Cool: Just look at this film? What could be cooler than the melding of black & white with an influx of color as a cult graphic novel comes to the big screen? For starters the film is directed by Robert Rodriguez who made a splash when he withdrew from the Director’s Guild of America (DGA) so Sin City creator Frank Marshall could receive a co-director credit. Rodriguez, known for the Desperado and Spy Kids trilogies, has a unique eye and from the presentation of Sin City, from the trailers and still imagery, it really shows. Adding to every fan-boy’s wet dream is “special guest director” Quentin Tarantino who, known for his bloody battles and excellent dialog, is sure to add to an already excellent looking film. Of course, there’s also the dynamic cast including Bruce Willis, Michael Clarke Duncan, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, et al. Aside from the disappointing Ocean’s Twelve, you aren’t going to find a more star-studded cast.

Suck: From the early material seen on the film, I can foresee two major problems. The first is the cast itself. Finding a place for nearly every character doesn’t seem like a big deal, but you also have to factor in the egos and salaries of everyone involved. One would like to believe that the usual fees would be waved to be part of such an expansive picture, but you never know in Hollywood. Sin City might be able to bypass the creative rut that claimed Ocean’s Twelve and its bloated cast, but we won’t know that until the ending credits roll. Secondly, the source material itself is not very well known in the mainstream. While comic-geeks and their love of graphic novels will line up to see Hartigan on the big screen, can the appeal of the directors and actors bring in a massive audience? I’m sure projections at the box office aren’t going to light up the record books, but with such an obviously expensive looking picture, here’s hoping the appeal is there as well.

Cool: A world wide treasure hunt searching for a lost World War II ship full of coins, that also may be killing people? Where do I sign up!? Even without an original storyline, Sahara looks to capitalize on the run-away success of similar movies in the genre and the rise of police-based television shows where mysteries are solved. Everyone likes a good page-turner, and while this will be in movie form, there is promise that it might not be half bad. Paramount, the film’s distributor, hasn’t exactly had the best average when it comes to over-performing films the past few years, but playing to the “hottest thing right now” should keep Sahara in the winner’s circle, at least for a week.

Suck: Didn’t we already have this movie? I think it was called National Treasure and it was okay to being with, but now we get another one? It’s no secret that "The da Vinci Code" has Hollywood up in arms looking for anything to capitalize on the book’s success (and press). The Vatican doesn’t like it, so the more press we give it, the more free marketing is spouted off by the media. And while Code will star Tom Hanks, and National Treasure gave us Nicholas Cage, Sahara comes up with the B-list as far as action heroes go. This time around we get the perpetually drunk, Matthew McConaughey, the voluptuous Penélope Cruz, and wise-cracker Steve Zahn as they take on the exact roles played out in Nick Cage’s flick. While the story looks cool, albeit not quite original, the pre-release press surrounding it (about how big it will be) may be a bit presumptuous. We’ll see how things play out.

Cool: The first thing that Amityville has going for it is the fact that it’s based on another movie (of the same name). We commonly refer to them as remakes, and one of the big things the past couple of years has been remakes of horror movies. The Ring kick-started both the horror genre and horror remake genres again with its smart adaptation of the Japanese original. Now, a month doesn’t go by that another horror film isn’t making its way home, and, more common than not, these films are remakes of other films. This brings us to The Amityville Horror, a story about a family, moving into their dream home, only to experience disturbing situations from the building’s past. First and foremost the biggest thing going for the film is Ryan Reynolds. The Van Wilder-star has really started to make a name for himself outside the comedy scene with a big role in Blade: Trinity capping things off nicely. He literally made that movie watch-able, and I long for the day when he teams up with The Rock in a balls to the walls action/comedy flick, but until then, we have a house to contend with. There’s a built in audience for the film, as there are with all horror films, so first week returns are likely to be big, especially coming off of The Ring 2’s release a month prior.

