More polls, more weitrd answers

The more I hear about this poll or that one asking a group of Americans multiple random and generally useless questions, the more I recall a college friend's statement

"You can prove anything with statistics. The sky is green, Hitler was a nice guy, and pig fly. It's just stupid."

Of course there are real uses for stats, just as there is polls. But sometimes you have to wonder why pollsters bother. Beyond keeping their jobs, who really cares about some of these questions.

Like the most recent 60 Minutes -Vanity Fair poll. Asking 1,097 people questions that will shake the foundations of you world, and answers you will ponder for as long as it takes to read the question.

George Clooney beat President Obama (26% to 24%) in "which man they would most like to trade places with for a week." The next men on the list? Tom Brady and Bruce Springsteen (Does anyone even remeber this guy? When was the last time you heard his name?).

Among women it was of course First Lady Michelle Obama as the favorite with 26%. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the 2nd place spot yet again at 16% (again I ask, what has she done? You really have to wonder if she is even in the Administration now). Nearly taking 2nd was Angelina Jolie and then Beyonce (that baby video seems to be working out well for her).

If that didn't make you wonder who is answering this poll how about this.

The biggest sin a politician can commit? Adultery? Nope, that only got 2% of votes. The winner was taking a bribe, picked by 37%.

I suppose lying is so commonplace as to no longer be considered something ONLY the bad politicians do. Still, not learning to read would've been my choice. Not that it is a sin either.

How about this burst of brilliance. 50% think it would be a great idea to tax the rich by 50%. First thing I want to ask those people is the same one President Obama has never answered clearly, What is rich? The second thing, how bad an economy do they really want to see?

At least there is one question I think they got right

"one-third of poll respondents predicted he won't be setting a time table for removing troops from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, 31 percent said he would time it to the beginning of the next presidential campaign, and 25 percent chose "in about a year."

Brad Pitt doubles his donations along with Angelina Jolie

You just have to be impressed with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Pitt especially. The man is like a slot machine. A slot machine that pays out millions, but for causes that benefit thousands or more.

Not a few days ago I was speaking about how Brad Pitt, along with his siblings, just donated $1 million to create the Jane Pitt Pediatric Center to take care of kids with pediatric cancer in Missouri. It was a generous celebrity donation.

And here he goes again, with his wife Jolie. together they just donated $1 million to aid refugees. This was done via the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, and the money went to UN High Commisioner for Refugees. This will help the 2 million people that are trying to escape violence and fighting in Pakistan this year alone.

Jolie has been to Pakistan 3x, and Pitt went with her on one trip as well. Can we say that Jolie has definitely lived up to her position as a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN.

I continue to be surprised by the donations and support some celebrities provide good causes. there aren't many that do this so selflessly. I mean there is the money Madonna donated, but that was more of a bribe to adopt a kid that the local laws said she couldn't adopt. No I like the celebrities that just do it because they believe in what they are doing.

Pitt has helped rebuild homes in New Orleans, Jolie has been active in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, Don Cheadle is constantly active about Darfur, george Clooney has a host of activies in Africa along with Matt Damon. the list goes on.

It just makes you feel good to know that sometimes, all that money being made in Hollywood, goes to a worthwhile place.

Prequels and Laura Croft: A combination worth seeing?

Ah the joy of prequels. Yes there is nothing quite like the ability of Hollywood to go back in time, on a movie set, and to generally screw up the history and persona of any character or storyline that can make an extra buck. As you might notice, I tend to dislike prequels. They tend to be as good as revisioned movies, and you know I hate that word.

I know that everyone, including me, loved The Dark Knight. That had a lot to do with the script, which kept the theme of the Dark Knight series of graphic novels, more than Christian Bale. Though Bale did a great job. And honestly there wasn't that much of the storyline that was changed.

Another prequel that worked out well was the restart of the James Bond series of films. Of course Bond restarts every time there is a new lead. So the public can accept every change without it being a major revision. Still there is something lost in the action first, thought nowhere, Bond that is Daniel Craig.

The Superman restart was pretty much what you would expect. Not a revisioning as much as it was an attempt to draw attention back on the movie franchise. I never was a big fan of Superman to start with - he's too much of a boyscout for me - so I'll leave that alone.

