MOVIE PIC OF THE DAY WINNERS:
The Standings Thus Far:
1. Matt Hoffman: 15 Correct
2. Kyle Sartor: 6 Correct
3. Mike Rowland: 3 Correct
4. Chris Bell: 2 Correct
5. (tie) Joe Greca: 1 Correct
5. (tie) Kassandra Gruszkowski: 1 Correct
5. (tie) Shawn Moran: 1 Correct
5. (tie) Zach Munroe: 1 Correct
It's still anyone's game. The contest officially ends later on, with the announcement of the Line-Up for
the 8th Annual Ryan Sartor Film Festival being announced later on in the summer. The actual event has not yet been scheduled.
I have to check with my mom.
Pic by Pic:
1. Kung Fu Hustle,
2004. (Matt Hoffman: Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 @ 10:50 AM)
2. Very Bad Things,
1998. (Mike Rowland: Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 @ 2:28 PM)
3. Cache, 2005. (Matt Hoffman: Friday, March 7th, 2008 @ 8:50 PM)
4. All The Real Girls, 2003. (Matt Hoffman:
Monday, March 10th, 2008 @ 12:17 AM)
5. Last Days, 2005. (Shawn Moran: Tuesday, March 11th, 2008 @ 7:57 PM)
6. Hulk, 2003. (Joe Greca: Monday, March
17th, 2008 @ 2:18 PM)
7. Tears of the Sun, 2003. (Kyle Sartor: Thursday,
March 20th, 2008 @ 1:13 AM)
8. The Notebook, 2004. (Matt Hoffman: Friday,
March 21st, 2008 @ 8:19 PM)
9. Shanghai Knights, 2002. (Matt Hoffman:
Monday, March 24th, 2008 @ 12:00 AM)
10. The Wedding Date, 2004. (Kyle Sartor:
Monday, March 24th, 2008 @ 3:28 PM)
11. Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, 2003.
(Kyle Sartor: Monday, March 24th, 2008 @ 3:28 PM)
12. The Golden Compass, 2007. (Kyle Sartor:
Monday, March 24th, 2008 @ 3:28 PM)
13. Hitch, 2005. (Kyle Sartor: Monday, March 24th, 2008 @ 9:54 PM)
14. Ali, 2001. (Matt Hoffman: Wednesday,
Marc 26th, 2008 @ 1:23 AM)
15. Beyond Borders, 2003. (Matt Hoffman:
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 @ 1:23 AM)
16. The Kingdom, 2007. (Matt Hoffman: Wednesday.
March 26th, 2008 @ 1:56 PM)
17. L'Enfant, 2005. (Chris Bell: Thursday,
March 27th, 2008 @ 11:44 AM)
18. Funny Ha Ha, 2002. (Chris Bell: Thursday,
March 27th, 2008 @ 11:44 AM)
19. Step Up, 2006. (Kyle Sartor: Thursday,
March 27th, 2008 @ 8:53 PM)
20. Collateral, 2004. (Matt Hoffman: Friday,
March 28th, 2008 @ 11:49 AM)
21. Big Fish, 2003. (Mike Rowland: Wednesday,
April 2nd, 2008 @ 4:02 PM)
22. Apocalypto, 2006. (Mike Rowland: Wednesday,
April 2nd, 2008 @ 4:39 PM)
23. In The Land of Women, 2007. (Matt Hoffman:
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008 @ 4:53 PM)
24. The Winslow Boy, 1999. (Matt Hoffman:
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008 @ 8:55 PM)
25. Hard Candy, 2006. (Matt Hoffman: Saturday,
April 5th, 2008 @ 11:58 PM)
26. Home on the Range, 2004. (Matt Hoffman:
April 7th, 2008 @ 5:19PM)
27. The Scorpion King, 2002. (Matt Hoffman:
April 7th, 2008 @ 4:38 PM)
28. No Country For Old Men, 2007. (Matt
Hoffman: April 9th, 2008 @ 11:39 PM)
29. The Shape of Things, 2003. (Kassandra
Gruszkowski: April 10th, 2008 @ 2:43 PM)
30. Spartan, 2004. (Zach Munroe: April 11th,
2008 @ 12:02 AM)
gets the most wins by May 2008 gets to have his or her own room at the 8th Annual Ryan Sartor Film Festival and screen movies
of their choosing from 11 a.m.-11 p.m.)
THE BLACK EYED PEAS SUCK
a thought-provoking analysis by Ryan Sartor
I would like to proceed this article by saying that the views expressed in it may be offensive to some readers.
It is angry, immature, half-realized, and over-blown. I wrote it in a state of mania; as Senior columnist Kevin Wilkes brought
to my attention I "went retarded" as the Black Eyed Peas would say. I would like to add that I do feel there is a place in
this world for the Black Eyed Peas, and I hope that this article does not promote shame in the listening of BEP, as I suggest
it should in the article, but rather that it makes the reader aware of the Grammy's tendency to vote based on popularity.
