They showed the Down Under movie Eagle vs. Shark, which totally rocked, in search for a better description.

I won't be original by saying that the film didn't come up to the book's fans expectations, but I wasn't fully disappoined. It was fairly entertaining, it showed places and works of art mentioned in the book, and Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks no matter what. Apart from a few absurd moments due to the weak script and the hollow play of Audrey Tautou (too bad, I actually liked her after "Amélie", but maybe it's because she had to play in English here), it was agreeable. Both Mike and another friend who haven't read the book, liked it. So I would say, it is either for those who didn't read the book or those who are passionate fans of it.

Well, to be honest, I don't see the problem with this movie. It's fiction, even if based on real events. I go to movies for entertainment, and although I could foresee some stereotypical plot lines it was decent entertainment.

If I want facts on the real events behind the story, I go and do my homework on the subject. Even a single book will likely give me more background information than can be squeezed into the standard two hour movie format. I have no sympathy for people around the world making a huge deal out of it. To repeat myself, it's fiction. If somebody want to raise concerns, feel free. But don't try to impose restrictions on what is acceptable and what is not for others to see.

Having said that, I liked the Pathe Tuschinski a lot. Due to work, I have not been to movies with Irina for some time now, and it's always fun to discuss with her afterwards, especially, if we have different opinions. :)

So, Irina dragged me to Madagaskar, hoping that it would be as funny as Shrek. It was okay, but Madagaskar is a kids movie, more silly than funny. Best character award: the penguins.