Suck: It’s another remake to a horror movie that, most likely, didn’t need to be made in the first place. Is Hollywood really that starved for new ideas that we are drumming up remakes of films that haven’t even been released for 25 years? There are still people alive who went to see that movie on a date (their called my parents), and they still remember the original. Like the flood of both remakes and horror films The Amityville Horror could fall into one of two categories:  mindless, made-for-the-sake-of-making-money horror film (a la The Ring 2) or impressive re-envisioning of a classic (a la Dawn of the Dead). There’s very little room in the middle for these types of movies. Where I praised Ryan Reynolds above, I’m just going to say I don’t know how much of a “serious” actor he can be. Sure I buy him as an action star, but an action-star spouting off one-liners while knocking a bad guy’s head off. For someone who hasn’t seen the original, I may not be able to judge it based on its faithfulness to the 1979 version, but I will be able to base it on the quality (or lack thereof) of movies released in the last few years.

Cool: Not straying away from the series after modest returns on the first, Sony is coming back with a new leading man and a much more action packed film. The first in the series, starring Vin Diesel, was an okay film with a cliché storyline and popcorn movie thrills, but when it came down to substance, there just wasn’t any. With Diesel gone, and, consequently, his character, Revolution Studios has hired Ice Cube to take over the vacant role. From the trailers you can gather that the story isn’t going to be any more substantial than the first film, but where State of the Union looks to shine is its improved stunts and direction. XXX’s director, Rob Cohen, is sitting this one out, opting only to produce the film with Die Another Day’s Lee Tamahori taking over the reigns. Tamahori is known to produce some very nice action sequences, albeit hopefully his reliance on computer generated effects won’t go overboard as it did in the latest Bond film. Still the brave course by the screenwriters to kill of Diesel’s Xander Cage rather than just replace the actor shows they are making some broad strokes to change the franchise. For mindless action-packed fun State of the Union looks to fit the bill.

Suck: Unfortunately the series may suffer the recent Diesel stigma of him kicking franchises (a la Fast and the Furious) in favor something else. While you’ll get no complaints from me that not appear in 2 Fast 2 Furious was a good idea, after last summer’s disappointing Chronicles of Riddick, Vin’s absence from State of the Union won’t make me unhappy. Yet, not everyone feels the way I do. Its no secret that people like the guy (the success of The Pacifier has solidified that), so without him, the film could flop. While that shouldn’t be the reason for the movie performing poorly, the film is going to have to be pretty damn exciting to keep the ADD-movie-going-public interested with the ride Sin City is sure to give only three weeks prior. Granted being released at the end of April does distance itself from the rest of the big name summer fare, but Hollywood is known for dropping bombs at the beginning and end of summer in the hopes that they can pinch every last dollar out of us. XXX: State of the Union may have to deal more with the psychological aspects of the casual movie-goer more than anything inherently being wrong with the film.

Cool: At first I didn’t have high hopes for the movie adaptation of the popular book, British mini-series, or radio show. Then Disney astounded me with the first trailer for the film, which included, among many things, some of the most memorable scenes from the book. First and foremost, the humor seems to be fully intact. This is one of the only times I actually laughed out loud reading a novel, luckily for me I was at home and not in public, but still, it’s a funny book, and it looks like that’s going to transfer to the screen as well. The casting choices also seem spot on. While there was some uproar over Mos Def as Ford Perfect, those seem to have subsided. One of the biggest things going for the film is having its script actually written by the late Douglas Adams, including the added bits that aren’t in any of the written for filmed works (i.e. John Malkovich’s religious leader). All of the familiar faces are there; all of the zany British-wit seems intact as well. I’ll go ahead and say it; The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is my most anticipated film of the entire year.

Suck: From what I’ve seen of the film, it doesn’t look like there will be anything especially wrong with it. There’s bound to be some changes from the literary work, and the addition of new story elements may throw off the familiar pacing of the book, but that’s no reason to declare the movie down for the count. I’m as skeptical as the next Adams fan when it comes to this translation, and by hiring a first time director in Garth Jennings certainly doesn’t help, but I want this movie to be good so bad I’m trying not to think about the negative. The only real problem the film faces is from the die hard fans that won’t be able to accept he fact that this isn’t a word-for-word literal translation of the novel. There may be some backlash in store for Disney and the producers, but I think they’ll weather the storm.