But then there are movies like Wolverine, which was horrible. Yes lot's of action, and Hugh Jackman without a shirt for the ladies. But it was disappointing. The storyline was basically missing. It was just action for the sake of action. Dare I say that the majority of the film was boring. And as for any attempt at logic, well they really stretched it even for a comic book to movie conversion film.

It gets worse when you think of films like Star Trek. Lot's of action (note the recurring theme in these prequels) and angst. Not much logic or plot. Most of the things that made Trek so enduring were thrown out. And I really disliked this new version of Spock.

So to summurize, when Hollywood wants a prequel these days they load up on action, throw out the plot, ignore all logical actions, and rewrite (or revision) everything to ensure that a youthful audience will show up for the flash of skin and lots of explosions.

Thus we are led to what got me thinking about this in the first place. Laura Croft and the Tomb Raider series. Which is set to get revisioned - excuse me, a prequel is planned. A prequel without Angelina Jolie.

To be exact, Jolie is not confirmed to be out of the film yet. But unless there is some Spock-like temporal vortex, she is too old to play herself young enough to satisfy Hollywood executives. Especially with the current emphasis on more action and more explosions vs. plot (which the Tomb Raider movies were short on to start with).

Will the prequel work for Tomb Raider? Well it's hard to imagine it being worse than Cradle of Life. That film sucked. So in regard to that, there is a huge upside potential since expectations at this point are limited to a pretty woman with big boobs (likely fake enhancements as with Jolie) in a tight shirt with explosions going off around her. Sad to say but it is honest.

Of the potential actresses being rumored to take the Croft role, Megan Fox is at the top of the list. This is likely due to her performance (if it can be called that) in Transformers. A film which the director insisted

"It seems that [Michael] Bay feels women should have curves and look like a person as opposed to the near-anorexic looks usually found in actresses these days. In fact he is making Megan Fox GAIN 10 lbs. for her next film Transformers 2."

A similar need for food, and exercise, will be needed if she is to be the new buxom adventuress.

The only 2 actresses I think fit the bill are Malin Akerman, of Silk Spectre II (Watchmen) fame. Though she is too old.



And Summer Glau, of Firerfly (Serendipity)



But we will see, once the director and screenwriter are picked, how this prequel will be geared. Don't expect much.

Angelina Jolie banned in England - sort of

In news that is not so sad, there is the announcement from Britain that Angelina Jolie has been banned. Well not her directly (only British-friendly entertainers like Snoop Dogg get that treatment) but rather the ads for the film WANTED.

The situation goes like this. Gun violence is bad. Movies with gun violence are even worse as they make it sexy and glorified. So the ads that show Jolie blasting baddies with shotguns, and pistols, and so on is on the top of the hit list. Which I would respect except for one thing.

The movie came to Britain some time ago and the DVD has been actively on sale for about 6 months.

So this is a waste of time and mere polispeak for some politician or political group that wants to look good to constituents. It's hypocritical and there are few things that are worse. It makes me bitter and twisted.

I understand that England looks at guns very differently than America. We are the land of cowboys and action movies of course. So I can see how this might upset some of the English sensibilities. But to bellyache after the fact is just stupid and insulting.

If this ad is so bad, so instrumental in magnifying gun violence in England, why the hell did they let the movie and DVD get released? Which says nothing of the fact that all of 59 murders were committed in all of 2007 in England. What gun violence do they have? Binghamton NY has probably half that number in 2007, and there are only 150,000 people here.

Look, the second multi-stage bullets are recovered from a crime scene I'll understand the hysteria. But until then I think the British government needs to get a grip. Besides, I would think the impression that Amy Winehouse is giving the young women of Britain is far more detrimental and immediately more urgent than Angelina Jolie in an action movie.

How much for a Yahoo accolade?

I noticed something over the weekend. Yahoo had a little blurb on the top movie stars of 2008. It was an interesting photo selection for one big reason. Almost every one of the people they were touting had a flop in 2008.

The list starts with Gong Li. You may not recall her name. Then again you probably didn't recall Hannibal Rising, with good reason. The list moves on to Nicole Kidman. She has become synonymous with Hollywood failure, which the film Australia confirms yet again. But then the list loses all perspective. It goes into a tailspin of stupidity.

The next "actress" on the list is Paris Hilton. A woman so without talent she couldn't make sex look interesting to watch. Her claim to fame was the film the Hottie and the Nottie. The hottest thing about the film is akin to the apparent intelligence of Hilton - just not being there at all. Is the possibility she will inherit a major company really that important to Hollywood?

