Dan Brown's novel is hands-down one of the best damn book I've ever read in my whole life. The book was preposterous, yes, but it was bloody entertaining and gripping. A sure-fire hell of a thriller. Now, Ron Howard's adaptation was, in my own words, acceptable. It sounds off-beat but it deserves the word. I didn't say that this is a bad film, but rather feeling thankful that it wasn't disappointing, although it misses a notch from Dan Brown's masterpiece. The book reads like a great film. The film rolls like a good book. But good and great are two different words altogether. I think Ron Howard was respectable enough to be chosen as the director of this adaptation and Akiva Goldsman was also respectable enough to write the screenplay, but what I really do think was that I know Mr Goldsman wanted to be really faithful to the book, but being so faithful had suddenly transformed the whole movie as if he had turned Dan Brown's book word for word. What I really like in the film was that it was faithful enough, including the plot, the storylines and the cliffhangers. Yep, even the cliffhangers are present. Dan Brown's chapter cliffhangers are written all over the movie, and the filmmaker decided to adapt it also. Ron Howard's directing was absolutely engaging but sometimes, the film feels a bit hurried. There are some scenes in it that feels so short and confusing. Some scenes which compasses only within seconds that an audience would really feel a bit left out. There are also the "talks". That's why children aren't allowed to watch this movie, aside from Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene would maybe distort their Christian minds. There are a lot of talks in this film, as what I do expected, and children would surely go to sleep by the time Leigh Teabing started preaching. Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon was also acceptable. Gladly he didn't overplay the role, much respect too for one of my most favourite actors. He was fine as the titular character and his bearing just rightly envelopes the way Langdon does. Audrey Tautou (pronounced as Toe-Two) was a bit amazing. I love her and she portrayed Sophie Noveau in the exact chemical component, watch out for the intense scenes she was in, especially choking the hell out of Silas and slapping him countless of times. You could really feel the hate in her eyes, her wrath in her fingers. Of course, I've been starting to love Audrey since I wantched her in A Very Long Engagement. Too bad, I haven't watched Amelie yet. Now, I think Paul Bettany is the best actor here. His portrayal of Silas the Albino monk was like coming right out from Dan Brown's book. He's phenomenal! Jean Reno as Bezu Fache was acceptable but subtly underplayed and Sir Ian McKellen, bloody Ian, he did play around with his role and I think he just played around it fine. Leigh Teabing suddenly becomes the crippled Patrick Stewart's Professor Xavier of X-Men with an intelliegence beyond million light years. Of course, the plot. I don't want to discuss here or argue about Christianity or people trying to ban this movie and that this film must be restrained from being released in theaters. I don't want to argue if Jesus really had a prostitute for a wife named Mary Magdalene and that his blood line carried on until now, being protected by a modern order called the Priory of Sion and that there's a society trying to kill the so-called blood line, a Roman Catholic branched organization called Opus Dei. It is preposterous. It is contemptuous, in the side of the Vatican. But here's the little thing, since I don't want to argue because I have been arguing this for a couple of narrow-minded people already. Dan Brown's work is a piece of fiction. And I just couldn't understand why people doesn't know the meaning of "fiction". Maybe grab a dictionary and look for the meaning of "fiction", maybe you'll understand why. So why make a big deal out of it? Why does the Catholic Church make so much fuss banning it? It's just fiction, right?

Question: Does Tom Cruise still kicked big time nowadays? Answer: Er - just forget he'd been jumping over Oprah's couch on a live show and you'll be doing fine, at least temporarily. Honestly, Mission Impossible 3, in my own opinion, isn't disappointing as what I expected it to be, much less expecting Tom Cruise would be cured from his I-LOVE-KATIE! insanity. The film didn't totally rocked as in ROCKED, but as far as I could say, it's entertaining, jam-packed hig-flying action adventure, and the only M.I. movie stirred with emotions. I quite like it actually. It isn't the best of the M.I. films but it rivals the level of the first one and is actually better than the second one, which was a bit far-off and too impossible for such cliched missions. M.I. 3 contains the missions that are both amazing and well-thought. I admit, there was a time a bit my nails because I'm all too much engrossed at some action sequences. Maggie Q is da bomb! She hasn't got much role, but still she pulled out her character perfectly. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was a superb add-on to the film and Vhing Rhames was just the way he acted in the former Mission movies. Tom Cruise, let's skip him for now, but nice acting anyway, not too bad for a Hollywood A-Lister. What really caught me in this film was Truman Capote - I mean, Philip Seymour Hoffman, a terrific bad guy in this film, mighta add. His bearing is all too effective. I was astounded by his acting potentials really, and this was a kind of bad guy that you would surely believe his threats. I actually believed him when he said at the count of ten, he would pull the trigger at Ethan Hunt's love object, and well, he did. Whew, I went through a blast watching this film and surely, true Mission Impossible fans wouldn't be disappointed by this one. After witnessing Tom Cruise battling his raving dementia nowadays across tabloids and even in TV shows, well pulling off one final Mission movie wasn't too impossible after all.

