Reviews by Lexi

''We're talking chipmunks, Dave. We can get out of a cat carrier. Not even hard to do.''

A struggling songwriter named Dave Seville finds success when he comes across a trio of singing chipmunks: mischievous leader Alvin, brainy Simon, and chubby, impressionable Theodore.

Jason Lee: Dave

When I finally got around to seeing this film recently, it turned out to be exactly what I predicted... yet another Hollywood CG/live-action rehash of an established cartoon franchise. Nothing special or memorable whatsoever. Designed in every way possible to appeal to very young children and very immature adults, making heavy use of comedic devices such as farts, poo-eating, and the size of Theodore's butt.

Alvin and the Chipmunks would bother me a lot less if it weren't such an obvious step down for the cartoon series. Even their characters I found were drastically altered, for the negatively oppressed, for this story. While history has denoted, each one of the three, have had a very distinct personality.
In this film version, they all behaved like immature, smart-alecky children with too much energy, constantly bouncing erratically off the walls. It especially bothered me to see Simon portrayed in this way... He's supposedly the smart one of the trio, a serious nerd who acts as the "straight man" to Alvin's crazy antics. But here he's pretty much a clone of the other two. One joke in the film even implies that Simon only thinks he's intelligent, but really isn't... and honestly if I had never heard of the Chipmunks before seeing this film, I would have agreed.

One of the other irritations that Alvin & the Chipmunks continues to give us, is the money obsessed manager, played by David Cross. Uncle Ian, is the obvious villain of the piece, the temptation aspect of the whole affair. When Dave falls out with the Chipmunks, its rich Ian whom looks after the trio. For a start his whiny voice and whimsical philosophy on fame and commercialized success in pop, also proves sickening as well as annoying. He uses the Chipmunks to make big bucks, although how any one can actually consider Chipmunk singing music is beyond my reasoning. Despite all these whispering jaunts, his villainy proves to be one of the most energized things in the film. Ian and some squirrels was amusing, to say the least, in the credits.

In my opinion, this whole affair, is just another obvious cash makind device, like Garfield was, and I'm more than a little disappointed, the cartoons being far superior to any CGI creation. The fact that it's a children orientated movie doesn't excuse its many flaws... To excuse a stupid movie that degrades a classic franchise, just because it's for children is insulting to children and adults alike, in equal measure.
Any child would deserve something more intelligent than this offering.

''It is written.''

The story of the life of an impoverished Indian teen Jamal Malik, who becomes a contestant on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to be A Millionaire?", wins, and is then suspected of cheating.

Dev Patel: Jamal Malik

Winner of the Audience Award at the Toronto Film Festival, Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan's radical Slumdog Millionaire is the feel-good story of an orphaned, street-wise young man trying to strike gold on India's version of the TV show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" while hoping that the girl he has loved since childhood is watching. Based on the novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup and supported by the stunning cinematography of Anthony Dod Mantle and the music of A.R. Rahman, Slumdog shows us the chaos of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) India where it was filmed. Submerging the viewer in a cacophony of colour and sound, the camera swoops and swirls in an often dizzying pace, taking us from the desolation of back alleys and garbage dumps to modern high rises and the fantastic beauty of the Taj Mahal.



Boyle has nine different non-professional actors in three different time frames, each faithfully representing their character as they grow and develop. In the opening scene, the hero Jamal Malik, brilliantly performed by Dev Patel, is being questioned by Police Inspector (Irrfan Khan) who simply cannot understand how a mere slumdog like Jamal, without any education, can answer question after question on the game show without resorting to lying or cheating. In a city of 13 million people where the police know they can get away with almost anything, the methods of torture used to extract a confession are graphically displayed. With Jamal, however, they only succeed in uncovering the deeper layers of his character as the film flashes back to specific incidents in his life that reveal how his knowledge was gained by personal experience.

He knows, for example, that the star of the 1973 film Zanjeer was Amitabh Bachchan because he was his favourite actor/idol as a little boy and was willing to cover himself with filth just to get his autograph. Built on memory, the film relives Jamal's life from the death of his mother, to his entry into service to a cynical gangster who turns street children into blind beggars, reminding us of the millions of third-world children, not as lucky as Jamal, who fight against unending poverty each day. Jamal is fortunate to have allies, however: his brother Salim(Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail) and Latika (Rubina Ali), another orphan that Jamal becomes attached to form the "Three Musketeers", ready to do battle with the world.
Salim reminding me of a City Of God result for his character, whom inevitably also redeems himself, while showing God as a salvation for greed and killing.