The list moves on to Jennifer Lopez. Who is lauded for giving birth to twins. Which does deserve notice. But not on a list of top movie performers. Even when some thought she had a movie career she was bad. And she hasn't gotten better.

To disguise the fact that there were so few good movies and to bolster the huge number of movie stars with flops the list then goes international with Aishwarya Rai. She is a top Bollywood actress. I've never seen her in a film and have no comment.

But the list jumps back to the ridiculous with Hillary Duff and her performance in the mega-flop War, Inc. I reviewed that movie and to summarize both her performance and the movie, disappointing and a waste of time.

The list goes on to name Mary Kate Olsen, The Wackness, Lindsey Lohan, Chapter 27, Jessica Alba, The Love Guru, right up to Angelina Jolie. Jolie is the only actress on the list with a film the average person can say they saw, and actually liked. She is the only woman on the list (perhaps excluding Rai) that had films that made real money. In effect only she and perhaps Rai deserve to be on a list of top movie stars. The rest need to be on the top of a pile of dung for their performances.

The list then turns to men. And the choices are only moderately better. The star is with Tom Cruise because of his appearance in the flop Tropic Thunder, but more likely the Valkyrie movie that has yet to show. Next we get Patrick Swayze - because he has pancreatic cancer. Like Lopez I have to wonder how that has anything to do with movies. It's sad, but it does not go to the top of a list of movies.

Then the list does another odd change of direction. They pick Denzel Washington, who did not have a film in 2008. But at least he was nominated for an award this year. That's closer to a reason to be on this list then most. The list then flies off with failures like Bankock Dangerous (remake) with Nicolas Cage, Orlando Bloom - also without a movie this year. At this point we finally get to someone who was in a movie that made money and most people saw (for the men).

Will Smith is 5th with Hancock and the upcoming Seven Pounds. And right above him on the list is Brad Pitt with a flop - Burn After Reading - and the nominated Benjamin Button arthouse film. Leonardo DiCaprio broke even as I recall with Body of Lies but took 3rd. Next is Johnny Depp who like Bloom and Washington didn't have a film, and like Washington was nominated. And of course 1st went to the dead guy Hollywood can't stop talking about - heath ledger.

This entire list is Bollocks. Of the entire group Aishwarya Rai, Angelina Jolie, Will Smith, and Heath Ledger deserve to be on it. Maybe an honorable mention to Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. That's it.

I don't know what pipe the people at Yahoo are smoking, but it must be powerful. Either that, or there must be one hell of a kickback coming from advertising for Yahoo to tout this kind of rubbish as a top list of anything. Maybe if they named it the Top Movies Stars of 2008 - whose companies gave us a lot of money. Or is that too long.

And people wonder why the quality of movies is dropping faster than the average IQ of a high school graduate. When you can buy accolades who needs writing. It's just sad.

Celebrities and entertainers that should retire

Things in Hollywood tend to happen in 3’s. Whether it’s a franchise of movies (before everyone stops caring about the series of films), celebrity deaths, or now early retirement. The current news flash about the silver screen is that Joaquin Phoenix, Angelina Jolie, and Nicole Kidman have all lost the acting bug. But does it matter?

What happened to the old days where good actors and actresses worked until they stopped getting roles or just sucked so bad that they stopped trying? When did entertainers publicly announce the fact that directors and Hollywood execs had lost faith, or found them too problematic, and stopped taking their calls?

Now this may not be true of each of the above movie stars. Angelina Jolie still packs in the crowds and her movies have been quite good of late. WANTED was a good film and made decent money (though she was way too skinny). Changeling seems to be doing alright in theaters, Beowulf and Kung Fu Panda don’t count as they were animated. And she was nominated twice for her work in A Mighty Heart. So to see her give up film work is a bit of a loss. Then again no one is really looking forward to Lara Croft 3.

Joaquin Phoenix is still riding high off of his work on Walk the Line (which was excellent). But his work on Gladiator, Ladder 49, and Hotel Rwanda easily cover the lesser known Two Lovers and Reservation Road. And the fact that he is Puerto Rican (which most do not seem to focus on) is a bonus to me at least. But like many actors, music is a drive that is currently consuming him.