Superbly done, even in the comic-book-adaptation standards. It's inteligent, wickedly entertaining and at the same time, driven by two of the most suprising performances i've seen since 2006 had started. V For Vendetta is a feast to the eyes with gorgeous and haunting images, both visceral and revolutionary to its deepest sense. The Wachowski brothers had solidly created a majestic bravura, a breakthrough from the bleak walls that they had built upon the very horrible Matrix Revolutions. First stop, I enjoyed the film. Based upon Guy Fawkes idea of freedom from the future anarchy of Britain, it is surely a peek through one of the possibilities of the future, where Britain's monarchy had fled and now slapped with dictatorship or should I call, totalitarianism. Imagine London streets drifting with smoke with no people strutting around, streets where there are speakers built upon buildings, streets where there is a curfew hour and anyone seen would be in great peril. Imagine a world where there is only one voice to be heard and everybody follows, otherwise, you'd be killed. Imagine a land where the innocent people suffer, sick people gets faster death (i.e. AIDS victims), a land where homosexuality is a taboo, lesbians and gays alike are killed with any inteligible reason at all. This is the world of V For Vendetta, and a man who believed in freedom is juts about to change that all.Second stop, I was mesmerised by the delivered performances. Natalie Portaman is a stunner. Her own craft in the character is solid and shaving her head off would be the one thing that I wouldn't bet bollocks in doing it. Hugo Weaving, on the other hand, playing as "V", hides all the time beneath the mask (not a single second his face was shown) but still able to bring out the wraith-like character of V with style and affluence it deserve, both gracefully and swifty at times. The best scene there is for him was the final scene where he battles tons of police officers with matching Wachowski-trademark slow-motion sequence. Damn, it was poetry in motion, with blood, knives and gore.Last stop, I quite entertained the socio-political idea of it. I tell you now, the film is not the biggest action movie that you wanted to see. V For Vendetta is filled with talks rather than actions, filled with ideas rather than thrills, and filled with visual concoction rather than your normal Jerry-Bruckheimer-wham-bam-kind-of-entertainment. But all in all, it pretty well worked for me with its combined political allegory and ideas of revolution for the betterment of the society. Sometimes it could be as silly as hell, but I think hell couldn't quite handle its silliness because its being silliness becomes a figment of an intelligent mind. As what "V" said, "People should not be afraid of its government, it should be the government that should be afraid of its people." Well, I do think that says it all.

Rating: A-

Let's start reviewing this movie by reviewing what other critics say about this film. Deborah Young from Variety says "...fluid and focused but very concise, commanding audience atention from start to finish." "A thriller with powerful political subtext," writes Michael Wilmington of Chicago Tribune, and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone screams "you won't be able to look away!" And finally, my favourite critic Roger Ebert reveals, "a perplexing and disturbing film of great effect."Now, it's my turn. I couldn't write down fabulous words and exciting appraisals about this film like those critics on the upper part of the page because to tell you honestly, I've been scratching my head while watching this movie. It's not really the most ordinary movie you see almost everyday, and it's not filled with majestic cinematography either. It's filled with still cameras and videos that one might see in other documentary features. Sometimes it drags, it drones and almost bore me half to death. But Caché is one of those films that realisation only drops in full weight right after a few hours watching the film. The film is not that bad after all. It does bore yes, because there is no camera movement in it. And that the story resides on a couple with a child who were all disrupted by their daily lives when they discovered video tapes being sent to them, only to realise that they were being watched. The film's ending left me hanging, and it's supposed to be that way. I scratched my head, yes, I was confused, but things made me open my eyes that this film has a bottomless mystery. It isn't a thriller for me, as what other says, as I wasn't clearly thrilled but the prospects of good editing and unique deft directing must be recognised. Caché means hidden, and just imagine that one day, you'll receive videotapes and realise that your daily life has been watched. Question: who could it be? The answer really is within you.

Rating: B-

To start it off: Madagascar is nowhere near Shrek's territory. That says it all I think. And if I would be a self-serving, brutally narrow-minded bigot of a critic (well, considering writing too many movie reviews now, I guess there's no other word to consider myself one, although I only know one person who's reading this from the gazillion people in the whole wide world - me), I should have said much worse than that. But as if i'm not, i'm trying to assess the film from both sides of the coin. As i've said, Madagascar is no Shrek, no Monster, Inc., no The Incredibles, no Finding Nemo, not all of those other stuffs. It's one of those animated films that make you feel nothing less moved nor uplifted after the credits rolled, one of those animated films that you would surely think, was it worth watching. The answer is not so-so. It is an animated comedy that tries to deliver the laughs but persistently speaking, it fails almost all the time. There was a lot of gags, lots of running around, animals chasing wildly, characters bumping into each other and all those schmillion things that would make a 3-year old child laugh. But hey, I'm 15 years older than that, and I've seen so much heck in my life that I couldn't quite pull out a laugh to it anymore. It's not really a bad film, it's not also a good film either. It's somewhere between those territories where you restrain yourself from launching in your seat and throw a bunch of rotten tomatoes and where you stand up and offer a good applause. The film depends too much on it's voices behind the characters. Although Chris Rock rocked a bit, Ben Stiller didn'y, so did Jada Pinkett Smith as the lady hippo. What really rocked in the film were the penguins. The penguins man! They're cool! They deserve a movie in their own selves.Well, to end this right away, I say it doesn't deserve any applause nor it needs one.

