Rocket Multimedia

Rocket Multimedia
Dalliances of The Weird
Movie Pic of the Day Winners
Film Archive
Movie Quote of the Day
Found Funny
Upcoming Events

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)

(Whoever 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.)

Good God...

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 Vanilli.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLY HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


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 Performance Actress.

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:

Best Film
Finding Neverland

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

Best Actor
Jamie Foxx, Ray

Best Actress
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

Best Director
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

Best Documentary
Born Into Brothels

Best Animated Feature
The Incredibles

Career Achievement
Jeff Bridges

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
Richard Schickel

Producers Award
Jerry Bruckheimer

Freedom of Expression
Fahrenheit 9/11, The Passion of the Christ, Conspiracy of Silence

Special Recognition For Excellence In Filmmaking
(Listed alphabetically)
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 Woodsman


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 written.

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 like it.

Kevin W.'s Reponse:
Dear lady,
               Hi!  How 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- 32%
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- 25%
3. (tie) Dumb and Dumber- 13%
3. (tie) The Truman Show- 13%
3. (tie) Bruce Almighty- 13%
6. The Majestic- 6%

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.

or as Gretchen said: "That movie was whack."

Confused and feeling utterly uncool,
Taylor Brown

In Response to Taylor's Letter:

Hey Taylor,
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:
PunknDrublic622: monster was well acted and well directed, but had absolutely no purpose for being made
Flickdude: i'd have to say i really agree
PunknDrublic622: oh snap you saw it?
PunknDrublic622: what did you think?
Flickdude: 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: HAHA
PunknDrublic622: but her performance was oscar worthy indeed
Flickdude: yeah, definetly
Flickdude: ...but still unnecessary
Flickdude: lol
PunknDrublic622: haha
PunknDrublic622: yes
PunknDrublic622: the movie served no purpose
PunknDrublic622: it offered no message
PunknDrublic622: it didnt validate its own existence
Flickdude: there was no message you could get out of it!
PunknDrublic622: if it were an employee
PunknDrublic622: it would have been fired for lack of motivation
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."

Ryan responds:
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.

Would 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:
Dear Ryan,

Think 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 as wrong.

Hiding the truth only leads to ignorance. The end.
Truly Yours,
Hannah Goldfield

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.

Zach's response:
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.'

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.

Gretchen Doggett writes:
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. 
            ~ Caitlin

A Letter From Hannah Goldfield:
To the Rocket Multimedia Management,

      I 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.


                                                                             H. Goldfield
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::
                            Ryan Sartor

Gretchen Dogget writes:
Mr. Sartor,
     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 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 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+!
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::

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 the movies.
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

Ryan's Response:

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

Ryan's Response:
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

A comment from Pat Davey regarding 'Old School':

Old school ruled dude.  I mean seriously, frank the tank.  YOU'RE MY BOY BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!


I know quite a few people who really liked 'Old School'. I heard one kid call it the 'funniest movie in years'. I just thought that a lot of the jokes fell flat and the story was really weak. But yes, Pat, Will Ferrell is hilarious.




You gave Frailty an A and Bourne Identity a C?

Please, call a doctor you are obviously psychotic!!

OK, I can accept the fact that you were disappointed with Bourne Identity do to the bunch of hype surrounding the movie and allowed those emotions to cloud your judgment.  I however disagree with your grade, and the lowest I could give it would be a B, though I would actually give it a grade higher.

However, FRAILITY??? AN A???

Quick, get the urine test out.  You are obviously on Drugs!!

 Frailty had all the components of a great movie, but sadly came up short.  VERY Short.

The story was good, the casting was good, the acting was good, but how it was put together was terrible.  It was sloppy.  Proving once again that just because you can act doesnt mean you should direct.  You obviously have let the Cult of personality effect you.

 After watching Frailty I left not with a sense of horror or happiness after seeing a good movie but with an overall sense of sadness at the time I just wasted.  It was one of those rare movies that after watching make me come to the conclusion: I watch too many movies.

Due to my kind and forgiving nature the highest I can go is a D.  Maybe I am harsh because I know it could have been a Great movie and didnt even come close.

- John Vernon, CT (My very-knowledgable/cool uncle)

Uncle John,
I thought that "Frailty" was a well-made film about religion and loyalty involving family. I also thought it had great suspense and a really great twist ending. I can't say I know anyone who will support my opinion (Jessie refused to watch past the first hour) but I enjoyed it a lot and it really made me think. i also thought Bill Paxton did a great job directing.
"The Bourne Identity" on the other hand, I was a little bored with. I definetly know quite a few people who enjoyed it, but I just didn't end up caring about the characters. Although, I must admit, I was sitting towards the back of the theatre. I might have missed something so I'll go on your recommendation and rent it next week when it comes out on dvd.
Thanks for the email-- keep them coming.
P.S.- I will not admit to using any illegal substances. Talk with my lawyer.

A Comment from Matt Weichner
Hey now sartor its weichner, man im pretty sure XXX with Vin Diesel, Vin Diesel the same man that was in The Fast and the Furious should of been in the A range, but i guess u might of forgot how good that movie was.  Thats ok, just change that up i would say.  Oh yeah and another thing man and 8 mile, i hope u remember that freestyle battle at the end, cuz that was just plain OUSTANDINGLY INSANE!!! Man, i dont think anyone could of done that movie better with that Ending man, thats A+ material haha, well just givin u some good, logical input.
A Response from Ryan Sartor
Matt, first of all, thanks for your email. It's good to see somebody taking an interest in my site. You know, you do all this work, and you wait for the phone to ring and the days go by and you think it's all for nothing because your friends hate you and your life is going down the drain...but anyways, thanks.
Now, me and my head staff writer (Tanner) disagreed about 'XXX'. I thought it was a well-made popcorn flick, and he found the dialogue ridiculous and just generally doesn't find Vin Diesel very believable. Going into the movie, i thought i'd react exactly like Tanner did, but I ended up liking it for it's cheap thrills and exciting action scenes. I don't think it was a masterpiece of the action genre like "Speed" or "Blade", but it's definetly well-made. Tanner has a theory that you have a non-sexual man crush on Vin Diesel, which is nothing to be ashamed of. As for "8 Mile"-- you're right, the whole crowd went INSANE during the rap battle. That was one of the most entertaining scenes I have seen in a long time. I enjoyed the film a lot, and wouldn't argue with your A+ review. Thanks for the letter Matt, keep 'em coming.
The Flickdude,
Ryan Sartor