Nicole Kidman though needed to retire years ago. Seriously, her retirement is more the fact that she does not deserve the pay she makes. The last success she had was Happy Feet, which was animated. It could be argued that Cold Mountain was a hit, but you really need to go back to The Hours or Moulin Rouge – roughly 8 years ago. Her career seriously peaked in 1990 with Days of Thunder, which former husband Tom Cruise (and the NASCAR cars) had more to do with.

But if every one of these actors stopped making films, who would care? Besides their fan clubs, not many. These are not the Humphrey Bogart’s, John Wayne’s, Lucille Ball’s, Lena Horn’s, or Katherine Hepburn’s of film. 2 of the 3 are very good, but not a single one is great. Their loss really amounts to nothing.

It’s not like the masses are losing anything. And telling the world that you won’t make another bad film we wouldn’t watch on DVD (mostly in Kidman’s case) only means we have something to look forward to, not lament.

No what this really says to me is that Hollywood is sitting on it’s laurels too much. That too many are overhyped. That the dearth of real talent is more obvious today than perhaps at any point in movie history. And that many of the more bankable and successful actors and actresses are still not going to get the attention they deserve.

If anything I hope this leads to a flood of retirements among the current crop of entertainers out now. Perhaps the following could retire and save us the movies, trailers, and DVD’s that flood the market now. I’d love to hear that the following are going to avoid smiting my eyes in 35mm

Johnny Knoxville
Vince Vaughn
Jennifer Lopez
Halle Berry (yes she has an Oscar, but name the film she won for. Or a great role she has done? Or a great film she was in.)
Jennifer Aniston
Ashton Kutchner (he was bad on television. Take away Demi Moore and you have nothing worthwhile about him)
Topher Grace
Ben Stiller
Leonardo DiCaprio (over-hyped)
Jessica Alba (looks but no talent)
Hillary Duff
Lindsey Lohan
Jean Claude Van Damme
Steven Segal (his time is passed)
Beyonce Knowles (stick to singing)
DMX
Ja Rule
Virtually every gangsta rapper
Cedric the Entertainer
Ben Afflect

The list is not perfect (there should be more on it) but in each case it is clear that the people here are each in need of serious acting classes, or at least better screening of the scripts they agree to.

I’m sure some will not agree with at least a few of these choices. Every actor that makes it to the big screen has a few fans. And looks trump talent these days. But not one of these actors or actresses can match up to real talent – thankfully they don’t even appear in movies where real talents appear. As I recall none of the above have performed with

Denzel Washington
Jamie Foxx
Robert Downey Jr.
Terrence Howard
Michael Douglas
Al Pacino
Benicio Del Toro
Johnny Depp
Kiera Knightley
Susan Sarandon
Tom Hanks
Forest Whitaker
Morris Chestnut

I don’t think I need to go on.

But if you could pick anyone to remove from movie screens and television forever who would you pick? Do you agree with my choices, and who might I have left out?

Celebrity donations - some numbers and organizations you may not know

Recently I had the opportunity to share my thoughts about how Reuters deliberately diminished the generosity of Oprah Winfrey, and the lack of major media attention to the kind and helpful donation of Tyler Perry. That got me wondering, who is giving back to the public and not getting any attention – or worse being diminished – for it.

Well my first stop was at The Giving Back Fund. I looked at the donations made by celebrities for 2006 and 2007 (the last full years of donations reported). In addition I wanted to see how many African American celebrities and entertainers were on the list, as I feel they are the least reported or acknowledged of all high-profile donors.

For the prior 2 years Oprah Winfrey set the bar high. She donated the single most of all celebrities each year, and combined. Her donations totaled $118 million. That 66% of the total of the top 12 White celebrities combined.

The total donations made the top 16 celebrities and entertainers combines to $316.5 million dollars. That’s a huge amount of money. This money went to help prevent and cure HIV/AIDS, provide scholarships, cancer research, Katrina relief, hospitals, day cares, organizations that help various groups and nations in Africa, and more.

Another interesting thing of note is that the top 4 Black celebrities and entertainers’ donations are equal to 77% of the top White celebrity and entertainer donations.

I mention that last part because one of the points of notables making these donations is not only what they can do but also the attention they can being to an issue, and the fans they can inspire to do the same. The more that is mentioned about these donations, the more these issues get attention over Miley Cyrus career decisions or the outing of Clay Aiken – which really don’t matter.

