The best of Ford

Some guys at work asked me;  Han Solo or Indy?

This is a difficult choice as these characters are two of the most influential and coolest characters of my generation. Women want them and men want to be them. Hell women want to be them!

 

 Do I prefer Han the lovable rogue with a heart of gold over the maverick academic adventurer whose ethics outweigh scientific and financial gain?

 

I need to examine the characters more carefully.

 

Han Solo

Han is a swashbuckling smuggler, an unashamed  criminal who will kill to survive. Han shot first!

He flies a souped up space ship which can out fly and out shoot anything else in the galaxy.   His companion is a is a giant alien warrior who manages to sound threatening and whiny in the same conversation. 

Hilarious! 

Han, gives up his life on the edge and joins what seems to be a lost cause out of friendship. That choice of loyalty for his friend not only saves the day but changes the fate of the galaxy. He becomes a general without losing his independence or changing his nature.

 

He marries a Princess, and by joining the rebellion gives up a life of smuggling and shoots space Nazis.

 

Also on a mythological front like all the central characters in the star wars movies (episodes 4,5,6) he is a classic archetype of narrative. The trickster who transforms into a warrior.

 

Doctor Indiana Jones

 

Indiana Jones is a highly intelligent academic, whose expeditions to recover lost treasure in the golden age of adventure take him around the globe. He battles evil villains, find lost tribes, gets beat up a lot, kisses beautiful girls, avoid death traps, punches Nazi’s and has Sean Connery as a father.

 

Unlike Solo, Dr Jones has always exhibited a high degree of ethics.  While he is no stranger to death, it is obviously not something that he is entirely comfortable with.  However when the stakes are high he will face that consequence straight on.  Also unlike Han,  Dr Jones is his own character. While born out of the dilettante gentlemen  adventurers of the late 19^th century to the 30’s, his character is of a style than an archetype. After Raiders of the lost ark he inspired thousands of boys (and  girls) to become archaeologists and to injure themselves with bull whips.  He also blew up a tank using a horse.

 

Han Solo is a hero of high fantasy, Doctor Jones is an intelligent adventurer,  both characters are fun, funny, tough and cool.

 

I think I would have to choose……

 

Indiana Jones. 

Indy has more depth to his character, his relationship to his father, his fear of snakes, his imperfect relationship with the women he loves.  I think that he is the more developed character and we can relate to him more.  Han is swept up in a space opera that doesn’t allow us to delve too deeply into him as a character. Han is certainly cool and we want to be him, but we can identify with Indy.

 

Tough choice but I am ok with it. 

While discussing this a friend threw in Jack Ryan into the mix. This got me thinking that it is no coincidence that these three great characters are played by Harrison Ford. Also that as I age my choice may change as well. As a  boy I liked Han Solo, as I grew up I preferred Indy. Maybe when I older and a father I will prefer jack Ryan, a kick arse dad saving the day, and his country?

Perhaps, but for now I think I will dream of exotic locations, swords, hidden treasure and the lovely Karen Allen. 

But I am interested what do you think, Indy or Han?

Paranorman

Today was movie day for my family and we had two options to consider. Both were animated films  with paranormal/horror themes, Frankenweenie by Tim Burton and Paranorman. Frankenweenie is a basically the story of Frankensteins monster, but with kids and a dog as the monster. I usually enjoy Mr Burton's work, and I don't mind adaptations, but this story seemed too derivative to me. We all agreed that based on the trailers Paranorman seemed more fun.


So a paranormal Synopsis:

Norman Babcock is a nice polite good natured boy who is ostracised by the  kids at school, and misunderstood by his family. They all think he is freakishly weird because of his obsession with the dead. Norman he thinks he can talk to the dead. But one of the biggest problems for Norman is the dead talking back. But Normans gift will be the only thing that can save his town from a witches terrible curse that will cause the dead to rise.

Cue Zombie Hijinx

Paranorman is made by the same people that produced Neil Gaiman's Coraline. So if you liked that style of animation you will enjoy this. Paranorman is less dark and more funny than Coraline, and I enjoy the stop motion style of the film.

The voice talent does a great job of bringing the characters to life. The cast and crew are all experienced, but the only name you may know is John Goodman. Again proving that you do not need to have an A-list cast and crew to produce a good movie.

