainly unwanted - visitor in the kitchen of such a fine restaurant, an opportunity he can't refuse knocks when a young boy, who desperately needs to keep his job at the restaurant (despite his lack of cooking abilities), discovers and partners the young Remy.

Its up to the two of them to avoid the insane head chef, bring the rest of Remy's family up to his standards, win his partner a girl, and, of course, produce the finest Ratatouille in all of France.

Overall Impressions:
Pixar films have always been a treat to watch, this one is no different in that respect, but naturally if they keep raising the bar at each new film, eventually something's got to give. I think that's what happened with Cars (the only one I didn't watch). After the success of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, for some reason Cars just didn't appeal. This one however .. Thumbs-Up!

I wouldn't say it's my favourite from their picture house if I had to pick one, it's not as great as half of the reviews I've stumbled across, I'd even say it surprises and amuses me how high up it holds in the imdb Top 250, but in addition to this all, it has to be said, it is a fun film to watch. I can't deny it that. Do I sound conflicted? Well get over it, go see it and decide for yourself. :-P It is worth seeing, I guess just the over-done rant and rave around it had me expecting more is all.

Anybody who likes their food tasty will like the film. Basically, fun for all the family.

Mr. Brooks

Plot Outline:
After Mr Brooks (Kevin Costner) receives a "Man of the Year" award, we find out he is a serial killer haunted by the voice of his alter ego inside his head. Divided between a cold and racional Brooks and an emotional and intuitive Marshall (William Hurt), he decides to satisfy Marshall by killing his last victims and then "retiring" to a simple family life.

Something goes wrong in this final deed and he cannot leave his life of crime. Meanwhile, other things start to go wrong with his perfect family life too, and adding to this some more a rough cop (Demi Moore) familiar with his killing pattern also begins to chase him.

Mr. Brooks soon finds out that the only way to put an end to his life of crime is to kill again, and then some more, or die/disappear in the process.

Overall Impressions:
Unlike most of the people I know, I don't hate Kevin Costner as an actor, that might be because I haven't seen the films that people thought were a letdown. Haven't seen The Postman or Waterworld. I remember him as the guy from Field of Dreams, Robin Hood, The Bodyguard and that kick-ass film The Untouchables, but even so does a couple of bad films make a bad actor?. Okay, on that note I do realise I've said bugger-all about Mr. Brooks yet so I'll get to it.

From the very opening it had me gripped, as he and his partner (alter-ego) move onto their 'last' murder, it was interesting to see the words exchanged. The guy was a perfectionist, but when all was said and done, he even noted the loose end he had left. Anything else that we may have missed out from that scene was explained by the police at the crime scene the following day.

As I said earlier I think Costner is a good actor, but even I didn't think he had it in him to pull this one off, but he has, perfectly at that. The poster reminded me a bit of One Hour Photo, which though cool I was a little disappointed by. This one ticked all the right boxes by my book. An addicted killer trapped by a loose end and his addiction leading to ... ah well yea' that's the crunch, how can this end? Surely the options are whether he gets away with it, or not? As I played these out in my head I came to realise, neither would have been satisfying for me. Since films like The Usual Suspect, A cool bad guy that 'wins' is just as much a cliche' these days as good winning over evil, yet somehow they managed to satisfy me with what they did do. The end result: Finally a film that shows some freshness in the films about serial killers. Bravo.

I just caught it on it's way out of my local cinema, unlike Invasion this time I'm glad I did. Definitely worth a watch. On my DVD shopping list for sure.

Invasion, The

Plot Outline:
A crashed space shuttle brings a form of bacteria to earth that becomes catalysed during sleep, and turns the infected host into an emotionless human. A psychiatrist (Nicole Kidman) becomes infected whilst trying to find her son, and therefore must not fall asleep lest she become like them. She and her boyfriend (Daniel Craig) discover that one of her patients and her son are immune to the virus, due to a severe strain of chicken pox they had in a previous year, and so they fight their way into a quarantined area where they can be tested to create a possible cure.

Overall Impressions:
I haven't seen any of the 'Body Snatcher' flicks, so no comparisons here. I had heard that the cast wanted nothing to do with the promotion of this film, which usually means bad news. Now having seen it, I can see why. That said it's not terrible, it's okay, watchable. I probably wouldn't watch it again but it is well acted and the concept is interesting.

Unfortunately the whole profound message it was trying to give saying that "humans are primal and with humanity comes war", though interesting, doesn't really stick, so I feel it fails in its intentions there. As far as the story-telling narrative is concerned though, it's okay. The journey of an infected woman, safe-guarding her son, in hope for a cure, that part works, the problem being it's too predictable and hence bores you.