In addition I feel it’s important that African American celebrities and entertainers are symbols of success and inspirational in the Black community. They have broken the stereotypes, and excelled in an industry that affords them few opportunities. And when they do something as important and beneficial as the donations I’m mentioning, they often are either ignored (like Tyler Perry and Don Cheadle), or are diminished (like Oprah) by the major media.

Out of all the donations made in 2006 and 2007, only 9 made donations each year (for a total of $183.6 million) out of over 48 from both years. Those consistent and vital personalities are listed below.

• Oprah Winfrey - $118 million, Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy,
  Oprah's Angel Network
  
• Barbara Streisand – $22 million, Barbra Streisand Foundation
  
• Tiger Woods – $10.8 million, Tiger Woods Learning Center, Earl D.
  Woods Sr. Scholarship Fund
  
• Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt - $10.8 million, School and Community Center in
  Swakopmund in Namibia, Daniel Pearl Foundation, Namibian hospitals, Doctors without Borders, The Jolie-Pitt Foundation
  
• Rosie O’Donnell – $9.2 million, Katrina Relief, day care centers, Habitat for Humanity, Broadway Kids Initiative
  
• Lance Armstrong - $5.5 million, Lance Armstrong Foundation
  
• Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson - $3 million, University of Miami
  
• Andre Agassi - $2.3 million, Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation
  
• Denzel Washington - $2 million, Save Africa's Children, Wiley College
  

I hope you take a moment to look into the causes that they each have made donations to and if you agree make a donation yourself.

WANTED - the movie review

So I went to see WANTED this weekend. I know that everyone was out to see Will Smith in Hancock, and that Wanted is a week old – but I wanted to see it. And regardless of how good Hancock may be I was not disappointed.

By now most have seen the very Matrix-esque scene of a guy jumping out of a window. Some might think that the film is trying to rip off the Matrix like Equilibrium did. Thankfully this is not true. But much like the Matrix this film starts off with a pill for viewer to swallow. In essence there are people with abilities that bend the laws of physics, and they are assassins.

From an opening scene that creates the footprints of a chess match you are caught as off guard as our protagonist Wesley Gibson, James McAvoy, (if the name is a play on Gibson of Mona Lisa Overdrive I don’t know). Gibson is a loser. There is no other way to put it. It’s reflected in his best friend, his “girlfriend”, and his all too normal and common job.

Add to this he has been led to believe that he has anxiety attacks. I for one thought almost immediately that he looked more like he was fighting the urge to choke the crap out of someone that desperately needed it. But for all his failures, he is not hopeless. He does get a glimpse of something coming, and if you pay attention to the little details in the background and in the words on signs and elsewhere you will see it too.

When that something does hit, it’s huge. And of course Angelina Jolie, as Fox, leads the way in this. It’s one of the better car chases I’ve seen in a long time. It’s a game of chess and determination. It’s an expression of absolute willingness to do what needs to be done. You’ll love it.

Literally this is a rush that’s a bit too much for our protagonist, and the movie take a momentary pause to deliver a cute laugh before we move on with quickness.

Once Wesley is back up, he is introduced to the truth. A version of the red pill so to speak. Provided by perhaps the single best image of gravitas our generation of actors has. Morgan Freeman.

Let me side step here. Some may want to see this movie for the action, and there is plenty. Some will definitely want to see Angelina Jolie (though she looks a tad thin in this film, but still sexy). Some might even come to see Lonnie Lynn Jr., otherwise known as rapper Common, which would be silly in this film – though it’s going to be the only reason to see Green Lantern – as he gets about as much time and lines as is deserved by most rappers-turned-movie stars. I did want to see 2 of the 3 points I just mentioned. But I love a film with a brain.

That’s where Morgan Freeman comes in. The former Easy Reader of Electric Company today is the one actor that can add credibility to almost any film no matter the premise. Want to talk about a guy getting the power of God, make God Morgan Freeman and it can work. Want to make a serious commentary about race and the human spirit overcoming idiocy – call Morgan Freeman. Want to get people feeling desperate and cheering the protagonist, well you know.

But how many times can you recall Mr. Freeman being a bad guy? And when I say bad I mean icy cool, completely in control, killing machine? In fact he is so badass that he only holds a gun 3 times in the film, but you never doubt his lethality. And if I had a favorite part in the film it would be the end when he curses, just once, and it makes you stand up and take notice.

Now I won’t give away details, but our little Wesley learns quickly that he has a shot at a life. He grabs at it, a keyboard signaling his fight for independence (it makes sense when you see the film). And he needs all the gusto he can find because once he gets in, his education has nothing to do with books and everything to do with pain.