Though circumstances lead the three into different areas when they become adults, Salim (Madhur Mittai) into the criminal underworld, Latika (Freida Pinto) to be kept by a rich man, and Jamal to become a chai wallah, a server of tea to telemarketers. However Jamal does not give up, knowing that his life is governed by destiny, fate and ruled by unending love. Using their wits to survive, the funniest scenes include Jamal and Salim finding themselves as tour guides at the Taj Mahal, inventing stories or the part where Jamal is locked inside an outhouse while his childhood hero star Amitabh is outside signing autographs; escape involves having to go through smelly excrement. Highly amusing and the child actors maintain the harshness and innocence realistically similarly to City of God.
The center of the film, however, revolves around Jamal's contesting for millions of rupees on the game show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"; not necessarily to become rich but to woo his soulmate Latika whom he knows is a fan of the show.

We cheer for Jamal to win his fortune and most importantly, to get his love back. While we are aware that the story is an unlikely fantasy, we also know that as barriers between individuals and nations break down and the world moves toward a greater sense of unity, the distinction between what is possible is broken down into a singularity. Slumdog Millionaire may be the best film of the year, while in real life headlines telling us daily that the economy is dying, and that climate change threatens our very existence; a film that is a pure celebration of life is welcomed with open arms. Danny Boyle gives us his best film yet.

''This is our destiny.''

''What do you want? I know what I want, cause I'm holding it in my hands.''

A young widow discovers that her late husband has left her 10 messages intended to help ease her pain and start a new life.

Hilary Swank: Holly

P.S. I Love You is obviously someone trying to be clever and original, but ends up being boring and depressing. It is, throughout, simply, awkward. Scenes drag themselves out without apparent purpose or design. Characters and actors all seem to be coming from T.V. Series, making it feel like something at home on Hallmark rather than the big screen. (I spotted three Actors from three series) Lines of dialogue seem to be melodramatic and unintentionally romanticized.
You don't know whether the filmmaker's goal was to create a heartwarming bonding of love or a gut-wrenching battle of two estranged lovers. Hillary Swank is especially out of place in these murky happenings, feeling like she must be doing a film in a studio next door and just visiting the set of this film.
I spent the time after watching it, wondering how so many talented people could have made such a mess. The stars are fine. We know these people and we know what they can do: Kathy Bates and Hillary Swank are Oscar winners, for example.

''We're so arrogant, aren't we? So afraid of age, we do everything we can to prevent it. We don't realize what a privilege it is to grow old with someone. Someone who doesn't drive you to commit murder or doesn't humiliate you beyond repair.''

The biggest problems are the script and the directing. The script is soulless. Not a single believable, consistent character emerges from this squalid affair. Holly, the lead, (Swank), is, by rotations, depicted as a resentful, frustrated shrew, a nature girl dopey hippy, and a high-heeled shoe fetishist. Kathy Bathes, the mom, is depicted as hating her son-in-law and railing against her daughter, and then is shown to have done something kindly that goes against everything we were told about her.
Not only does the script not make sense, there are scenes that are downright cringe-inducing. Characters that the viewer knows should not be kissing kiss, characters we are supposed to like behave like temperamental, shallow block heads. The main premise – that a man dictates his wife's life after his death is downright creepy, unnatural and sickening.

So, what happened to Richard Lagravenese, who has written great scripts in the past? My best evaluation being neither he nor anybody else involved has any respect for the potential for excellence in a movie about women.
Women whom are cut and pasted unto a series of scenes that they thought would get the ladies to cry and sigh.
Oh, here we need a kiss. Ladle a kiss in here. Okay, here we need a catfight between girlfriends. Tick off said fight. Okay, here we need a poignant mother-daughter moment. Let's rewrite a scene from Terms of Endearment and place it in here.
Look – some people are saying that loving or hating this movie is about the difference between men and women. Don't believe them. P.S. I Love You is a simply awful movie adaptation of a book trying something done alot better previously, thus an insult to its intended female audience. If you want to see a good chick flick, there are plenty out there, that are as intelligent as anything, made for men. Don't tell me that this movie's abysmal quality is the fault of women. Rather, it's the fault of treating women, and art made for women, with complete disrespect.