I mean, the Grammy's never acknowledged even the Black Eyed Peas until they sold a few million records - and that my friends,
is the hypocrisy of the Grammys, and that's what I was getting at. And, I also kind of thought it was funny to make fun of
the Black Eyed Peas, whether or not they quite deserved the lashing they received. I didn't create this site to tear down
artists that many people enjoy. I made it expose people to entertainment they may not know about, and to warn people about
what to avoid; but if you like the Black Eyed Peas, don't avoid but rather, embrace them. So, take it with a grain of salt,
and enjoy - Management
I'm trying very hard to make sense of the Grammy nominations announced this past week. The nominees for record of the year
include a soft-rock radio-ready crap ballad by Los Lonely Boys, a track produced by future AA member Lil' Jon, and the radio-edited
version of a track by the newly shameful Black Eyed Peas.
Completely forgotten, or shown in a very-small capacity are such great/groundbreaking acts from this past year as The Streets,
Blink-182, the incomporable Tom Waits, R.E.M., Ryan Adams, Ted Leo, and hell, just about any artist who produces GOOD music.
I could go on all night about how ridiculous this year's Grammy nominees are, but I'd rather spend my time focusing on The
Black Eyed Peas: the bane of my existance. Nominating "Let's Get It Started" for Record of the Year is like giving Pauly
Shore a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars. Certainly, the song is catchy and has a danceable beat, but it's no more
revolutionary than "The Macarena." The track contains all the emotional depth of the "Thong Song." Many of you out there
may say, "Lighten up, Ryan! It's a fun song." Fun songs are fore car rides when you're alone and want to blast the radio
to a little Shaggy! They're NOT for giving major awards you. You know who else had some fun songs and won a Grammy? Milli
The original title of "Let's Get It Started" is "Let's Get Retarded," no doubt an attempt to seem edgy and ignorant. I can
imagine the members sitting around a table saying, "Okay, this album is going to be really shitty and contain no depth or
complexity, so let's put the word 'Retarded' in a song title, and made people get up in arms over the controversy, so they
won't pay any attention to just how far from grace we've truly fallen!"
The Black Eyed Peas used to be serious hip-hop musicians on such albums as "Behind the Front" and "Bridging the Gap." They
made a decision that they wanted to be commercially successful, selling their soul to the record executives in exchange for mounds
of cash. First, they picked up some white, wigger-wanna-be ass-shaker with some ridiculous one word name like Ferdi or Fergi,
and produced an album of songs which contained some white girl singing all the hooks.
Why do you think Eminem sings all the hooks on D12's albums? White people like white voices singing hooks, it's some terrible
fact. And, by the way, little miss Fergi's real name is Stacy Ferguson! In addition to once being a star on the children's
show "Kids Incorporated," her other street-cred-credits include not one, but two voice-over appearances as Sally on "It's
Flashbeagle, Charlie Brown," and "Snoopy's Getting Married, Charlie Brown." I'm a fan of the Peanuts, a big fan, but who
the hell is Flashbeagle? And what kind of "GANGSTA" would be involved with such a product?
I don't know how Ms. Ferguson lives with herself. In addition to flaunting her cooly-caucasian vocals, Fergi consistantly
shakes her ass in every single music video. She's a video whore! Of course there's the "I'm-A-Woman-And-I'm-Proud-Of-My-Body,"
bullshit, but this has nothing to do with artistic integrity: the Black Eyed Peas are making videos with this sort of sexual
innuendo in order to A) Get play on MTV, which loves nudity/cleavage/sex above all else and B) to completely distract the
viewer from listening to the music.
I can't tell you how many teenage boys have said to me some variation of "I don't care what the music sounds like, that chick
is hot!" We're selling sex here people!! Do you see the outrage?? The Black Eyed Peas are nominated for Grammys, and may
win some, because they picked up a white girl, dummed down their lyrics, made radio-friendly beats, and sold a few million
albums!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Roots, Jay-Z, Phracyde, Jurassic 5... great hip-hop artists? Worthy of a best Album nomination? No,
let's give it to the BLACK EYED FUCKING PEAS!!!! For the love of GOD!!!!!!!!!!!! Black eyed peas are a type of soul food,
a symbol of African-American culture, and the FUCKING GIRL IS WHITE AS DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY HELL ON EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOOD LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS A SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE!!!!!!!!!!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Grammy's will be on TV some time in February. I'll be at home, crying.
A Letter From Kevin Solomon:
Hey Ryan, first of all, ide like to say that i voted for Home Alone in the best Christmas movie poll because
its an amazing movie, which although at times can be ridiculous, i believe it embodies the true Christmas spirit like such
family films as the Grinch and also Charlie Brown Christmas. However, its the comic relief of the now very
weird Macauley Culkin that sets this film apart from the rest.
However, thats not what im writing about. I think your poll is very good, but it is missing one very important and often
overlooked Christmas movie. This movie would be none other than Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis. Most people forget
that this film was set on Christmas. Although its not really about Christmas, its still a pretty sweet movie.
A Response From Ryan Sartor:
You know Kevin, I think you have just made one of the most original suggestions in this site's brief history.
