Rss

  • redit
  • delicious
  • stumble
  • youtube

Archives for : Harrison Ford

Cowboys & Aliens

Posted by :Chris On : August 1, 2011
0

Category: Movie Reviews

Tags:, ,

August 1, 2011

Director: Jon Favreau

Starring: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford

Release Date: July 29, 2011

James Bond and Indiana Jones vs. the Saucer Men from Mars

cowboys-aliens-movie-posterI’ll admit it: I was ridiculously giddy when I first saw the teaser for Cowboys & Aliens.  I mean, Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig, Sam Rockwell and an insane genre mash-up?  What is there not to love?  Seriously?

Then the reviews began trickling in after the film’s recent Comic Con premier.  Most critics have lambasted the picture as being much too predictable, dull, or some synonym thereof.  While I don’t disagree that it pulls any unforeseeable punches, I do think the movie is a fun experiment that could have been much, much worse.

Is it a western?  Is it a piece of science fiction?  The answer, of course, is that it’s both.  Cowboys & Aliens straddles an extraordinarily fine line that sees it succeed on many levels, but there are certainly times where the logic of the whole thing is a little headache-inducing.  It’s surprisingly preachy from time to time, too.  I mean, when you have a finale that sees Native Americans, cowboys, stage-coach mercenaries and the like joining forces it looks an awful lot like Independence Day (or any other “we’ve got bigger fish to fry” extra-terrestrial invasion flicks).

For my money, the film is perfectly cast.  Ford is great as the grizzled Civil War vet who’s hanging on to just a sliver of humanity, and Craig is…well… his usual James-Bondish self (okay, so maybe he’s not quite so debonair here, but you get the point).  The ladies like him, he’s an efficient killing machine, so on and so forth.

The aliens themselves are slickly designed too, and they possess a noticeably menacing presence when they’re tackling outlaws on horseback and using goo-covered mandibles to toy with their prey.

Again, Cowboys & Aliens is a lot of fun, but it’s not going to set the world on fire.  On the most basic level, it exists purely as a love letter to sci-fi fans who love ridiculously outrageous genre benders.

redstar21redstar21redstar21redstarhalfout of 5

–Chris Flowers

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Posted by :Chris On : June 10, 2011
0

Category: View from the Blu (and DVD)

Tags:, , ,

June 9, 2011

Henry Jones… Junior

indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull19 years.  That’s how long it was between Last Crusade and the 2008 release of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The question, of course, is this: was it worth the wait?

It depends on your point of view.  For me, the answer is—unequivocally—”yes.”

While there are oodles of fanboys who would have you believe that Crystal Skull is nothing short of an atrocity against mankind, it’s actually a pretty good movie.  As stated in my previous Indiana Jones commentary, this is actually my third favorite of the series (again, I think Temple of Doom is slightly more well made, but I enjoy this entry more).  Let me explain why.

It seems that Spielberg and Lucas were aware of the need for the franchise to return to its roots.  I’m not trying to suggest that Last Crusade was, in any way, shape, or form, a departure from what Jones is all about.  No, what I’m pointing to here is that Crystal Skull nicely reinserts the “homage” factor to the series.  That is, it feels like this entry was designed to pay tribute to a very specific genre: 50′s era B-movies that were fueled by Cold War paranoia and apprehension about saucer men from Mars.  Sure, this is a blatant departure from the 30′s/40′s serials that made Raiders such an appealing feature, but, given its roots, it makes sense for Crystal Skull (and the characters contained therein) to have evolved in such a historically accurate (and entertaining way).

Let me be clear, though: this doesn’t mean that Dr. Jones’ latest adventure approaches the heights of Raiders or Last Crusade.  Not by a long shot.  But, like Temple of Doom, it’s immensely entertaining.  Sure, the plot feels more episodic than it should, and the inclusion of action sequences that feature berserk monkeys and nuclear detonations is a bit over-the-top.  Given the aforementioned historical context, though, would you have expected anything less?

What’s that?  You don’t like seeing aliens in an Indy movie?  Please allow me to point out they aren’t aliens—they’re inter-dimensional beings.  And they’re the perfect compliment to the obsession with pseudo-science (like telepathy) that were the trademarks of this particular time period.

So where does that leave us?  I like to look at the Indiana Jones series as an EKG—it’s had its fair share of ups and downs, but nothing has come close to approaching “rock bottom.”  Besides, if the pattern continues it means there’s the possibility for one more epic entry.