''It's been a year. I don't feel him anymore. I feel he's gone. He's really gone!''

''I'll tell you a secret. Something they don't teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.''

An adaptation of Homer's great epic, the film follows the assault on Troy by the united Greek forces and chronicles the fates of the men involved.

Brad Pitt: Achilles

The release and making of Troy held slightly unfair, overblown expectations. All critics expected it to be, just like Gladiator. But why on earth would it be? They are not the same. A few points include: they're not set in the same period, the same country, nor are they about a similar topic. One is about a war, the other a personal vendetta. One is made up, the other is based on stories told over 3,000 years ago. In fact, one could almost say that the only things they have in common are sandals and swords. Oh, and remarkably everyone speaks English. Which is helpful forlazy western audiences.

Troy is a horrendously budgeted epic, and this clearly shows in its impressive production values, whether it's the awesome sight of the 1,000 ships sailing across the Aegean Sea, or the brutal battle scenes – everything looks right. However, whilst this is all well and good, problems Troy stem from the source material.

''I've fought many wars in my time. Some I've fought for land, some for power, some for glory. I suppose fighting for love makes more sense than all the rest.''

The credits claim the film was "inspired by The Iliad", and here is the first error. The film is historically inaccurate and incorrect, and this is most obvious towards the end. The Iliad is the story of Achilles, and does not involve the infamous Wooden Horse, or even the sack of Troy. These are covered in later epics The Odyssey and Virgil's The Aeneid. It's as if the director never read these works, and made up the rest of the story as he went along. Not that it makes too much difference to the story, but those familiar with the epics will feel cheated. Also the motives for the war, whilst they made absolute sense in the society in which the stories were first told, don't hold true anymore. In the epics the stories were concerned with heroes, honour and love. That this war was started because Paris stole someone else's girl just doesn't sit well with a modern audience, and so they cannot relate to these heroes. It doesn't help with the fact that the audience doesn't know which side they should be rooting for – there are in the epics no real goodies and baddies, merely two nations each with their own heroes. The director has to take time every now and again to reiterate the reasons for the war, that of Paris' love for Helen, but tries to give a more believable reason by giving Brian Cox's character of Agamemnon a more imperialistic bent, deviating further from his source.

I've envisioned Troy to seem like a disaster, but it is in fact not a complete loss. If the audience can just accept the reasons for the war, then there is little problem in enjoying the rest of the film. The beginning is slow to get going, but once Achilles (Brad Pitt) and Hector (Eric Bana) have their one-on-one clash, the film reaches a momentum it does not lose. The battle scenes easily rival any seen on the big screen to date, and most of the cast do an impressive job in portraying their heroes in varying degrees of suffering. Honours should be given to Eric Bana for his role as the suitably regal heir to Troy, who suffers the wrath of Achilles in a simply choreographed yet remarkably compelling clash, and to Peter O'Toole who plays Hector's father and king of Troy, Priam. Also, contrary to most critical response, Brad Pitt plays the character of Achilles with a suitable display of bravery, power and shows one hell of a temper, even though after his fight with Hector his motivation for staying is lost. Orlando Bloom's Paris is a little weak, turning into Legolas without the contacts and blonde wig, towards the end, and Diane Kruger's Helen lacks dimensionality, but other than this, the cast are fine. Aside from a few niggles - including a fairly clunky script which does the film no favours - and an extensive running time, Troy is an enjoyable film, which deserves to sit high up in the ranks of sword-and-sandal epics.

''I want what all men want, I just want it more.

''The way of the future.''

A biopic depicting the early years of legendary director and aviator Howard Hughes' career, from the late 1920s to the mid-1940s.

Leonardo DiCaprio: Howard Hughes

Martin Scorsese keeps it real with Avaitor. There's none of the foul language or gratuitous violence that characterized some of his most famous mob films, like Casino or Goodfellas. He has crafted a very interesting character study biopic of famous entrepreneur Howard Hughes, master of aerospace and maker of B-movies.