Rating: C

The horror... the horror... Scary Movie 4 is flat-out horrible. Murderously speaking, it's the most badly done of the four. Let's say if the Harry Potter movies just keeps on getting better and better and better and better, the Scary Movie spoof franchise keeps on getting badder and badder and badder. Save the first installment of Scary Movie; I think Scary Movie 1 is the best of them all, and easily the most laughable and entertaining. But after that, what the hell just f-ing happened? If the Wayans brothers couldn't now fart a big load of laugh, how much more from the Naked Gun director David Zucker, who knows nothing but throwing, sliding, bumping and knocking each other heads off. Since when did a Anna Faris being hit by a baseball became funny? Since when did a gigantic iPod emerging from the ground became interesting? Since when did Shaquille O'Neal became well-suited to movies? I mean, he doesn't even know how to act for Christ's sake. Truly horrible, the most bland, most underserving, unlaughable and a disaster flick, too far-fetched from the anticipated spoof film. It spoofed a lot, yeah, but it was like 99.99999% of it didn't worked. Except fot the Brokeback Mountain parody and the Tom-Cruise-sprinting-on-Oprah's-couch spoof. But apart from those two, it contains the most nonsensical plot I've seen in my whole life. After watching this film, I realised one thing. After the first two Scary Movies, they turned down sexuality a bit and plowed it around the PG-13 territory. I guess the makers should realise to pull the strings back to R-18 territory, in that way, maybe they could save the day. But it's too late now, Scary Movie 4 is the last and final chapter of the trilogy, wasn't it?
Rating: D

A kid's film, an all-time classic, a wondrous film both resonating and ultimately endearing - that's what I expected this film to be. Sadly, it failed in all categories. Thanks to the saving grace of Emma Thompson as the titular character. If not for her, this kid's movie would surely be out of history. Even Colin Firth wasn't much of a helped to save this film, and even that kid in Love, Actually, you know the kid who got a secret crush on a girl, the son of Liam Neeson's character, I don't know his name actually, couldn't pull out a dive either. Maybe it was a bit too colourful for my standards and too British to be accepted by many. Of course, I couldn't blame it to be British; I've been loving soo many British films over the past years. Braveheart, anyone? Or maybe, Harry Potter perhaps? This is a kid's film and I would say surely some kids would love this, or maybe adore it a lot but I surely tell that a kid whose been seeing so much of this stuff would find it a bit boring, or maybe an intelligent kid would find it too kid-ish for an ordinary standard. For some, it is a good movie, but for others who think otherwise would surely consider this as not much of a breakthrough. But I still respected the movie, that's what it deserves, more to Emma Thompson than the film itself.

Rating: B-

Before watching the film, I felt a bit incredulous in seeing the tagline in the movie poster "Before Romeo & Juliet, There was..." and you know what comes next. Well, to tell the truth, I wasn't really into the film because many have failed trying to revive or to romanticize the Romeo & Juliet cliche, and Hollywood had done poorly in bringing forbidden love stories, and only a few "greats" had passed the sentence. Now, honestly this time, Tristan & Isolde isn't as great as Romeo & Juliet - but - it perseveres to be unique on its own. That is what I like in the movie. It tries to be a "forbidden love" story yet it gives a whole new light to tragic miseries and film substance. The best thing about this movie is that it has an elegantly written script, not from Shakepeare's pages, but from the deft hand of this film's screenwriter, and added up to the director's also deft directing. It is not a perfect movie, but it has perfect moments. There are flaws, but flaws which are worth remembering. Actually, Tristan & Isolde is a good film. And I like the way it was shot, set in the lush sweeping sceneries of Ireland and England, and the way love is conveyed in this film, it's uncommon and they put a new twist to the "forbidden love" thing. James Franco as Tristan is fine and acceptable, whose sharp jaw could almost cut any glass, but still in my own opinion, lacking the leading man subtance we're all looking for. But he did quite fine here actually, almost overshadowing the character he played in Spiderman movies. What really steals the scenes here is Sophia Myles as Isolde. Bloody F-ing hell, she's awesome! She's both strong and fragile in this film and she was able to portray the character really well, making it ultimately believable. She's beautiful and worth having; I trust her to be a fine actress someday. All in all, this movie is worth to watch, enjoyable and had the right amount of love story, mystery and beautiful landscapes.

Rating: A-