But he does have an ace up his sleeve. The anxiety attacks I mentioned at the beginning. Plus he is not stupid. So as he learns, grows a pair, and figures out which piece on the chessboard he represents we get more than a few get special effects. By this point you’ve either accepted that some can do things that seem improbable, or you’ve gone to get your money back.

As the movie reaches its crescendo we are privy to secrets, truths, deceptions, double crosses, and revenge. Not bad for a film that’s quite short on dialogue. And a lot of thinking. This is not a Rambo style film. Everything has a reason and plan. Some of it is kind of obvious, like in the wax room. Some is more subtle like the tribute to Mark Millar who created the limited series comic book this is based on. (Yep another comic book film – bet you didn’t know).

Now I have to say that I am no fan of McAvoy. He was ok in the Children of Dune cable movie. Beyond that I have no real impression other than he is an actor I have noticed in other films. But he makes this character believable, and when he does get his gun on it works well – especially with the Repair Man.

Angelina Jolie is of course sexy and aggressive. She may be a bit type cast these days but it’s a good type to play. She plays her dedicated, badass, lethal character with just a touch of compassion and pride. This explains in part her near-end of movie reaction.

I will say this; I am upset with the ending. I see how they will make a sequel to this film. There is room for it without silly plot holes. But they definitely took the Tim Burton Batman movies approach. That is something I thought was unnecessary and disadvantageous. It really detracts from the possibilities.

This film is another in the select few these days that I would see again. I will buy it on DVD and look for a few more of the key signs and details that are all over the film if you take the time to notice them. I can also just watch it and enjoy it.

So if you want to take an hour and 48 minutes and slip into a place where your 9 – 5 becomes a little less tedious, this is a film for you.

Previews of 2008 films - 11.30.2007.1

Recently I was in the movies watching the Hitman movie and of course before the film there were several trailers. One of the trailers was for the new Will Smith film I Am Legend. I think that will be a good remake, this is the 4th reiteration of the film. I’ve spoken about this film before.

But there were 2 other trailers that also caught my attention. Both have A-list stars in them, and in each one of those stars is also African American. Both are Sci-fi films, and as longtime readers know I love comic books, video games and scifi. (Yes I’m a bit of a geek) But the big differences in the 2 films are the date they will be coming out and the quality of the films. One will bomb almost assuredly, the other should do well as long as it’s not up against Iron Man.

I’ll start with the worst and go to the best.

Jumper is trash. Not only did I get that impression from the trailer, but it is confirmed when the trailer states the movie will be out in mid-February. The worst of films almost always start off the year and appear between the middle of January thru February. It’s a dead time, with only a slight break for romance movies targeting the Valentine’s Day holiday. But romance movies don’t bring in the money.

This film has several fatal flaws. They are so big even Mr. Samuel Jackson can’t save the film with his presence. The big problem? They went for CGI heavy effects and forgot about the plot, and you can’t blame this on the writers strike. As you can see in the clip, the main character is a X-men-esque type with the power to jump from anyplace in the world to any other. Ok. Anything he holds onto goes with him. OK. So when he jumps to some other place in the world how can a rope catch him half a world away and pull him back? The rope was after the fact, and once it went through shouldn’t Mr. Jackson be pulled to the kid? Sci-fi films that rip off good ideas for quick bucks on a gimmick tend to fail. So will this I bet. See for yourself.



On the other end of the spectrum we have a more action based film with sci fi elements. WANTED looks to do quite well. It has Mr. Morgan Freeman (as a headmaster assassin – a bit different if he really is a bad guy), and the lovely Mrs. Angelina Jolie. It a movie about top assassins, so good that the laws of physics fail. [Yes a Matrix rip off, but it looks like they paid for a plot too] Our everyday guy, turned super killer looks plain vanilla enough. The chance for massive gunfights with really hi-tech guns seems excellent. And Mrs. Jolie looks great in those outfits.



Neither film will win an Oscar, granted. But my money says that WANTED is a winner, and Jumper will only look like a strong film when compared to Redacted or Lions for Lambs (the theme of both I hate, and happy to see them burning up in red tape).

Well you know what I think, what do you think of them. Which does better? And I still say Iron Man is the early leader for best blockbuster, and overall best film, of the year 2008.