You see plenty his involvement in both enterprises in this piece Scorsese delivers. Leonardo DiCaprio seems a little too boyish to play Hughes when he is in his forties, but he clearly is so passionate about his role that you forget the little indiscretions such as age difference. He plays Hughes with so much energy that he makes the role all his own, making it pretty clear DiCaprio is having fun with this role. Those who dislike hammy acting, may think of DiCaprio as over-the-top, but I was positively taken by it. His portrayal of Hughes' various neuroses and compulsions make this a very compelling story to watch, mirroring Johnny Depp's portrayal of the equally odd and neurotic, surreal Ed Wood.

The other actors do fine turns. Cate Blanchett is fun to watch as the upper-crust actress Katherine Hepburn. She seems to be having as much enjoyment with her role as DiCaprio, and she's not afraid to ham it up as well. Kate Beckinsdale is fine as Ava Gardner, and John C. Reilly does a serviceable job as Hughes' long-suffering accountant.

''I care very much about aviation.''

Scorsese does a competent job attempting to portray his version of Howard Hughes' life. He tries to cram down the message of an eccentric man with huge visions that no one else can comprehend. He seems mad when he tries to re-do and innovate his movies or his aircraft. Sometimes his compulsive behavior gets in the way of his dreams, but in the end he deftly fights off the skepticism of his collaborators or the threats from the competition, in the form of Pan Am founder Juan Trippe. He, like Tim Burton's Ed Wood, is an oddball who perseveres and usually gets his way in the end. Burton's is the better movie, however, because it does not have the gloss of triumphalism that Scorsese's movie does. Scorsese tries to portray Hughes as a sympathetic and ambitious individual, and while he may have plenty of ambition, he is not exactly a more sympathetic individual than, say, his airline rival Juan Trippe. Viewers can see through the attempted good-guy image that Scorsese gives Hughes to see the battle between the airlines as one of survival of the fittest.

Leonardo DiCaprio seems to have replaced Robert DeNiro as Scorsese's muse, and despite a disappointing turn in the sub-standard 'Gangs of New York', DiCaprio shines here and really does well as the rich, yet troubled, Hollywood icon at the centre of this story. Scorsese seems to have a bit overboard with the cast, as several big names of the present appear as big names of the past. Cate Blanchett irritated me just as much as the real Katherine Hepburn did, which shows the greatness of her performance. Kate Beckinsale and, surprisingly, Gwen Stefani give life to two of Hollywood's golden girls: Ava Gardner and Jean Harlow as well, while smaller roles such as that of the charismatic Errol Flyn fall to the likes of Jude Law. This was the film's major selling point for me - there's something great about the big stars of today portraying the big stars of the golden age, and the way that Scorsese populates almost every scene with the big names of the time ensures that this is as much a film fan's movie as it is a multi-million dollar blockbuster. Critics can complain about a lack of substance as much as they like, but what I saw here was an excellently stylish take on one of Hollywood's most intriguing figures, and I don't hesitate to call this Scorsese's shot at a dazzling biopic epic.

''Men can't be friends with women Howard. They must posses them or leave them be. It’s a primitive urge from caveman days. It’s all in Darwin. Hunt the flesh. Kill the flesh. Eat the flesh. That's the, ah, male sex all over.''

''My city, I can not deny her. My city screams. She is my mother. She is my lover, and I am her Spirit.''

Rookie cop Denny Colt returns from the beyond as The Spirit, a hero whose mission is to fight against the bad forces in Central City.

Gabriel Macht: The Spirit / Denny Colt

The Spirit is Frank Miller's independent Directing response and vision of Will Eisner's comic book series. Using Techniques he learnt from Sin City and 300 he's gone ahead on his own, to create something unique, without any Zack Snyder or Robert Rodriguez at the helm. Yes The Spirit, is completely driven, in entirety by Frank.
So what is The Spirit like? Is it good? Yes it's fun and silly, yet in places serious and dark. Is it in the same league as Sin City & 300? Not exactly. Mainly the disadvantage of The Spirit is that it's restricted to a universal age restriction, not allowing for OTT blood,gore and shootings. So it felt to me, like it's never allowed to let rip and go all out with the actiony antics that happen.