Die Hard is a great Christmas-time movie; in the same way that Bad Santa is not typically smarmy and overtly
heartwarming, Die Hard defies Christmas movie standards as it represents the chaos of the holiday season. Instead of
crowded malls filled with shopping maniacs, we have a building filled with terrorist maniacs. Bruce Willis sort of like Santa
Claus...what more would a bunch of hostages want for Christmas than to avoid being blown up? And what more would people like
to see at Christmas-time than Willis walking across broken glass? If you haven't seen Die Hard, you really should;
and I'll be sure to bring it up in future Christmas movie conversations around the egg nog bowl.
I am also a big fan of Home Alone, it may not be the best Christmas film of all time, but darn-it-all, it's our generation's
Christmas film, and a damn good one at that. It's humor and warmth transcend generations. I've got to say that Culkin hasn't
retained his Home Alone glory, but he doesn't a good job in this year's Saved!, now available on DVD.
|"Finding Neverland" was named the Best Film of 2004 by the National Board of Review
National Board of Review Awards for 2004:
This year's award season was kicked off as the National Board of Review gave out it's annual awardss for the
best films of 2004.
I was a little surprised by Finding Neverland's victory as Best Film. It certainly helps it's Oscar chances and shows
that the National Board of Review is always pretty unpredictable about these things.
Some surprising wins were Michael Mann for directing the commercially successful and thoroughly entertaing Collateral.
After great direction for The Insider and Ali (it wasn't a great film, but it had a great look), it's good to
see Mann finally getting his due.
A few weeks ago I attended a screening of The Phantom of the Opera (in theatres December 22nd) and I was blown away
by Emmy Rossum's performance as the heroine. You might recognize her as Jake Gylenhaal's love interest in The Day
After Tomorrow, but trust me, her work in that film won't prepare you for her amazing vocals skills and dramatic ability.
I was shocked to learn that was only 16-years-old during much of filming! She's 18 now. Emmy won the award for Breakthrough
And, I hate to say I told you so, but I've been singing the praises of "That 70s Show" star Topher Grace since his
startling turn as a drug dealer in Traffic. This year he's had 3 star turns in the underrated rom-com Win a Date
with Tad Hamilton!, the indie sleeper p.s. with Laura Linney, and in the highly anticipated new film In Good
Company (in theatres December 29th) in which Grace plays a Jerry Maguire-esque role. He won the award for the latter
two films, but you should definetly rent Win A Date if you haven't already.
Teenager favorites Garden State and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind picked up awards for Best Directorial
Debut and Best Original Screenplay, respectively. And I'd like to give an extra little golf clap to Jeff Bridges, who
picked up a well-deserved Career Achievement Award. This man has been working in Hollywood since the 1960s, and if you didn't
see him in The Door In The Floor, you should pick it up when it comes out on DVD in a few weeks. - Ryan Sartor,
CEO of Rocket Multimedia
Here's a complete list of the nominees:
Awards for 2004:
Top Ten Films
Finding Neverland, The Aviator, Closer, Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, Kinsey, Vera Drake, Ray, Collateral, Hotel Rwanda
Best Foreign Language Film
The Sea Inside
Top Five Documentaries
Born into Brothels, Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession, Paper Clips, Supersize Me, The Story of the Weeping Camel
Top Foreign Films
The Sea Inside, Bad Education, Maria Full of Grace, The Chorus (Les Choristes), The Motorcycle Diaries
Jamie Foxx, Ray
Annette Bening, Being Julia
Best Supporting Actor
Thomas Haden Church, Sideways
Best Supporting Actress
Laura Linney, Kinsey
Best Acting By An Ensemble
Breakthrough Performance Actor
Topher Grace, In Good Company and p.s.
Breakthrough Performance Actress
Emmy Rossum, The Phantom of the Opera
Michael Mann, Collateral
Best Directorial Debut
Zach Braff, Garden State
Best Adapted Screenplay
Sideways, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor
Best Original Screenplay
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Charlie Kaufman
Born Into Brothels
Best Animated Feature
Special Filmmaking Achievement
Clint Eastwood, for producing, directing, acting, and scoring Million Dollar Baby
Outstanding Production Design
House of Flying Daggers
William K. Everson Award for Film History
Freedom of Expression
Fahrenheit 9/11, The Passion of the Christ, Conspiracy of Silence
Special Recognition For Excellence In Filmmaking
The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Before Sunset, Door in the Floor, Enduring Love, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,
Facing Windows, Garden State, A Home at the End of the World, Imaginary Heroes, Since Otar Left, Stage Beauty, Undertow, The
A Letter from Pat Davey:
Hey dude, i was just looking through the new website and saw that you had a review of Rules of Attraction.
In the review you question why the movie would ever be made. Well I just wanted to point out it was a book before it was
made into a movie. The author was Bret Easton Ellis who also wrote American Psycho and Less than Zero which
were also made into movies. There is a problem with the movie though, which is it was made about 15-20 years after it was
Times have changed since then so alot of what happened couldnt relate as well now. Alot was also taken out of the book which
showed just how far the characters ahd fallen. Something missed though is that it was all just an exaggeration to show the
narcisstic tone of the upper class in the 80's.
A Response from Ryan Sartor
Oh Pat, how I've missed your letters. For those of you who don't know, Pat Davey is the MAN. Growing up in Milford,
he languished in the public school system before meeting yours truly at Notre Dame High School. Pat Davey is a scholar and
a gentleman, and you all betta recognize.