The witch's curse in the story touches familiar ground with the Salem witch trials. The writers succesfully parallel the paranoid mob mentality which surrounded those dark times with the alienation and persecution that occurs in high school and how easy it is for people to turn on anything they don't understand and subsequently fear. The themes of Paranorman are pretty standard; stand up to bullies, your real friends and family people will accept you for who you are, and doing the right thing might be scary, but it is OK to be scared sometimes. 

The themes are familar, as are the characters, I wondered if Norman and his only friend Neil were inspired by the sucessful  Diary of a Wimpy kid movies. Or perhaps they are just familar as the sort of kids that always get persecuted. Certianly nothing in the movie seemed rehashed, and the films morality is never forced down the audiences throat. There were enough laughs to keep the film from becoming at all preachy or trite, andthere are lots of horror references throughout the movie which are really fun. Onl it appeared that only my partner and I were horrorfans, as we were the only ones laughing.

A little gripe now, just because it is an an animated film I don't understand why some people think it is OK to bring little kids to it.  Paranorman  is not Madagascar 7 or the chipmunks, I mean it's not Halloween either but bringing toddlers?

Anyway we all enjoyed the movie, it was funny, with a good story.

6.5 monkeys from me

Conan III, Cashing in or coming home

In 2007 Republicans in California were debating a change to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President be a natural born citizen.Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggerwas being primed for the white house, and I believe that given his popularity with both parties that it was more of a probability than a possibility.  But that dream is nothing but a foot note to history now, because he screwed up his personal life. The American public might be able to forgive jingle all the way but not cheating on his wife. 

You could argue that a man whose career in politics has detonated after such a personal disgrace is desperately looking to return to his cinematic career , that career which made him an international celebrity and exceptionally wealthy.  But at 65 and not being credited with the talent of Al Pacino or Michael Gambon his options are limited.  I suspect he will not be the next version Broadway production of King Lear or cast in the next The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel?  As an ageing action hero what options does he have? 

In December last year LA times reported that Arnold Schwarzeneggerhas signed on for the final Conan the barbarian movie The Legend of Conan.  Ignoring the ludicrous drivel of the Jason Momoa travesty of 2011, this film will be the third in the Conan/Arnold Saga., where an aging Conan is faced with a final adventure in the winter of his years

Is he just selling out!

I hope not.  The producer Dino De Laurentiisalways envisioned that the Conan films would be a trilogy.  Arnold signed a three picture deal on that basis.  Especially as Conan the Barbarian was such a success.  But the third film Conan the Conqueror was never made apparently due to contractual issues. 

Universal studios and Arnold are pressing that The Legend of Conan will not be a pulpy sequel. Universal are buying the rights off lionsgate , and Arnold is playing a 65 year old Conan trying to get to grips with old age and his place in the world.  I have read some of the releases and the studio seem to recognise that throwing money and 3D special effects at a project does not necessarily make it successful or even enjoyable.  The studio wants to have a good writer and director on board, and have Schwarzenegger as Conan. 

I love the Conan movies, and to clarify the Schwarzenegger movies not that recent vomit laden mess. The 80’s Conan movies are great and both can be enjoyed with a cold beer and a nice rare steak even now.  I am quietly hopeful that this film can be not only a success, but a very good film.  There is even a rumour that it will be filmed in New Zealand. 

While I may not have depicted him as such, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a very smart man, and an astute business man.  Roles like this could define his return to acting and create a career for him.  But only time will tell of course, but I and hoping that this is a case of Mr. Schwarzenegger coming home to a role that he can execute well. 

Add caption

I just want to add one final thing

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY WONDERFUL SISTER!

Lockout

In an effort to keep with my new years resolution  I am going to be more prolific. Not crazy prolific, I have a procrastination level to keep up.

Today's review is the DVD movie Lockout with Guy Pearce and Maggie Grace.


To the synopsis.

It is 2070 and Snow is asked by his friend to back him up in a deal. When the deal goes south,  his friend, a US colonel is killed in the cross fire, Snow is arrested and convicted is for the colonels murder.  Meanwhile up in low earth orbit, MS1 a maximum security prison is being visited by the presidents daughter Emilie Warnock. She has suspicions about the facility cryogenicaly freezing inmates. Unfortunately for her, during the visit there is a prison break out and she is trapped on the orbiting prison. Snow is offered his freedom if he can infiltrate the prison and rescue the presidents daughter.

Let the escape from New York MS1 hyjinks begin!