I can see Frank Millar is in a way, paying homage to detective film noirs, with The Spirit. With it's Chinatown-esque superhero, it's gritty narration, and it's dark art. Granted it's a modern day merge with 1940s life, we have old hair styles and mobiles, fashions and modern day weaponry all in the same place. Which sums up The Spirit, Frank Millar's modern re-telling of Will Eisner's comic novel, done his own unique style.
Gabriel Macht as The Spirit, does a reasonable job of fleshing out the masked spirit, while giving some awesomely edible dialogue/narration.
Eva Mendes as Sand Saref, shows a commendable love interest and childhood flame, while showing off her body and assets.
Samuel L. Jackson as The Octopus, kind of ruined the feel of The Spirit, with his over the top villainy, he dresses up as a Samurai, a Nazi, uses silly toilet humour and has demented clones and a sexy sidekick. That all lean towards the hectic tones of a lighter toned, styled comic venture, rather than the dark descent, you expect The Spirit to be.
Scarlett Johansson as Silken Floss, shows her dark side, a quirky funny role yet not the greatest performance she's done. Fun though.
Arthur the Cat & Frank Millar also make stellar appearances, which give us something to smile about.

''You're in love with every women you meet, Mr. Spirit. You say lovely things to all of us and you mean every word you say.''

There's some good idea's on offer, and marvelous scenes of Spirit running and jumping through his city. His love of cats reminded me of Hellboy, while his appearance resembles vigilante Zorro.
Although on other part's we the audience tend to flag and become bored, due to unnecessary flashbacks that kind of slow the story down, to scenes with the villains or Sand Saref that seem to be focusing on extreme laughs.
Samuel L Jackson dressed as a Nazi, giving a kitten some strange glowy serum, seems to be one of the big laughs on offer.(His toilet humour and usage of toilets seemed abit weird yet amusing) Followed by a sexy Plaster Of Paris lady giving some seductive allure to a receptive Spirit.

The Spirit is typical Frank Millar. It has a hero whom is addicted to seducing the ladies, a hero who is dark and handsome, and a town where people find sometimes the best choice is to shoot one self, to help matters. That's Frank's philosophy, that's his city, yet this isn't Sin City. This is The Spirit, this is his take on someone else's dream, and the conversion seems to show all too well in it's results.
More romance, more action, and a stronger emphasis on plot and script, could have made this piece, incredible rather than another offering and film, which feels like another Sin City, another 300, and another Frank Millar offering.

Overall, The Spirit isn't all bad. It isn't all good, yet it is an artistic triumph of effects and comic-book life coming to life. The dark tone and colours create a believable breathing world at times, only spoiled by being overly unrealistic, as opposed to just being a little bit unrealistic. Sometimes less is better, sometimes more can be a help, what The Spirit needed is balance, and an experienced director. However Frank Millar, on his own, does a good job in essence to bring this project together. Theres even nice artwork and effects, on the credits to look out for, after a bizarre finale.

''"What are you?" That's what the woman asked me. Am I some sort of ghost? I still move. I still breathe. I'm still alive.''

''My life... my job... my curse... is to vanquish evil.''

The notorious monster hunter is sent to Transylvania to stop Count Dracula who is using Dr. Frankenstein's research and a werewolf for some sinister purpose.

Hugh Jackman: Van Helsing

The Mummy(1999), Stephen Sommers showed us that he could make a film that had quirky characters, plenty of CGI, and was simply witty and humourous. The sequel was a typical overblown similar venture .
The premise for Van Helsing must have seemed brilliant to film houses bosses, take the three biggest horror characters of the 1800's (namely Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's Monster) and blend them all together with a hero who, whilst originally was just a mild-mannered doctor, is now a kick-ass monster hunter. What could possibly go wrong? Well alot actually.

The problem is that Van Helsing seems like a continuation of the Mummy series, just with a different story, location and a new set of players: 2D characters, massive amounts of dodgy CGI, and dollops of fun, mainly from David Wenham's friar. It's yet another step down for the director who, although has proved he's up for plenty of action, cannot put any life into it. Hugh Jackman appears to be the perfect lead for the role of Gabriel Van Helsing, but he never gets the chance to give depth to his character – as soon as he kills one set of baddies, he's off to kill some more. He can handle the action well (but we already knew this from the X-Men films), and could probably handle any real drama that should have been inserted into the film, but the director just doesn't seem to want us to know anything about any of the characters, he just wants to see them fight, which is not enough. I couldn't help but think that if things had been taken a little slower, the film could have been made that much more interesting – less would have been more in this case.

