Is this movie going to be judged as a great Hollywood feel-good movie, or will it be recognized as a rip-off of “Rudy” only less credible. Only time will tell, I suppose, but consider this:

The story is about a young man who grew up in the backyard of a great and respected institution, and always wanted to be a hero in attending that institution. It is a nearly-unrealistic dream for the young man, as he is not smart enough, not mature enough, and not accomplished enough to be admitted there through normal channels. Not even the young man’s father believes he can do it, and instead wants him to work at some crappy industrial job. The young man’s only hope is to exercise unusual dedication and stick-to-it-ness, until luck gives them the chance they have always wanted. Once he arrives, he quickly falls behind and nearly washes out, but only through that same dedication and effort is the young man able to get himself straightened out, then to succeed, and then eventually to excel.  Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

 Oh, oops. That’s actually the story of Annapolis, only rather than going to Notre Dame and playing football for the Fighting Irish (as Rudy did), Jake Huard (played by James Franco) goes to the Naval Academy  at Annapolis and boxes in the Brigades.

 So look, “Rudy” was a pretty good movie, and a box office success, and we all know that Hollywood isn’t shy about milking a good topic or premise for every dollar it’s worth.  So why was it such a bad idea to make “Rudy Part Two: Annapolis”? Well, I’m not sure that it was such a bad idea. As “Annapolis” was actually a decent feel-

good movie. I mean, the whole crowd in the screening with us was hanging on every punch in the final boxing match. The movie accomplishes it’s goal: to get the audience to sympathize with Huard and where he came from, to identify with all the effort he has given to succeed, to make you pull for him to win the Brigades, and for all of his dreams to come true. The movie is successful on that level.

 But there are a couple of reasons why Annapolis isn’t as good as Rudy was. The first reason is that Franco just isn’t credible as a top-flite amateur boxer. While he has obviously had some boxing training and is in great shape, it’s just not realistic that he has the physical power to do the things in the ring that the movie has him do. And the second shortcoming of the movie is the character of Ali (played by Jordana Brewster). She is the hot chickie-poo – turned – drill instructor – turned – boxing trainer – turned – girlfriend. She has no credibility in ANY of those roles (except maybe as the hot chickie-poo), and was annoying to the point of distraction.

 “Annapolis” isn’t a bad movie, it just isn’t an original movie. If you like formulaic feel-good movies, where the good guy overcomes all odds in order to succeed, you will enjoy this show.

Armstead’s Second:  So pick a movie.  Is it Officer and a Gentleman?  Yeah, pretty much.  Is it Rocky?  Yeah, pretty much.  Is it Rudy?  Yeah, pretty much.  Is it completely derivative and lacking a single original bone it it’s celluloid body?  Yeah, pretty much.  The boxing scenes are shot in quick cuts and extreme close-ups to apparently hide the actors lack pugilistic skill, and lead James Franco, hot off brooding for a couple of hours in Tristan & Isolde, performs his signature brood here as well.  As he brooded as Harry Osborne in the first two Spiderman movies, as he is practicing brooding for Spiderman 3 I’m certain.  Nonetheless, this film has a quick pace and director Justin Lin, who made the excellent low budget ‘Better Luck Tomorrow’ knows how to keep the audience interested in the story despite the fact we all know what’s going to happen three steps ahead.  And damn if Tyrese Gibson can act.  ‘Stole the show’ may be the understatement of the year.  So if you got some spare time and don’t mind playing a couple rounds of ‘Name That Flick’, you could do worse than Annapolis.