Luc Besson wrote and produced this film and I do not know what inspiration he had for his idea, but it is hard not to compare Lockout to John Carpenters cult classic Escape from New York from 1981. The stories arevery similar, as are the main characters Snow and Snake. Both are rebellious, wise arse ex army specialists who are on the wrong side of the law and are forced to break into a prison to save some one. In John Carptenters Escape from New York it was the president, and in Lockout it is the presidents daughter. I could talk about the ideological differences between the two movies, but I want to focus on Lockout.

Snake vrs Snow

 I had my concerns about this going into it. It appeared to be a rip off, and some of the CGI at the beginning is a bit 'gamey'. Frankly some of the scenes are just ludicrous, but in saying that it is good watch for a muggy Sunday afternoon.

Lockout is a fun story with a good mixture of humour and action. Despite its obvious flaws you do get sucked into the story.  Guy Pearce as Snow is great as a the wise cracking irascible action hero, and Maggie Grace as Emilie dies a reasonable job as the compassionate frustrated first daughter.The cast do a great job with the script, even if the characters are very stereotypical.

It was pretty obviously a green screen shot movie, and there is one bad sequence at the beginning, but it cleans up after that and you can focus on the story. 

For me it was a return  to the 80's action movie. Pretty girl, tough hero, bad guys, explosions, Lockout has  a good mix of humour and action. The film seems very derivative, but the main cast carry it, and it does comes together as a funny and entertaining movie.

I give it six monkeys.

American Horror Story

I am not intending to blog about TV but I think this show deserves a special mention. In this terrible time of Kadashian sisters reality TV and Wayan brothers sitcoms there has been a bit of a renaissance of excellent television at the moment. Game of Thrones, Downton Abby, the new TMNT reboot and American Horror story. 

This twelve part story surrounds the Harmon family. After Mrs Harmon miscarries their son, and the husbands subsequent infidelity with one of his students they family are seeking a new life in LA. Unfortunately for the Harmon's they have chosen to live in a haunted house, filled with vengeful and murderous ghosts including a ether addicted surgeon with Frankenstein complex, and a  maid who appears differently to different people. 

Each episode is a disturbing look at the horrible and bloody history of the house and how it affects those inside it, living and dead. Even the opening credits are scary! Bloody china dolls.

The series was created by Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, if those names sound familiar you may know the as the creators of Nip/tuck or Glee. And while that may surprise many that these guys can turn from Glee to this I don't. I dislike musicals, and putting on television is a stroke of evil genius.

The cast includes Zachery Quinto, Dylan McDermott, Connie Britton and the amazing Jessica Lange. I want to give a special mention to Jamie Brewer who played the psychic child Addie. Both a sympathetic and disconcerting role.  Addie being locked in the punishment room was a particularly disturbing

episode.

Jessica Lange won a golden globe and a emmy for her role as Constance Langdon, the ageing southern belle who was the previous owner of the house. Her performance is excellent, stylish and sinister, Charming and brimming with malice at the world. her performance was so good she is also in the next season which is a entirely new story.

 
The series is a clever take on famous American  horror stories, the haunted house, the monster in the cellar, the inbred child that lives chained in the attic, bloody Mary etc. The writers have taken these urban legends and woven them into the history of the house. It is a clever catalogue of American horror mythology combined in a well written story.

If like horror give this a try, but it is not for the faint hearted, or those that think this is a strange version of Glee.

eight little monkeys hiding behind the couch

The Life of Pi

So we start the new year with a brand new film the life of Pi.

Synopsis

A struggling author is looking for inspiration for his next book. he is told to hear the amazing story of a man named Pi. Pi was born in the Zoo his parents ran in Pondicherry, French India. Pi's life is turned upside down when his family decide to sell the zoo and immigrate to Canada. During the voyage a terrible storm sets Pi adrift in a life boat with another survivor, and adult Bengal tiger both on a journey of survival and enlightenment.

Ensue watery Hijnx

The film is based on the booker awarding winning novel written by Yann Martel. And unlike the Hobbit which was a disappointment despite expectations, The Life of Pi exceeded mine. As you may know I enjoy the aesthetic of a beautifully shot film, and this film is exquisite. The colour and the cinematography is a pleasure on the eyes. A major achievement given that this is mostly about a boy on a boat sitting in the middle of the Pacific ocean.  The 3D like the CGI, is not gimicky at all, but blends into the narrative as such effects should. Director Ang Lee has taken a work of fantasy and made it a reality.

This is Suraj Sharmas, who plays Pi, first major cinematic role and he gives a performance to equal any you will see this year. And Richard Parker steals every scene he is in. Who is Richard Parker? Well I think I will let you find out for yourselves.


The life of Pi is not a sophisticated story, it is a tale of a young mans physical and spiritual survival. It is Pi's journey of faith and questions our perception of the world we live in. It might be simple, it is also a wonderful story.

If this is standard of film I am to watch this year I am very excited.

Eight and a half Monkeys!

An Unexpected Picture

When I was a boy my brother showed me a book and asked "does this scare you?". It was the cover of Lord of the Rings, with the cover art of the Ralph Bakshi animated version of the film.

"No?" I replied, and Keith took me off to the Lord of the Rings movie and my introduction into the wonderful world of J. R. R. Tolkein started there.  After the film I read the Lord of The Rings before I read the Hobbit. I loved the Hobbit  and I still do.  It is a wonderful adventure, with heroes, Dragons, and a hero that we can relate to.

So It was with a great deal anticipation and also trepidation that I approached this film. While the Lord of the Rings is a dramatic Saga, the Hobbit is a more a straight forward adventure story. The Lord of the Rings had to be three films, but the Hobbit? I understand the financial reasoning behind it, especially because of MGMs financial issues, but just because they are screwed, doesn't mean they have to screw this up?

So I went, and this is what I thought.

Spoiler alert!

There may be some spoilers in this so beware!


 The Hobbit starts at Bilbos birthday party, and he is writing his book for Frodo to tell him the full story of his adventure. Elijah Wood and Ian Holm reprise their roles as Frodo and Bilbo respectively. Then there is some exposition about Erebor the Dwarven kingdom prior to Smaug the Dragons arrival and the destruction of Erebor. Then we settle down to Martin Freeman as Bilbo meeting Gandalf and then the arrival of the Dwarves which finally sets the adventure off into the story of the Hobbit.

Ensue adventures.

There is allot of exposition in this film about the Erebor and the coming of Smaug and the Dwarves losing their home. That is all fine, and I didn't even mind the exposition about Thorin and the blood feud between him and Azog. Azog is a new character to the story and this story line will help pad out the need for three films. That wasn't too bad, but I did feel that the film was too long by the end of it. I did feel some scenes were extraneous. The mountain giants were cool to look at, but like the extend fight scene with the goblins and the stand off between Thorin and Azog they could have been cut down. After watching Peter Jacksons, King Kong, I think he sometimes puts in too many cool things, at the cost of the flow of the movie. Of course I understand that one of the story lines of An Unexpected Journey, was Bilbos acceptance by Thorin. But Bilbo facing off against Azog didn't seem right to me. By the end of the movie it did seem long, and in reality 169 minutes isn't really a marathon.

In keeping with the story and the feel of Tolkeins work it did ok, The exposition for Erebor, and the foretelling of the events of the LOTR trilogy also didn't bother me overly.  I think the thing that bothered me was the Trolls. I am sure in the book that the Trolls ambushed the Dwarves and put them in sacks? The fight scene between the trolls and the Dwarves didn't seem right to me? In fact i would have to say that the film as a  whole could have had a little less combat. (never thought I'd write those words). Apart form the the scene with the Trolls was very good.

Barry Humphries as the Goblin King was cool.

The cast are great. Peter Jackson altered the entire shoot just so they could have Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and he is the perfect choice. Brave, funny, endearing and flummoxed he gives an outstanding performance. Ian McKellen reprises his role as Gandalf, and all the Dwarves are great. I am hoping to see more of the individual Dwarves characters over the three films. I mean it's not like he doesn't have the time.

I saw the film in 2D so I cannot comment on the extra bells and whistles, but the cinematography was great. Special mention to the scenes with Cate Blanchett and Ian McKellen. They were shot beautifully. Cate Blanchett as Galadriel was spectacular.

While I have made comments about the fight scenes, there was a good balance between the humour, and the drama. Although I would have like to have seen more of the humour.

Over all it did instil a sense of adventure in me. Martin Freeman and the cast were great, and it was very pretty to watch. It felt long, so the pacing was off a little, and I did feel that there was too much cool and not enough substance. I understand that this is an adaption and it will not be exactly the same as the book, but I think the triliogy should evoke the same sense of adventure as the source material did.  With the first installment it is there, but not enough.

I give it six  Dwarves sorry Monkeys.