Anna Valerious: Oh, my God! The Frankenstein Monster!
Frankenstein's Monster: Monster! Who's the monster here? I have done nothing wrong, yet you and your kind still wish me dead!

The film was also executed as a horror and action film, and yet there is not one moment that provides a genuine chill or cheap scare, although it is very dark(it's mostly set at night-time) Admittedly some of the action scenes and sets are convincing, and the film does have good production values, but once again it seems the budget has gone towards all the CGI, and not on the script or story. With each film, Sommers seems to include more and more monsters, as if he is trying to outdo his last film in terms of effects. This is a prime example of the "quality not quantity" adage, as the more CGI there is, the less real it looks. The action scenes quickly become repetitive and although start off original and good, end up being a bit of a bore. And really, how many times to we have to see the lead characters swing on a rope in front of a castle? It's just not necessary….

Overall, it's a real shame that the film turned out this way. It really needed to be either a slower horror film, or an action film which did not feel the need to rush through at such a pace that the audience are afraid to blink lest they miss something. Stephen Sommers must learn how to do character development prior to this, action later, if he's going to keep a fan base going, simply relying on visual effects alone, just isn't enough for us anymore.

''Viscous material, what did I tell you!''

''I'm part of an agency... called the IMF.''

Ethan Hunt comes face to face with a dangerous and sadistic arms dealer while trying to keep his identity secret in order to protect his girlfriend.

Tom Cruise: Ethan Hunt

Director J.J. Abrams and the scriptwriters do a fantastic job in building up the suspense, by giving us glimpses of the romance between Ethan and Lindsey and also the conversations amongst Ethan and his secret partners as they discuss why a marriage and working for the IMF could never mesh well. Also throughout the movie in between moments of tension and action, there are quirky one-liners and funny little moments that gives us a breath of fresh air after it gets sucked out from the last explosive scene. Clever and witty writing is a rarity nowadays in action movies; its nice to see that there is still some effort into writing for action movies at times. To top it all off, MI:3 is not as predictable as the average motion picture.

Tom Cruise is such a versatile actor, he can do comedy, drama, sci-fi, action, he can do it all, and this is why he works well here. In this movie we see him at his angriest, his happiest, and at his weakest. He does his action scenes well and really blends well with the rest of the cast without really overshadowing any other performance. The best performance in the film by far is Philip Seymour Hoffman, he absolutely stole the spotlight the moment he begins his threats. The other actors and actresses did a decent job, none outstanding, with Ving Rhames having the best lines. Watch for a small cameo by an actor that has had plenty of screen time in the cult hit that put Abrams in the director's chair for this movie, Alias.

''Who are you? What's you're name? Do you have a wife? A girlfriend? Because if you do, I'm gonna find her. I'm gonna hurt her. I'm gonna make her bleed, and cry, and call out your name. And then I'm gonna find you,and kill you right in front of her.''

Nothing is too over-the-top, and that is what excels most in this movie. MI:3's moments are not Transporter 2 or James Bonds' "You've got to be kidding me" moments, but more like Alias's over-the-top-but-not-too-ridiculous stunts. Whether it's the awesome scene at Italy, or the action-packed sequence at the bridge, Mission Impossible 3 may be smart, but it is a summer film, and will entertain those action fanatics. The fights are not plentiful, either way that is quickly forgotten when the climax is approaching.

2006's summer box office season is off to a good start as we have a talented man provide his touch to a well-known franchise, and delivering a smart and fun thriller that is sure to entertain audiences of all kinds, from the action buffs to those that like a little bit of everything in their films. J.J. Abrams has done it again, more props to him for skewing the franchise away from the typical mindless action film that we see all the time. Not as much dependence on special effects than on the interaction amongst the characters, the writing, and also the suspense that builds every time the team has to sneak into a building. Highly recommend, this should be the start of a good directorial career for Abrams. Tom Cruise, despite your off-screen antics, you have provided us with a decent third part of a potential trilogy, which almost never happens. Is there a part 4 on the horizon?

Brian DePalma, Robert Towne, John Woo. My personal opinion on DePalma aside, if three critically respected names like those delivered two films that were respectively mediocre and terrible, what hope was there for a "Mission: Impossible" movie directed and written by "Alias" alumni? Not much, really. I had liked J.J. Abrams' work on the "Lost" pilot as director, but there was nothing there that convinced me that he could pull off a big-budget action film.