Overall, it holds together structurally, but it's just pretty dull to watch pan out. A shame.

Last Legion, The

Plot Outline:
As the Roman empire crumbles, young Romulus Augustus flees the city and embarks on a perilous voyage to Britainnia to track down a legion of supporters.

Overall Impressions:
As a yawn flick, this stands well. Passable in every respect. The performances were good. I didn't think Colin Firth had it in him to do brave and sword yielder. Bollywood starlet Aishwarya Rai adds glamour and humour to the mix, without standing out as awkward. Ben Kingsley is his usual spectacular quirky self, but there's simply no covering up that it's just plain boring.

There is lots of 'seen before' stuff going on, you can see the betrayals, the wars and their results three scenes before they happen. The whole thng is just too damned familiar, which can work if a certain freshness is added, alas that is not the case here.

If you've got nothing better to do, maybe, but with the wonder of multiplexes, this won't be the case. Will it?

Resident Evil: Extinction

Plot Outline:
Years after the Raccoon City disaster, Alice (Milla Jovovich) is on her own; aware that she has become a liability and could endanger those around her, she is struggling to survive. Meanwhile, traveling through the Nevada Desert and the ruins of Las Vegas, a group of survivors must fight to survive extinction against hordes of zombies, killer crows and the most terrifying creatures created as a result of the deadly T-Virus that has killed millions.

Overall Impressions:
What I enjoyed about this film (apart from watching Milla Jovovich) is that it hold up a sense of integrity. They've toned down some of what you saw in the second film and reconnected with what really worked for the original. It holds up as a standalone film but would definitely work better for those who have seen the first film. How well connected it is to the games that it is based on is something I can't really comment on, but it's a fun zombie flick.

The latest from the Umbrella Corporation gets thumbs up from me, not a must see, but certainly a good popcorn flick for a lazy evening.

Michael Clayton

Plot Outline:
Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is an in-house "fixer" at one of the largest corporate law firms in New York. A former criminal prosecutor, Clayton takes care of the dirtiest work at the firm. Though burned out and hardly content with his job as a fixer, his divorce, a failed business venture and mounting debts have left Clayton inextricably tied to the firm.

Meanwhile, at a company called U-North, the career of a litigator rests on the multi-million dollar settlement of a class action suit that Clayton's firm is leading to a seemingly successful conclusion.

The tables turn as brilliant and guilt-ridden attorney Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) who trained Michael decides to sabotage the U-North case in his new enlightenened (mental) state. Facing up to his mentor, Clayton now faces the biggest challenge of his career and his life.

Overall Impressions:
Falsely advertised a a thriller, it's more of a talkie-talk film. Interesting in parts but mostly I'd say the film is a large leadup to the final event. This final event is all well and good. Bravo to Mr. Clooney for making that worth the wait. Looking back at the film as a whole though, I don't really see the big deal. Clooney and Wilkinson are the focus of the film and their performances flawless, but the remainder of the film is quite bland. There isn't enough story for you to warrant the duration in my opinion.

Not really seeing what the big deal was surrounding this film. It was okay, wouldn't see it again.

War

Plot Outline:
After his partner Tom Wynne and family are killed apparently by the infamous and elusive assassin Rogue, FBI agent Jack Crawford (Jason Statham) becomes obsessed with revenge as his world unravels into a vortex of guilt and betrayal. Rogue (Jet Li) eventually resurfaces to settle a score of his own, setting off a bloody crime war between Asian mob rivals Chang of the Triad's and Yakuza boss Shiro. When Jack and Rogue finally come face to face, war ensues and the ultimate truth of their pasts will be revealed.

Overall Impressions:
Plot is mediocre at that, there are plot twists that seem forced and much of the rest is predictable, yet even so I will be buying this on DVD upon its release. Why? Style. If I sum up this film in one word it would be 'slick'. Jet Li is the very reflection of what a rogue assasin should be like. I prefer that title too if I'm honest. If it wasn't for the lazy plot, this could have made film of the year for me, alas it falls flat in that category.

Even so, it's high up there as Jet Li is too damned cool in it. He takes the role of a hitman that I would have in my head and amplifies it (which if you've ever had a discussion with me about scripts & films with assasins in them, you'll know is quite an achievement).

Worth seeing for Jet Li's cool and calm if nothing else. Really. He is 'that' good in it.

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.

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.