In the geopolitical atmosphere today where oil, controlled by fundamentalists and "black gold barons", equals power, the oil industry must thwart off attacks by "eco-friends" and political activists alike. Here are two films that challenge this Goliath from different angles and shed much light, though slanted no doubt, on the subject. Both are "documentaries with an agenda", and must be viewed with a descerning eye.

Whether false prophecy or the harbinger of a truely dire ecological future, An Inconvenient Truth, has evolved over a decade from low-tech speeches, to power-point presentations, culminating in what appears a most impressive documentary by Al Gore. "The man who used to be the next president of the United States of America" gives an engaging and animated delivery, exploiting his political celebrity to the hilt. Though he claims he's done with politics for good, it seems like such a waste after such flattering publicity.

The trailer, while bombarding you with cold (hot?) facts, is nonetheless basicly an appeal to the heart. Beginning with a bang, literally, and a barrage of disaster scenes, the ensuing aforementioned punchline is the perfect respite. Then a petition to the public starting with Americans (Hurricane Katerina) and eventually including all of humanity. The trailer ends with Gore's "rallying cry". I do hope that beyond asserting the problem of global warming, a solution will be proposed and evidence of its effectiveness given. Without that, the film is essentially a horror movie. The name of this film is, in my opinion, an audacious misnomer. No matter how worthy the cause, (preventing global warming is high up there on my list), one must never call a theory truth, even a very well established one with much scientific backing as this is.

If Mr. Gore can't remedy our ecological crisis, Chris Paine presumes to in his Who Killed the Electric Car. This stylish trailer does its share of finger-pointing at those who are out to destroy the panacea for global warming, pollution, Mid-East unrest, and rising oil prices, i.e., the electric car.

The trailer presents its case with a more "mature voiced" voice-over than generally used, bestowing a certian credibility even before providing the facts. The new-age music, cool car visuals, and celebrity appearances afford the necessary vamp to counter the old guys and their accusations. Question - what car does Mr. Paine drive?

Verdict - Two noteworthy documentaries, though with such one-sidedness, the word propaganda comes to mind.

In The Namesake, an adaptation of Pulizer Prize-winning Jhumpa Lahiri's novel, Gogol Ganguli charts his journey to self-definition. Caught in emotional tug-of-war, he must reconcile between his Indian heritage and modern American life.

I actually read and thoroughly enjoyed the book, leaving much room for letdown. It will be a great challenge for a motion picture to capture Lahiri's subtle and sensitive portrayal of her characters or her elegant, precise choice of words. Where Gogol is depicted as very human; weak and selfish at times, yet essentially good, the film is bound to romanticize, rendering our hero an idyllic victim of circumstances.

That excluded, the trailer is skillfully put together; catching one's attention with some good punchlines (this is not a romance/comedy as presented in the synopsis), the second part, a run of poignant scenes, drawing one in further.

Now for some nitpicking - I could not resist. While the screenplay tries to stay true to the source, evident by entire sentences I recognize, certain facts are altered. Gogol was not born in New York, but in Cambridge, Mass. Nowhere in the book does it mention that Gogol shaves his hair as a sign of mourning (I won't say for whom, so as not to spoil the story). I guess this is almost prerequisite of a book adaptation. Kal Penn is a grungy-looking, albeit complex hence apt Gogol.

The alliance between Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada, an adaptation of the best-seller by Lauren Weisberger, compliments beautifully in this comic critique of the fashion world. The steel-white well-coiffed do (Meryl Streep looks great. I have an inkling that her glamorous appearance at the Oscars is the upshot of her involvement in this film.) versus an unruly dark mane is by no means coincidence. The diabolical diva of the microcosmos, "Runway magazine", and her scuttling crew of caricatures are at odds with Andrea, a green albeit pert, "small-town" girl who will most probably expose these narrow-minded snobs for who they are.

This trailer is an uncut clip from the movie which means that it reveals much less than most previews. For a movie presented as a comedy, it barely arouses a chuckle. The punch-line at the end "Who is that sad little person? Are we doing a before and after piece I don't know about?" is actually funny, but is mumbled so if you're not paying attention, you miss it. In addition, the screenplay is a bit misguided. For example, how can Anne Hathaway credibly say "I'm not skinny"? How can an interviewee with half a brain (as Andrea defiantly attests) answer the question "what are you doing here?" with "I came to New York to be a journalist and basically it was either this or 'Auto Universe'." That's rude or stupid or both, not funny.

Verdict - While I may have my misgivings over the screenplay, what will ultimately make this movie is the perfectly cast couple. Meryl Streep skillfully plays a very black devil and Anne Hathaway gives her classic plucky performance.

What better way to smash a bottle of champagne on the hull of this new ship than starting with the Da Vinci Code (well maybe Poseidon, but I wasn't in the mood)?

With its first public screening tonight at Cannes and opening worldwide in just a few days, this blockbuster hopeful has used every trick in the book and then some to pique the interest of the masses. From religious controversy, plagiarism scandals and hush hush no preview screenings policy, public awareness and interest are sky high.

This adaptation of the bestseller has the potential of actually being better than the book. Though that's not saying much as the book artlessly talks about art, history, religion etc. at sixth grade reading level. In between action scenes one must plod through prose as uplifting as a history book.

Professor Robert Langdon is depicted by Tom Hanks. Despite many good reasons for choosing him for the part, (how many actors, middle-aged, not gorgeous yet amiable, with bolckbuster clout, are there in Hollywood?), he has no sex appeal. I do suspect the hair was a feeble attempt to to promote his image in that respect. Sophie Neveu - Audrey Tautou - beautiful and very French; perfect, but why do her facial expressions range from concerned to befuddled? Sir Ian McKellen on the other hand seems at his best with a saucy twinkle in his eye and explosive passion.

That's about all the passion you'll see in this film. Langdon and Neveu hit it off in the book, and considering the subject matter, namely sex and religion, one would expect even more in the film. Yet judging from trailers there's only symbology going on between those two, no chemistry - and believe me, if there were even a hint of it in the movie it would appear in the trailer - that's what sells. The trailers themselves are done very well, whetting the palates of both those who have and have not read the book. I must say I found the original teaser annoying and frustrating. The Japanese version was especially amusing.

Verdict - While no great work of art, "The DaVinci Code" looks like a fun thriller with great cinematography, and since hubby also read the book and loves anything remotely related to history we may actually see this one