Shockingly, "Mission: Impossible III" doesn't feel like an extended "Alias" episode. Not at all. It feels like a damn good, straightforward action spectacle. Certainly fans of the TV show still haven't gotten a faithful adaptation, but this film is closer in spirit to the show than the other two films in the series. Abrams' kinetic style works perfectly for the film, and the action scenes are spectacular, hugely entertaining, and quite well-shot and edited. It's nice to actually see what's going on in an action movie these days.

I'm still trying to figure out what went wrong with John Woo and Mission: Impossible II. Woo is certainly a better director than Abrams, but I had much more fun with this film than with the previous two. The action scenes are just pulled off better. There are some iffy moments with Abrams' work, certainly, but for a feature debut this is very impressive. There was clarity in the storytelling, the action scenes were great (aside from the decidedly average helicopter chase early on), and the film just looks good throughout.

I'm still undecided on whether I dislike Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci yet. As screenwriters they certainly did their job here. A hackjob by a good screenwriter is a thousand times worse than a passionate script by average writers, and this is the ultimate proof of that. The love story angle doesn't quite work, but the story is fun enough and provides plenty of excuses for action. Anyway, who cares? You've got explosions, Tom Cruise in the sort of role he was born to play, and Michael Giacchino's score, which I suppose doesn't contain all that much original music, but is still very fun. That's more than enough.

''I need you to trust me.''

''What really matters is what you believe.''

A murder inside the Louvre and clues in Da Vinci paintings lead to the discovery of a religious mystery protected by a secret society for two thousand years -- which could shake the foundations of Christianity.

Tom Hanks: Dr. Robert Langdon

A curator is murdered in Paris's revered Louvre Museum. The French police, lead by Leutenant Bezu Fache(Jean Reno) call on the expertise of Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), an expert in Pagan Symbols, when mysterious, blood-drenched patterns are found all over the body. However, Fache's suspicions of Robert have already been aroused and, unknown to the professor, he's slipped a tracking device on him. Then Agent Nevu(Audrey Tautou) intervenes, springs him from the museum and begins a wild chase around Paris full of wild twists and turns. Robert learns the curator was Nevu's grand-father and was involved with a religious sect called The Priory of Sion. It all mounts up to a monk, Silas (Paul Bettany) sent by the religious sect of Opus Dei and the ultimate re-writing of history.



There's nothing like controversy to get something talked about, and it seems the best results are when that controversy involves religion. Dan Brown's much talked about novel The Da Vinci Code set off much consternation by basically re-writing the bible- and now that controversy has been adapted to the big screen.
The book suffered from badly constructed dialogue but still managed to be a relentless, addictive, page turner that fired at you with interesting fact after interesting fact and kept you on the edge of your tether till the climactic finale. The film adaptation, then, is as good as can be expected. It's well cast. Tom Hanks is just the kind of lead you need for this kind of thing, but he's not at his best here. Jean Reno also has appeal as Captain Fache, Tautou and Bettany are also very engaging in support but it's Ian McKellen who steals the show here as eccentric old grail enthusiast Sir Leigh Teabing, delivering the most spirited and compelling performance. Also, lets not forget talented director, Ron Howard. Although if you've read the book, the film offers little in the way of it's own variation upon the story's lucrative measures.

''Why is it divine or human? Can't human be divine?''

Some of the facts are unnecessarily distorted like Jacque Suniere was not really Sophie's Grand-father, but in fact he is shown to be her real Grand-father in the novel. She even has a brother that she is re-united with in the end. Most importantly, the reason, a man would entrust the most powerful secret in history of mankind to a man he has never met before is once again given a sexist explanation in the movie. Sophie is too clueless and too helpless to resolve the mystery on her own so the wise Grandfather tells her to find her Knight in shining armour, Robert Langdon. To an extent that maybe the case, however, even more important reason is that Robert Langdon had written a manuscript that his publisher had sent to Jacque Suniere to get his praise for the book and in that he unknowingly spells out the location of the Grail itself.