He's also got some damn good points about The Rules of Attraction which I failed to include in my review. Yes, I was
aware that it was based on a novel by Brett Easton Ellis. I think I knew the book was set in the '80s, but I might just be
making that up. I heard that American Psycho was an excellent novel, so I could totally understand why they'd want
to make film versions of his other books.
I guess I just don't understand why it had to be made in such a way. Even films like American Beauty have some kind
of redemption for their characters. I at least felt pity for Tyler Durden/Jack in Fight Club and for the anti-heroes
of Requiem for a Dream. Stiil, I must admit that while I can't identify with these people, there are surely some people
who understand what they're going through, or know someone who's gone through it. On a special feature on the DVD, one producer
called the film, "What college is like if you had a terrible college experience."
The film is well-shot, well-acted, and if you're not easily flustered, it's worth seeing. I ultimately found it unsatisfying,
but others might like it. Thanks for the letter, Pat, and I encourage you, and everyone else to let me know when you've got
an issue with one of my reviews; don't just yell at the screen, yell at me, electronically. :) ...I do realize that's the
first smiley face in the year and a 1/2 history of Rocket Multimedia. I apologize.
|SAT analogy: Alicia is to Shark as Kevin is to Helpless Victims in Water.
A Letter from Alicia Mraz:
I want to complain about Kevin's review. It sounds like he didn't give it a chance. He
went into it wanting to see blood and guts, so than he was disappointed. Plus, his review was very short on why he didn't
Kevin W.'s Reponse:
are you? Im SUUUPPPPER. i didn't expect to see any blood and guts in this movie cause i actually researched it
before i saw it and new it was made for roughly around 100,000 bucks, and the reason the review is so short is because the
movie was as well. Without all the trailers and commercials, it averages aboot 83-85 minutes. The movie would
have been better as a short film, and having more realistic sharks(and yes i realize they used real sharks). Once sharks
smell blood, they turn into me when i see cake, they go nuts, the people in the movie would not have just causally floated
there for a bit, the sharks would have MAULED THEM DEAD.
A Letter From Kevin Solomon:
I would just like to voice my displeasure
and disgust for any and everyone who may have or thought of voting for Elton John's CD, I think maybe it was greatest hits
or something, in Ryan's latest poll of what CD to get rid of.
Who votes against Elton John, so he was gay, get
over it, if you want to hate a musician for being gay, thats what Liberachi is for, dont knock Elton, he has written great
songs for like 35 years, and he can still rock harder than most at his age.
I think we all know that in our
hearts, which is why everyone should vote for Hanson's "This Time Around" which has no place in any CD collection. I
wouldnt even use it as a coaster on my coffee table.
What Is The Best Primetime Animated Sitcom?
1. The Simpsons-
2. Family Guy- 27%
3. South Park- 23%
4. (tie) Daria- 9%
4. (tie) Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist- 9%
What Is Your Favorite Jim Carrey Movie?
1. Liar, Liar- 31%
2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind-
3. (tie) Dumb and Dumber- 13%
3. (tie) The Truman Show- 13%
3. (tie) Bruce Almighty- 13%
6. The Majestic-
|Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is what medical doctors like to call a "Nervous Nilly"
A Letter from Taylor Brown (Foran):
I have recently been sprung from the cycle of constant homework by the wonder that is senioritis and I have to say
what a joy it was to re-enter back into "world" with a visit to your website. You see, here's the problem, the mind-numbing
routine of school has probably killed off all the abstract thinking that once ran so free in my head, and because of that,
I was confused about a movie I saw, one that you loved: Adaptation.
I enjoyed this movie a lot, because of Cage playing the two different brothers and character
of John LaRouche (which was well worth the price of the DVD rental alone), but towards the end of the movie I became very
confused ( In fact, my best friend and also frequent visitor to your website, Gretchen Mae Doggett, became confused as well.
We sat there looking at each other for explanations but just kept shaking our heads at each other and upsetting my dog). After
Meryl Streep character goes to live and snort the flower drug with LaRouche, I got lost as to what was happening in the movie.
I know Adaptation wasn't supposed to have any plot or genre or what not, and I can deal with this, but I literally
HAVE NO CLUE as to what happened to the main characters or what was a dream sequence and what wasn't. I have no road map here,
and am desperate. Explain to me something, anything as to the resolution in this movie. I will eternally grateful.
as Gretchen said: "That movie was whack."
Confused and feeling utterly uncool,
In Response to Taylor's Letter:
First of all, let me say that I love how you addressed the film as Adaptation., the period is part of the
films title, and I applaud you for picking up on that. Let me start off my response by saying no, you're totally right, it's
a really confusing film. I read a lot of documentation on it, talked to some knowledgeable folks (i.e. Mrs. Greenstone) so
I know what goes on. Let me tell you:
The film is credited as written by Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman (the twins played by Nicolas
Cage); Charlie Kaufman is a screenwriter who has written such films as Being John Malkovich, Confessions of a
Dangerous Mind, and the upcoming Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. He's (arguably) the most clever writer
of his generation and (unarguably) the strangest screenwriter ever. Donald Kaufman, on the other hand, is a fictitious character
who does not exist. Donald Kaufman has the distinction of being the only make-believe person to ever be nominated for an Academy
Award. Are you still with me? Because it's only going to get more complicated.
