Something about [The Island](http://imdb.com/title/tt0399201/) really clicked with me.

Was it the outlandish stunts and over-the-top action, combined with a message about the price of human life? Was it the romance? The fact that it doesn’t rely on shock obscenities or lewdness to fill up screentime? (ChristianAnswers gives it the coveted Moral Rating of “[Better Than Average](http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2005/theisland2005.html)”)

Was it simply that I’d finished my last exam and just been with my good friends at the always-delicious [Mongolian Grill](http://mongoliangrill.com/)?

I said [previously](http://uwmike.com/archive/ladder-49/) that the films I like are the ones which make me laugh, think, or feel good. But really, the first and second of those fall under “feel good”, since laughing and thinking are feel-good things. The only genre to get sidelined by this preference, then, is the broader category of shock horror. (and most teen gross-outs– I’d better hear some wicked-clever dialogue if I have to watch, well, nevermind…)

Like [Ladder 49](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ladder_49/), [The Island](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/island/) was critically panned. But looking at those reviews, it seems like half of these folks were prejudiced against the director, and the other half misunderstood the film.

Is _The Island_ a serious picture? No, it’s a fluffy summer flick. People don’t fall 70 stories onto some ropes and then walk away. But it _is_ pretty funny when a construction worker wryly tells Johannson, “I _know_ Jesus loves you!”

So there it is: Not a serious picture. But it issues some serious warnings about the future; not to mention a few statements about how we value life in the present.

Mike

P.S. I do have to say, it was funny seeing Sean Bean playing a villain _again_. That final confrontations seemed awfully reminiscent of the climax in _Goldeneye_…

← Earlier Later → Posted at 3:26 am to Film.