If so, I’ll be standing in line at the midnight release with a bag of popcorn in one hand and my fedora in another.

redstar2redstar2redstar2redstarhalfout of 5

–Chris Flowers

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Posted by :Chris On : June 5, 2011
0

Category: Blast from the Past, flowerspix

Tags:, ,

June 5, 2011

You Have Chosen… Wisely

indiana_jones_and_the_last_crusade_ver1Talk about a return to form.

After the decidedly underwhelming (when compared to Raiders, that is) Temple of Doom, Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford managed to put together one of the greatest action-adventure movies to ever see the light of day.  Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade got everything right: it had the perfect comedic duo in Harrison Ford and Sean Connery; the action topped just about everything that had occurred in the previous two Indy films; the narrative returned its focus to the ultimate villain (Nazis) and once again had the fate of the world resting squarely on the shoulders of the rugged archaeologist who was the embodiment of all things good.  Last Crusade helped solidify the notion that stellar sequels are, in fact, possible.

Just about everyone has seen this, so allow me to focus on specifics.  The score is every bit as classic as it was the first time we heard it in Raiders, and the bits designed specifically for this offering are, all-in-all, equally as memorable.  The “booby traps” are spectacular (especially the “devices of lethal cunning” that Dr. Jones must navigate during the final leg of his journey); the decision to begin the film with a flashback of Indy in his youth is a stroke of genius, and River Phoenix perfectly imitates Mr. Ford’s most subtle mannerisms; and, of course, there’s the previously mentioned presence of none other than the original James Bond himself.

Connery is, for lack of a better word, the perfect foil to Ford.  Whereas Indy is often reckless and tends to dive into dangerous situations headfirst, Henry Jones Sr. is calm, collected, and every bit the logical sage one would imagine the father of Indiana Jones to be.

If there’s any spot where Last Crusade falls short of Raiders it has to be in regards to its leading woman.  Don’t get me wrong: Elsa is a great double-crossing she-devil.  But superior to Marion Ravenwood?  Negative.

Next up is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  That’s right.  The fridge is about to be nuked.

redstar2redstar2redstar2redstar2redstar2 out of 5

–Chris Flowers

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Posted by :Chris On : June 1, 2011
0

Category: Blast from the Past

Tags:,

June 1, 2011

He No Nuts… He Crazy!

indiana_jones_and_the_temple_of_doom_ver1Believe it or not, some fanboys debate the superiority of Temple of Doom as opposed to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  The consensus seems to be that, for all intents and purposes, Temple of Doom is the better picture.  Hashing out which one is “better” is certainly a tricky proposition; after all, they contain many of the same elements—as noted in my previous rambling—and are the two Indy films that feature non-Biblical artifacts as MacGuffins.

Here’s what I think: Temple of Doom is, in fact, a more solidly put together motion picture.  On the flip side, I actually enjoy watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull more than I do the former.

But let’s focus on the movie in question.  Temple of Doom is not Raiders of the Lost Ark.  It’s that simple.  The story isn’t as compelling, the romance is duller, and the adventure doesn’t have the same sense of urgency that something like the Ark of the Covenant naturally generates.  Though there’s whip-crackin’ aplenty, some of the more hammy scenes (again, this is pre-Crystal Skull) in the entire series rear their ugly faces in this second outing.  For me, the worst of the worst is the “card playing” scene which involves, Indy, Willie, and Short Round.  They’ve set up camp for the night in a jungle clearing, and while our protagonist and his sidekick are bickering over hidden cards and underhanded tactics, Willie is darting from one side of the set to the other, screaming her head off as a myriad of creatures converge on their location.  It might draw a grin from the most ardent of Indy devotees, but it is, to be perfectly frank, an annoying scene.

Then there’s the blood brain-washing.  Dr. Jones is forced to consume some sort of black magic concoction that causes him to turn into a mindless Mol Ram follower.  Amazingly, Short Round discovers that the spell can be broken if Indy is taunted with a white hot torch.  Er… what?

Okay, so a lot of this movie doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t have one-tenth the charm of its predecessor.  But it’s still vastly entertaining.  Oh, and did I mention there’s a cameo by Dan Aykroyd?

redstar213redstar213redstar213redstarhalf2out of 5

 

–Chris Flowers

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Posted by :Chris On : May 16, 2011
1

Category: Blast from the Past, flowerspix

Tags:,

May 16, 2011

raiders_of_the_lost_ark_ver1It’s Not the Years, It’s the Mileage

Thirty years ago the world was introduced to Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.  He’s the very definition of the heroic American archetype, right down to his reserved demeanor, rugged exterior, and wise-crackin’ shenanigans.  Though it was designed to serve as a tribute to the action serials of the ’30s and ’40s, Raiders of the Lost Ark has emerged as one of the great stand alone films in cinema history (and the many sequels it spawned have certainly earned their notoriety).  I’ve stated time and again that it’s my favorite movie, because, in the most straightforward interpretation of the phrase, it really does “have it all.”  There’s white-knuckle adventure, a snarky damsel in distress—though she’s certainly able to keep her own—a wonderfully written story, an unforgettable orchestral score, and flawless direction from none other than Mr. Steven Spielberg.