Aside from altering the underlying main theme of the Novel, the main focus of the 'Knights Templars' and 'Priory of Sion',proves to be an interesting range of vocal points and analogies.
Usually one finds that novel was way better than the film, but here the difference is debatable. You could for all practical purposes either watch this or read the Novel, missing certain details, from what I stated in the above points.
Upon a closing note, the score by Hans Zimmer and the closing majesty regarding that final piece; Chevaliers de Sangreal deserves a special five star honour. The beauty of The Da Vinci Code rests with it's hidden truths and ultimately with it's imaginative story which Ron Howard captures more or less despite what critics say.

''The holy grail 'neath ancient Roslin waits. The blade and chalice guarding o'er her gates. Adorned in masters' loving art, she lies. She rests at last beneath the starry skys.''

''I do want to take guitar lessons. I do want to learn how to fly. Yes, I would like to learn Korean.''

A guy challenges himself to say "yes" to everything for an entire year.

Jim Carrey: Carl Allen

Let's first begin by saying, Jim Carrey is getting older, unsurprisingly Yes Man shows this little factor off all too well. As does the minute fact being, that Yes Man is another comedy vehicle for Jim Carrey,whom is renowned for doing. Whether it be Mask, Ace Ventura, Liar Liar, Carrey knows how to make us laugh and he knows how to do it well. So why does Yes Man feel to me to be another churned out comedy piece,lacking in originality and diversity? Why does Carrey do a film thats an emulated and tired out formula Comedy Caper?
Let's assume he's going back to what he's good at, he's having abit of fun and that this Yes Man is a bit of fun. Definitely Yes Man results in a brainless humour laden roller coaster of craziness.



So Yes Man has strengths, being when you see past it's flaws and switch of your logical thinking per say, and quite literally go with the flow. It's got some seriously clever characters, Rhys Darby as Norman, Carl's work colleague seems to be hilariously portrayed, throwing some crazy parties that pay homage to the likes of 300 & Harry Potter.
We also have Zooey Deschanel as Allison, who has a quirky romance with Carrie's Carl. Terence Stamp pops up as Terrence Bundley, the YES founder, and Bradley Cooper & John Michael Higgins playing Carl's mates.

So Yes Man is about a man named Carl Allen, who is always saying no and making excuses for events and people in his life. All of a sudden one day, a situation presents itself, in the form of a form of positiveness, wherein a group of cult-like attendees, always say yes to life. This group is led by a very white haired Terrence, whom makes Carl take up the Yes way of life.
From here on in, the story shifts from gimmicky comedy, to the more subtleties of character development and romance between the energetic pair. This shift in gear helps break Yes Man away from its early Bruce Almighty styled antics, with its soulless scenes of illogical chaos, and develop those who inhabit the screen into characters we become embroiled with. Carrey, who adopts a tone here that is similar to his work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind(his finest serious acting film), manages to establish a distinctive plausible mix of genuine warmth and his usual shtick and slapstick; those who appreciate both sides of the actor will get a lot out of it, though one suspects many will only be distracted by the more zany sides of Carl. On the opposite side of the story, Zooey Deschanel plays a role not that dissimilar from her earlier effort from this year in The Happening, but is certainly given alot more to do here. As a love interest, Deschanel is as alluring as she need be, and counterbalances her softer core with a welcome independent edge.

Of course, Yes Man isn't all yes, of course, there are flaws, and one cannot help but be somewhat critical towards proceedings. Yet despite the pacing issues, and a lack of drama or conflict that feels natural or warranted, there nevertheless remains an enjoyable, heart-warming core to Yes Man's story that is very hard to refute. There will be moments, when you may look at your mobile, perhaps wonder where your pop corn has all gone, at the movie's more OTT antics, which clash with the adult-orientated parts, but by the time the credits roll, there's little doubt that you'll be feeling uplifted, warm and fuzzy from the hysterical.

As far as comedy or romance goes, Yes Man is by no means anything new, in fact both elements are still and unprecedented, for a large part of the feature, but as a character-drama, the feature remains compelling to watch transpire. For that reason, I recommend this to those who want something fun and not necessarily original or high in the thinking department, but at the same time, more contemplated, more reserved in nature. There are strong moments in Yes Man, yet these are moments of mere background explosive temperament, contrasted against sweet melody that is played in the foreground. Also wait for the credits for a nice addition of footage accompanying the credits for some same styled fun, along the lines of the film's feel.