Ok, now, the film is written by Charlie and Donald Kaufman. In the film if you'll recall,
Charlie has no direction and doesn't know where his film is going. He decides to finally ask his brother for help with the
script while he's in New York to meet Meryl Streep's character (Susan Orlean). Ok, so at this point, DONALD begins writing
the script. Even though Donald doesn't exist, Charlie wrote it in the style that Donald the character would have written it!
That's why the film becomes a suspense thriller with drugs, sex, car crashes, sappy brotherly love moments, and characters
becoming desperate. And, I think, there's something to be said for both styles. While Donalds style could be looked at as
clichéd and formulaic, it is in the style of Robert McKee, who rocked Charlies world when Charlie said, "Nothing happens in
real life," and Robert McKee went on that rambling speech about how extraordinary things do happen everyday (for a copy of
that speech, check out the QUOTE OF THE DAY ARCHIVE). So, in an answer to your question, much of the first half is fictionalized, but much of it is true.
Susan Orlean, Charlie Kaufman, and John Laroche are all real people. Susan Orlean really did write a book about John Laroche
called The Orchid Thief. Charlie Kaufman really did try to adapt the book, and the insane and glorious film Adaptation.
was the result of that process.
Thanks for the email, and let me know if you have any other questions!
Ryan E. Sartor
|Charlize Theron (left) and Ryan Sartor (right) on their "big date"
Jeff (of the rock band The Teles) and Ryan discuss the film Monster:
monster was well acted and well directed, but had absolutely no purpose for being made
i'd have to say i really agree
PunknDrublic622: oh snap you saw it?
PunknDrublic622: what did you think?
i gave it a B+ on the site... based on quality
Flickdude: but i have no desire
to see it again, and would never recommend it to anyone
PunknDrublic622: but her performance was oscar worthy indeed
Flickdude: ...but still unnecessary
PunknDrublic622: the movie served no purpose
it offered no message
PunknDrublic622: it didnt validate its own existence
Flickdude: there was no message you could get out of it!
if it were an employee
PunknDrublic622: it would have been fired for lack of
Flickdude: LOL, yes
Kelly Baker writes:
"On Sunday night, February 15,
2004, I was watching the Disney Channel. For the most part I have no beef with Disney, I know one person in particular who
does. With all of the sexual innuendoes and how Disney World was supposed to be a utopia-like community, I suppose I can't
really blame him. However I pretty much like Disney (and Disney World kicks ass). Although, that night while watching its
trademark channel I was slightly set off.
In celebration of Black History Month, they were broadcasting the movie Remember
The Titans, which revolves around the segregation of a town and how they overcome it. During the commercials a spokesperson
would come on to speak about how everyone should respect people's DIFFERENCES and the like. Though the point of it all was
respecting differences of different races, I think it pretty much went without saying respect all kinds of differences. Races,
sizes, religions, apperances....sexual preferences. Although, what's life without irony?
There's one scene in the movie
where one boy tries to kiss another one, and he locks lips for no more than a nano second, and then the kiss is referenced
briefly afterwards. Though none of this is seen on the Disney Channel. Which is ironic on so many levels. First of all, the
program is preaching respect for others and their differences, though they will not show their differences. In the advancing
politically correct world that we're living in one of the major franchises should not be trying to protect youths by hiding
the facts. Gay relationships are becoming more and more common each day, without exposure there isn't understanding. The fact
that they're hiding it, is like a step in the opposite direction.
Secondly, this is a movie put out by Disney and to have
it censored to put it on the Disney Channel sounds just a bit odd.
Obviously I'm one to jump all over situations like these,
if you know me than you understand what I'm saying. And I'm sure there are people who think that I take it too seriously and
even people who think it should be censored. Either way it's an opinion and that's all I have when it all comes down to it.
Wow, how much of a downer was this? But I had to get it out...thanks for listening...keep on rocking in the free world. Peace."
I see where Kelly's coming from. But I disagree. I think that sexual
orientation is an issue that we should all be sensitive to, but at the same time, the Disney channel is predominantly viewed
by small children (unless Lizzy McGuire is on, in which cases every male from 15-45 is watching), and sexuality should not
be a theme that small children are exposed to. The idea of a man kissing a man is confusing to a small child, and would no
doubt bring about questions regarding sexuality that they shouldn't be concerned with. I think that television should be censored
in such a way.
It's also funny because Disney is often criticized by many Christian Conservatives for being too lax
on homosexual issues and being very supportive of the gay community. The fact that the film was produced by Disney, and rated
PG, suggests that all parts could be viewed on TV, however a parent can sit down with a child in a theatre and explain things
to them, while a 4-year-old watching a man kiss a man might have questions and no one to ask sitting home alone watching TV.
I suggest censoring a kiss between a man and woman? No. But it's the players reaction, and the confusion surrounding it that
makes it too much for a child to understand. Children shouldn't have to deal with such issues at a young age. They should
just watch shows like Lizzy McGuire, and wonder why Uncle Ry Ry is drooling at the screen.
Hannah Goldfield responds to Ryan's response:
about what you are saying! Sure, small children should not be exposed to gratutious violence or sex (gay or straight), meaning
they should not have to watch Russell Crowe slice off limbs in "Gladiator", or Matt Dillon, Neve Campbell and Denise Richards
get it on in "Wild Things", but shielding them from any sort of controversy?? Are you nuts?? An 11 year old-- even a seven
year old-- is old enough to handle the type of material shown in "Remember the Titans"-- in fact, they should be made to.
What kind of people are we creating by rearing our children to spend hours watching brightly colored fluff-- for instance
a ridiculously dopey show like Lizzie McGuire?? Lizzie's biggest problems are getting over the embarrassment of tripping at
graduation and being mistaken for an Italian pop star (yes, I saw the movie)! The controversy around Sunshine (the gay character
in "Titans") is much more realistic and much more interesting.
You say that watching two men kiss will "confuse" young children.
The only reason that they would be confused is because they've been taught that it's wrong. Were it considered as commonplace
as a man and woman kissing, kids would grow up to see homosexuality as acceptable, even normal. People don't "turn" gay; if
someone's gay, it's from the get-go, and they'd never be confused if their feelings weren't constantly challenged and portrayed
Hiding the truth only leads to ignorance. The end.
Ryan's response to Hannah's response to Ryan's response to Kelly:
I can't "think about what I'm saying!" because I didn't say anything. I typed it. Psych. Ok, enough immaturity.
I don't think that forcing a 7-year-old to watch homosexuals make out will solve the problems of the world. If you wanna strap
your kids down, and make them watch stuff like that, be my guest, that's why America's great-- you could make your kids do
chores, send them to their room, or make them watch homosexuals kiss. And, yeah "Lizzy McGuire" is pop-fluff, but I think
it's better for a little kid to share Lizzy's pain regarding her first zit, than to have to analyze one of the hugest issues
in the world right now.
I don't think it's the most terrifying awful thing in the world to have 2 gay people kiss in
a movie, it didn't bother me when it was in the movie. But by now showing 2 men kissing in a movie, doesn't mean you're promoting
the act as "bad", it's just a grown-up issue. Parents should teach their children about homosexuality when they reach maturity,
not being like, "Yo, Mikey, you like boys?" But just tell them that some people are gay, and that's alright.
I think if you, Hannah, had seen 2 dudes gettin their freak on when you were 7, you would
have been a bit confused and felt uncomfortable. Society isn't ready for those kinds of steps yet. And I think it is ignorant
of you to believe that the world is. It's not television's job to force issues and push agendas, just to put on television
what they think the majority of America wants to see, and in this case, what the majority of 7-year-old children want to see.
I challenge anyone to do this: Ask 5 7-year-olds if they want to see a boy kiss a girl: They'll probably say "ewww no" and
laugh. But ask them if they want to see a boy kiss a boy. They won't understand. Tell them "like if they were a girl, like
they love them and want to marry them". They'll be confused, and scared, and their parents will probably yell at you. And
if there's one thing I hate, it's old ladies squaking.
In response to Kelly
Bakers remarks, the movie was about segregation of sexes not homo's. Plus the kid wasnt even a homo and it served no purpose
to the movie even with it in there. Channels have to fit things into time schedules and just because they leave out a kiss
doesnt mean there homophobic or not seeing the true facts. Basing that Disney is bias or hiding the facts is absurd if the
movie was about homos and it was a movie during gay people month they would have showed it, but black history month I think
they were trying to show about segregation and overcoming differences of race. Not in any shape or form would someone be like
the homo kiss wasnt in it they must be scared to show it or something.
And to all other responses I'd rather see overcoming boundaries of black and white then two
guys kissing any day, the fact that you think we shouldnt show is violence I completely agree with. Its stupid. I'd rather
show nudity and sex on tv because at least its not teaching bad values, its showing people something that will eventually
happen anyways, while violence and killing is hopefully something we never have to encounter.
Theyre idiots hes not even gay. He did it joking around and people decide if theyre gay,
not made that way. It wouldnt be a bad thing if it couldnt be helped, people are freaky and decide they like same sex either
because they cant get any form the other sex or they decide the same sex understands them better and can give them more.
Rocketeers Comment on 'The O.C.'Gretchen
Christina Sorenson writes:
Hey ryan marissa and ryan are dating! And oliver adn marissa
are just friends. And ryan used to live in this ghetto town called chino or something. And his mom is an alcoholic. And his
brother is messed up. And who knows where his father is. And he got in trouble and seth's dad who is a lawyer is his lawyer
now and invited him to stay with his family so tha't s why ryan is with them. And seth has been in love with this girl summer
all his life and she was always mean to him until now, now she reallly likes him.
I like watching the O.C., but check out One Tree Hill on Tuesdays if you haven't
already! It's GREAT!
Our Favorite Movies:
I dont know about the worst movie, but the best one was most definitely "The Lord
of the Rings: The Two Towers". Why? Because of the epic storyline, the best and most well-developed characters, the
authentic and exhilarating battle scenes, the heart, love, sacrifice, loss and brotherhood themes of the movie, the heart
and soul that went into it, and the epic legend of JRR Tolkien's masterpiece it represents. So that is why LotR:TTT is
the bestest movie for this year (even though it came out last December, would it still count? It was playing in
theaters until July...?) and the Return of the King will probably be better.
A Letter From Hannah Goldfield:
To the Rocket Multimedia Management,
was extremely disappointed with today's postings. The sight of 1) a quote from the monstrosity that is "Signs", 2) virtually
unidentifiable movie pics of the day, and 3) the statement that "Mandy Moore will win an Oscar" literally made my stomach
turn. If Mandy Moore wins an Oscar, I will kill myself. That's right, I bet my life on it. She is one of
the most unnatural actresses I can think of, falling into the Jennifer Love Hewitt category of women who tilt their heads
like puppies, squint and bite their lips "sexily" while strutting around aimlessly. I equate your admiration with her
for the feminine obsession with Orlando Bloom. You claim they like him based on looks alone. I sense some hypocriticism.
She is nothing but attractive bubblegum fluff-- need I remind you of her first single "Candy"?? A Walk to Remember is pure
crap! How could a movie made from a Nicholas Sparks novel be anywhere near good?! It's sappy and completely hollow.
I don't know Sartor, I think I'm losing you here. Your judgement is failing. I'm expecting
vast improvement, pronto. Let me know what you think.
A Response From Ryan Sartor:
Dear Ms. Goldfield,
I do not make my site with the goal of pleasing the general
public, and I expect there to be some disagreements between myself and the readers. Let me disect this letter piece by piece.
First of all, "Signs" is one of my favorite films of the recent years. It is well directed, has excellent dialogue, and deals
with faith in a way no major hollywood release would dare to. The idea that "Signs" discusses the possibility of God, and
the fact that it isn't at all about aliens, tends to scare many people. So I can understand your frustration.
Secondly, the unidentifable pictures are not my
issue. I hope to stump people with my movie pics. I will give some hints: the one of
the two people hugging is from a film released in 2003, and the one of the house was released in 1999.
And finally, to bring up Mandy Moore's music career is
completely irrelevent to the question of her acting ability. I would also say that it is in poor taste, and dare I say ignorant,
to criticize a film (such as "How to Deal") which you have not seen. Now, granted, many people have seen the film and agree
with you, but I stand by my statement that Mandy Moore is a fine actress and WILL one day win an Oscar.
It is true that Mandy Moore is attractive, but
to compare her to Orlando Bloom is a great injustice. Orlando Bloom has played characters without dimension, depth, or emotion.
He's to the acting world what Paula Abdul was to music. I believe that the fact that Ms. Moore is so attractive makes
it even harder for her to prove herself as a serious actress. I would like to quote respected film critic Roger Ebert who
stated: "The girl is Mandy Moore, who has such an unaffected natural charm that she almost makes the movie worth seeing. Still
only 19, she made her starring debut in "A Walk to Remember" (2002), and has five more projects in the pipeline, including
one called "Untitled Mandy Moore Project," which pretty clearly establishes who is the star." He goes onto say..."What the
movie establishes above all is that Mandy Moore has a future in the movies...She has that ease in front of the camera that
makes you think she's the real thing. "The secret of acting," George Burns said, "is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've
got it made." Mandy Moore has it made, and the thing is, I don't think she's faking."
We live in a society where our youth are corrupted
at a young age. We are all cynical and angry, and I am not surprised at how the public has reacted to a film like "How to
Deal" and it's star, Mandy Moore. We live in such hard times and that the idea of something better, and the idea of an
actress who portrays earnest truth and conviction are ideas we simply are not willing to accept. On a final note, you scare
me Hannah Goldfield. Stop intimidating me with your mean letters. ::Frowny Face::
Gretchen Dogget writes:
I am deeply offended after reading your review of "Pirates of the Caribbean". I feel that
your grade of a "B-" is unfair. Yes, the movie does have a little bit of everything....drama, romance, comedy,
and horror (if you consider cursed pirates to be scary). It's perfectly OK for a movie to incorporate everything....it
makes the movie more interesting and some of us like it that way. :-) Oh, and the plot was important because without
it there would have been no pirates, ghosts, or fun fight scenes.
And how DARE you say that Orlando Bloom is just eye candy!? What a talented (and incredibly hot!)
actor he is! He has so much talent and has proven that again and again...and again. The LOTR movies...he was great!
He's proved to us that he can play the part of a gifted elf and a determined "pirate"! Now, he is working on a movie
where he will play the part the legendary Paris, Prince of Troy! I mean c'mon...what else can you ask for?!
Plus, if Brad Pitt agrees to work with him on a movie, he has to somewhat be special.
Even though the movie is 2 1/2 hours long, it was still great! I paid $8.50 to see a movie...so it
had better be worth my time. And this movie truly was! It's better than paying $8.50 for a 90 minute movie that
totally sucked ::CoughCharliesAngelsCough::.
All in all, this movie was excellent...the best that I've seen all year! I also consulted with Amanda
and Tommy Cadigan as well as my father and brother and they agree that it is the best they've seen all year. I may even
see it again. I give it an A+!
RYAN SARTOR RESPONDS:
Dear Ms. Doggett,
We live in very sad times. There once was an age where moviegoers required logical plots, building
suspense, and interesting characters. In our cell phone, MTV, digital world, people need to be stimulated at all moments-
explosions, swordfights, ghosts, and blood is now what draws audiences. So, if that's what's required for an A+ film, than
I'd say "Pirates of the Caribbean" delivers. But, I want substance to my film, emotion. I want to believe that it was
made for a purpose beyond turning a profit. I want to learn something about myself, or at least care about what the characters learn
about themselves. You know exactly what will happen to each of the characters in "Pirates of the Caribbean", nothing
is unclear. The fun in this film is basically just violence, it's definetly fun, stylish violence, but violence nontheless.
I'd like to think that people require more than ships being blown up in a movie. It seems this film was made
with all the love and care given to underwear on an assembly line.
Gretchen and I had a discussion earlier where I noted that "Pirates of the Caribbean" had a
little bit of everything, and I said that wasn't good. But, Gretchen is right...many different elements can work together
in a film to make a successful product. An example of this would be "Moulin Rouge!" But, I know that Baz Luhrmann spent 5
years of his life making "Rouge", somehow I doubt that kind of dedication was put into this feature-- and it shows. "Pirates"
aims to entertain at any cost, and it's as blatant as a street performer and not nearly as successful.
I found it curious that you said Mr. Bloom has proved himself "again and again...and again."
Considering one has to prove themselves, to prove themselves again. It could be argued that it would be impossible for him
to prove himself 4 times, since he's only appeared in 3 features. It would be even harder to argue this considering he played
the same character in both "Lord of the Rings" fans, and, I'm sad to say that I don't think any emotional depths were explored
more-so in the second film than the first. He plays an elf who wants to save people because...well, because he's a nice guy.
That's all we know about his character. OH! And he's really super hot HEHE!
I might sound cynical. But, I think the people who make movies have become cynical instead.
They think that if they throw a bunch of special effects at you and tell you you should be entertained, then you will be.
I long for the days when films were about something more than money. There are films that have changed my life: "Antwone Fisher",
"Rudy", "Forrest Gump", "Rushmore", hell, even "The Lion King". Those are great films that are memorable. "The Pirates of
the Caribbean" is good, but it's about as memorable as the theme park ride it's based on....which I don't remember at all.
I think the best film of this year is "Whale Rider", but most people I know won't see it. Oh, and this isn't
an attack on Gretchen. Gretchen Doggett is one of my favorite people. I'm just a sad, old, lonely film geek who wishes movies
were something more than they are. ::Sniff, sniff::
ZACK MUNROE writes:
i think HULK should get a rating of a B a very intersting movie but when there was no fighting
it left you bored and looking for some green monster. Plus i want to be mentioned in the race for best person at naming
RYAN SARTOR responds:
Well, Zack, first of all I will say that you have been a tireless competitor in the race for
best person at naming the movies and with your fourth win, you are now in 3rd place alone. I tip my hat to you, good sir.
As for the HULK, i agree that was "HULK" was interesting at some parts...but other parts are really boring...either way it's
a very ambitious film and I really did enjoy the scenes with the hulk. I'm not sure if I'd recommend it to everyone (once
again, it IS pretty boring), but I'd give it a B-...because it wasn't "bad".
Hannah Goldfield writes:
Hey man! Big ups (note, the first time this phrase has been documented since November,
1996) to you for the new site. Not only is it amusing, well put together, and aesthetically pleasing, it holds
no mention of the cinematic disaster "Signs" or the pretentious, egotistic M. Night Sham-alam-isuck! I admire your initiative
and especially enjoyed the quote from the "hitchhiker", one of the funniest characters of the [great] 90s, complete
with link to IMDB. Keep up the good work, and keep those updates coming! Without them, I feel lost.
p.s. in case you hadn't noticed, this is a shamless attempt to get onto your website
I must say that any email from Ms. Goldfield is a great email indeed. She is known
to some as the greatest mind in the tri-state area, and known to all as Smarter than Ryan. Her words of approval are very
encouraging. And I would like to thank her on behalf of the entire 'Rocket Multimedia Staff'. I would also like to take this
oppurtunity to thank everyone who has had a hand in making this site what it is today. Keep up the good-- nay GREAT-- work,
and I'll keep on sending everyone those really annoying emails.
Ryan "flickdude" Sartor
p.s.- All should know that anything Hannah wants to say shall be put on this website-- from
her commentary on reviews, to her favorite Pokemon (mine's Psyduck). SO LET IT BE WRITTEN! SO LET IT BE DONE!
Steve Staurovsky writes:
ok sartor this is the 5th one of these things, i know where your website is at, so send it to
someone else, gratzi
Steve the over worked, underpaid, slighty jealous, never
boring, always suave, Scandinavian Goat Herder
Steve is refering to the emails I send people regarding my website. I have heard from many people that my sometimes
daily reminders of the updates to my site are annoying, unnecessary, and bothersome; and that these emails cause the people
reading them emotions towards me ranging from anger to hatred.
Ryan "Flickdude" Sartor