If you haven’t seen Raiders, then there’s a good chance you don’t like movies.  Seriously.  It certainly doesn’t have to qualify as one of your favorites, but along with Star Wars, The Godfather, and a handful of other “classics,” this is a movie that—in many ways—that redefined its genre.  I’ve probably seen it over 100 times.  Maybe more.  The fact that it never gets old is a testament to its sheer brilliance and staying power.

Of course, the film wouldn’t be what it is without Harrison Ford.  One could argue that Star Wars was his breakout feature, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is the movie that, in my mind, molded him into the “every man” who’s able to hold an audience’s attention by simply exuding the mannerisms of a tenured professor of archaeology who only wants the truth to be known.  It doesn’t hurt that each of the Jones movies pits our protagonist against very cut and dry evils like Nazis and Cold War era Soviet stooges; this, in fact, only further cements Jones’ place in American icon.

I mean, come on: when you see the shadowy reflection sporting a fedora and whip, do you think of anything else?  I didn’t think so.

All of this rambling was merely a chance for me to say “Happy birthday, Doctor Jones.”

Over the next several weeks I’ll be reviewing each of the Jones sequels, but I think it’s fair to say that, no matter how good your follow-up adventures have been, the first is still the best.

redstar2redstar2redstar2redstar2redstar2 out of 5

–Chris Flowers

Morning Glory

Posted by :Chris On : November 14, 2010
6

Category: Movie Reviews

Tags:, , ,

November 13, 2010

Director: Roger Michell

Starring: Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton

Release Date: November 10, 2010

What’s the Story, Morning Glory?  That’s a Good Question.

Morning Glory is a tough film to categorize.  Is it a romantic comedy?  Kind of.  Is it a drama?  Not exactly.  Come to think of it, there’s only one thing that’s universal about Rachel McAdams’ latest starring role: it’s disappointingly uneven.

The story goes like this: the producer of a New Jersey morning talk show (McAdams) is fired, seeks out a job in the Big Apple, runs into a coy-yet-keenly-aware-of-his-own-charming-nature television editor, manages to elicit the help of an acrimonious-yet-legendary journalist (Ford), and learn a little something about “kicking up her heels” along the way.  morning_glory_posterThese ingredients, it would seem, call for a prolonged simmer—one that gives these characters a chance to breathe and release all of their flavors in an appropriate amount of time.  Unfortunately, screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna and director Roger Michell decided that microwaving the whole thing and serving it on a paper plate would make for a more satisfying meal.

Because of this, Morning Glory ends up being a classic example of what not to do when constructing a narrative.  The adage “show, don’t tell” is cliche, but it’s become a mantra because of one indisputable fact: it’s true.  Explaining to an audience, for example, that Mike Pomeroy—the previously alluded to legendary news anchor—has deep regrets about his decision to pursue his career above all else (including his family) doesn’t give us a chance to mull over any character-driven subtleties that would otherwise be meaningful and lasting.  In fact, said subtext is literally spelled out by the brooding TV personality as he chews on a cigar and straightens his silk tie.  To say the thematic delivery is heavy-handed is an understatement.

But this is supposed to be lighthearted fare, right?

No one goes to see a movie like this expecting a life-altering experience, but teasing viewers with the potential of interesting/complex characters is arguably worse than brashly rolling out the stock we were already expecting.

The film isn’t a total loss, though.  It has its comedic moments, most notable of which are Pomeroy’s gruff delivery of certain one-liners and his bitter exchanges with Colleen Peck (Keaton), an aging newswoman who’s every bit as spiteful as her newly hired co-host.

One thing that I found especially unfunny, though, is a recurring gag involving the show’s weatherman.  His tendency to engage in slapstick comedy and hurl obscenities while riding roller coasters and leaping from airplanes was inexplicably grating.

This tendency to see-saw between varying degrees of seriousness and often errant attempts at humor ultimately results in the uneven tone mentioned earlier, and that’s too bad.  Like a good glass of wine (and a well-written story), had this taken the time to develop of its own volition there’s a good chance we’d have been treated to a serviceable glimpse into the almost certainly overwhelming (and humorous) world of news media production.

redstar2redstar2 out of 5

–Chris Flowers

Check out a trailer for Morning Glory: