Movies and the hero archetype, oh how they never go away. There will always be a guy going on a quest to save his lover (imagine a creepy old guy with a scruffy beard and a comb over and a hoarse voice say that word slowly, it's funny). Maybe he's trying to save his home, or to get revenge, or even trying to find knowledge, etc.. We have watched many movies that cover these ideas mainly because it is seen so much and it is a great theme. An incredible movie that fits this archetype (that we watched in class) is Star Wars: A New Hope.
In star wars, Luke Skywalker is the hero and he's on a journey with his friend Obi-Wan Kenobi, the droids C-3PO and R2-D2, and their guides Han Solo and Chewbacca. The journey was to bring the droids to Alderaan along with Obi-Wan for Princess Leia. However they get captured and brought to the Death Star because the Empire destroyed Alderaan. Turns out the Princess is a prisoner on the space station and Luke, Han, and Chewbacca decide to free her and escape. Later Obi-Wan gets killed(though it was more lie suicide as you learn in Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back) and everybody flees to the moon of Yavin 4 where there is a rebel base. Luke and a bunch of Rebel fighter pilots attack the station and eventually blow it up(with help from Han and Chewbacca who do a drive-by on Darth Vader with the Millennium Falcon).
As you can see from my half-assed summery of star wars 4 you can make connections between the archetype of heroes and the movie. Luke is the hero, Leia is the damsel in distress, Darth Vader is your villain, destroying the Death Star is the mission and the droids are the comic relief. There are more connections but I am tired so I will stop here. Have a nice day and prepare the ship for LUDACRIS SPEED! Aw crap that's a parody my bad, gotta love Spaceballs.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Someone has some Daddy issues!
Upon watching several movies about Fathers and their sons longing for their love (holy crap this makes me sound like a sissy), I have been tasked with writing about what two movies connect with the types of fathers out there. Shall we begin?[SPOILER ALERT]
The movie Smoke Signals had a strong Father-Son aura emitting from it. The protagonist Victor Joseph lost his dad when he was a boy because he left after being a total drunk and abusive(for lack of a term capable of grasping the type of person)douche. Now, Victor is a self loathing punk who upon learning of his fathers death goes to get his stuff in Arizona with his want to be homie Thomas who is so obnoxious he makes me want to watch The View. The type of issue Victor faces is FATHER HUNGER. Victor doesn't really realize it but he wants his fathers love(if your head is in the gutter then that last part sounds hilarious!)and his mom knows it too. When he was a kid he would wait for his father to come home, even though he was gone forever. Luckily he and Thomas become bros and the need of a father is replaced with a makeshift brother. Not an improvement if you ask me because Thomas is a weirdo and a 1/2.
Another good movie was Click. This one was flipped and it was more of a Son-Father ordeal. However there was still issues between Michael and his kids. The issue here was FATHER THE PROVIDER. Michael is so focused on getting his work done and getting his promotion that he has no time for his family. Later he realizes that by neglecting his kids they became semi-deviant and he loses his wife but that's irrelevant. Thanks to the "universal remote" Michael gets from Morty, a.k.a. The Angel of Death, Michael can see the errors of his ways and get better as a father.
Father-Son movies are alright and can be kind of entertaining. They are decent guides for men who want to be better fathers and for kids looking for assistance. And people have the nerve to say you can't learn from movies!
The movie Smoke Signals had a strong Father-Son aura emitting from it. The protagonist Victor Joseph lost his dad when he was a boy because he left after being a total drunk and abusive(for lack of a term capable of grasping the type of person)douche. Now, Victor is a self loathing punk who upon learning of his fathers death goes to get his stuff in Arizona with his want to be homie Thomas who is so obnoxious he makes me want to watch The View. The type of issue Victor faces is FATHER HUNGER. Victor doesn't really realize it but he wants his fathers love(if your head is in the gutter then that last part sounds hilarious!)and his mom knows it too. When he was a kid he would wait for his father to come home, even though he was gone forever. Luckily he and Thomas become bros and the need of a father is replaced with a makeshift brother. Not an improvement if you ask me because Thomas is a weirdo and a 1/2.
Another good movie was Click. This one was flipped and it was more of a Son-Father ordeal. However there was still issues between Michael and his kids. The issue here was FATHER THE PROVIDER. Michael is so focused on getting his work done and getting his promotion that he has no time for his family. Later he realizes that by neglecting his kids they became semi-deviant and he loses his wife but that's irrelevant. Thanks to the "universal remote" Michael gets from Morty, a.k.a. The Angel of Death, Michael can see the errors of his ways and get better as a father.
Father-Son movies are alright and can be kind of entertaining. They are decent guides for men who want to be better fathers and for kids looking for assistance. And people have the nerve to say you can't learn from movies!
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Road to Perdition: Much Noire, So Wow!
Road to Perdition is modern film noire, case closed. What? Confused that I didn't give an argument? I shouldn't have to because you should all realize this. To be noire you need to have a dark eerie feeling to the film, deadly ladies, death, smoking, booze, and fedoras. That may not be the exact definition of film noire but it is mine. Don't like it, too biased? Well that's too bad I'm sticking to it!
Road to Perdition has a great dark feeling, that is obvious. It rains for at least 30% of the film and at key parts where rain would make the moment more intense. Another thing that adds to the dark feeling of the film is the title. Perdition means "Eternal Damnation" and almost every one who dies in this film in someway deserves damnation for what they did.
Those who die in Road to Perdition that deserve damnation are everybody except Annie Sullivan and Peter Sullivan who died to signal the beginning of the journey. When they died Mike Sullivan and Michael Sullivan had to leave and run because they were no longer safe and their time on the road was their time on the road to perdition. Everyone else who died was damned from the start because they were killers, fraudsters, druggies, criminal masterminds and full on psychopaths. This includes (not chronologically seen) Mr. Rooney, Conner Rooney, that guy in the gentleman's club, gentleman's club guy's guard, those dudes in the warehouse full of barrels of booze, freaky camera assassin, feminine bank guy in bridal suite, Mr. Rooney's body guards, and that's all I can remember. However, there is one more person I didn't mention, Mike Sullivan himself! After all he has done he deserves to die right? He fulfilled his mission to keep his son out of the gang life and died doing it because that was the icing on the please-don't-be-a-dirty-killer-like-your-old-man cake. Such a touching film.
Sadly, I can't think of any deadly ladies in Road to Perdition, but there are plenty of booze and smoking. Many gangsters in the film have cigars and drink whiskey. Lastly, fedoras! 96% of men in this film have a fedora on and dress in snazzy coats and suits. The ladies even have snazzy clothes from the swaggin 1930s.
I think I've proved this movie is film noire and if I didn't, well it still is because any person in the right mind can see it. I suddenly have a craving for bacon; I want bacon, bye bye!
Road to Perdition has a great dark feeling, that is obvious. It rains for at least 30% of the film and at key parts where rain would make the moment more intense. Another thing that adds to the dark feeling of the film is the title. Perdition means "Eternal Damnation" and almost every one who dies in this film in someway deserves damnation for what they did.
Those who die in Road to Perdition that deserve damnation are everybody except Annie Sullivan and Peter Sullivan who died to signal the beginning of the journey. When they died Mike Sullivan and Michael Sullivan had to leave and run because they were no longer safe and their time on the road was their time on the road to perdition. Everyone else who died was damned from the start because they were killers, fraudsters, druggies, criminal masterminds and full on psychopaths. This includes (not chronologically seen) Mr. Rooney, Conner Rooney, that guy in the gentleman's club, gentleman's club guy's guard, those dudes in the warehouse full of barrels of booze, freaky camera assassin, feminine bank guy in bridal suite, Mr. Rooney's body guards, and that's all I can remember. However, there is one more person I didn't mention, Mike Sullivan himself! After all he has done he deserves to die right? He fulfilled his mission to keep his son out of the gang life and died doing it because that was the icing on the please-don't-be-a-dirty-killer-like-your-old-man cake. Such a touching film.
Sadly, I can't think of any deadly ladies in Road to Perdition, but there are plenty of booze and smoking. Many gangsters in the film have cigars and drink whiskey. Lastly, fedoras! 96% of men in this film have a fedora on and dress in snazzy coats and suits. The ladies even have snazzy clothes from the swaggin 1930s.
I think I've proved this movie is film noire and if I didn't, well it still is because any person in the right mind can see it. I suddenly have a craving for bacon; I want bacon, bye bye!
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Deeds on Deeds Action!
I have just watched two movies, one a remake of the other. Though it isn't a direct remake of the other. These movies are Mr. Deeds goes to town and Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds. I am a big Adam Sandler fan and I have never seen the original Mr. Deeds so I may be biased but I'll try to put my personal feelings aside. I will take a look at the differences and similarities and see which movie was just better, though I think the outcome will be obvious.
Lets take a look at the older Deeds first. For an old movie I kind of liked it. It had exceptional humor, good acting and overall feel to the movie. It seemed longer than the Sandler version as well. It was more serious than the Sandler version meaning the humor was more dry. This was anticipated though because the movie was made in 1932 which is a whole different era. The general story is that Deeds inherited a ton of money fro his dead uncle and a company that is very big. While in the big city Deeds meets this girl who he likes but is an undercover reporter publishing bad stories about him. While trying to enjoy New York City he ends up doing some unlikable things which only make him look worse such as hopping onto fire engines and punching popular figures and feeding donuts to a horse.
Now for the Adam Sandler version. This movie is from 1998 which is more modern. This version has a story that is simply a reskinned version of the old one while retaining the intended feel. Deeds inherits a ton of money and a big company from his uncle and goes to New York city and meets girl. Deeds in this movie also does some bad things that make him look bad but they were much more worse in here. He still hopped on a fire engine, egged cars, and partied with random people. Sandler also punched some popular people in this movie too but also through them into tables and beat way harder than Cooper did. The girl in this version was still an undercover reporter but was with a news station rather than a newspaper (difference in era). She still published bad stories on Deeds though. Any way Sandler's comedy is much more modern which ends up creating a different style of movie while still keeping the old movie feel by retaining much of the old story.
Which do I like better? Adam Sandler because of my own reasons but just to seem unbiased I'll toss so e things out. I grew up on Sandler, his form of comedy is more my style being from the late 90s and not the early 30s, and it had a more enjoyable take on a good story. Don't get me wrong I still like the old one but I just like the newer one more. And Winona Ryder is good looking but that's beside the point, I'm a 90s guy!
Lets take a look at the older Deeds first. For an old movie I kind of liked it. It had exceptional humor, good acting and overall feel to the movie. It seemed longer than the Sandler version as well. It was more serious than the Sandler version meaning the humor was more dry. This was anticipated though because the movie was made in 1932 which is a whole different era. The general story is that Deeds inherited a ton of money fro his dead uncle and a company that is very big. While in the big city Deeds meets this girl who he likes but is an undercover reporter publishing bad stories about him. While trying to enjoy New York City he ends up doing some unlikable things which only make him look worse such as hopping onto fire engines and punching popular figures and feeding donuts to a horse.
Now for the Adam Sandler version. This movie is from 1998 which is more modern. This version has a story that is simply a reskinned version of the old one while retaining the intended feel. Deeds inherits a ton of money and a big company from his uncle and goes to New York city and meets girl. Deeds in this movie also does some bad things that make him look bad but they were much more worse in here. He still hopped on a fire engine, egged cars, and partied with random people. Sandler also punched some popular people in this movie too but also through them into tables and beat way harder than Cooper did. The girl in this version was still an undercover reporter but was with a news station rather than a newspaper (difference in era). She still published bad stories on Deeds though. Any way Sandler's comedy is much more modern which ends up creating a different style of movie while still keeping the old movie feel by retaining much of the old story.
Which do I like better? Adam Sandler because of my own reasons but just to seem unbiased I'll toss so e things out. I grew up on Sandler, his form of comedy is more my style being from the late 90s and not the early 30s, and it had a more enjoyable take on a good story. Don't get me wrong I still like the old one but I just like the newer one more. And Winona Ryder is good looking but that's beside the point, I'm a 90s guy!
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Altering Time, in a DeLorean!
Today, we're discussing time travel, specifically from the classic movie Back to the Future. Marty altered some stuff like an idiot, but made things better in the end. What did he change? Well he changed his parents and siblings, Biff, Hill Valley, his home, Doc, a lot really. Lets start things off shall we?
When Marty first arrives in 1955 he is in Old Man Peabody's tree farm. He is here because Twin Pines Mall will someday be built there in the future. When Marty is being shot at by Mr. Peabody because his kid convinced him Marty is an alien (stupid hillbilly), he flees in the DeLorean and runs over one of Peabody's Pine trees. When Marty goes back to 1985, he runs to Twin Pines Mall to stop the Libyans and what do we see? The Twin Pines Mall sign, but changed! It now says Lone Pines Mall because Marty killed one of the trees fleeing at the beginning of the film.
Marty's family was super broken and poor and down right boring at first. Once Marty goes back to 1955, he begins to change his parent's personalities. Marty's Dad, George, was a complete sissy until Marty slowly raised his self-esteem by teaching him to talk to chicks, to defend himself, to publish his novels because they're good. Then his dad goes Super Saiyan and hits Biff! Now he's a happy, wealthy, good father and husband. Same goes for his mom, Loraine. Marty convinces her that she shouldn't drink and smoke while in 1955. Then when Marty goes back to 1985, she isn't fat and an alcoholic but is thin, good looking and doesn't drink or smoke. These changes even slightly alter Marty's siblings. His brother goes from a fast food worker to business man and his sister goes from plain nerd to popular chick.
Two more things, Doc and Biff. Biff was the guy who walked all over George and made him his slave. Once Marty changes the future, Biff goes from the big guy to working for George by waxing his car. Doc also changes by, well, not dying because he heeded Marty warnings.
That's all I hope this was fun because I love Back to the Future and its fun to talk about. Oh I almost forgot, SPOILER ALERT! Is it too late?
When Marty first arrives in 1955 he is in Old Man Peabody's tree farm. He is here because Twin Pines Mall will someday be built there in the future. When Marty is being shot at by Mr. Peabody because his kid convinced him Marty is an alien (stupid hillbilly), he flees in the DeLorean and runs over one of Peabody's Pine trees. When Marty goes back to 1985, he runs to Twin Pines Mall to stop the Libyans and what do we see? The Twin Pines Mall sign, but changed! It now says Lone Pines Mall because Marty killed one of the trees fleeing at the beginning of the film.
Marty's family was super broken and poor and down right boring at first. Once Marty goes back to 1955, he begins to change his parent's personalities. Marty's Dad, George, was a complete sissy until Marty slowly raised his self-esteem by teaching him to talk to chicks, to defend himself, to publish his novels because they're good. Then his dad goes Super Saiyan and hits Biff! Now he's a happy, wealthy, good father and husband. Same goes for his mom, Loraine. Marty convinces her that she shouldn't drink and smoke while in 1955. Then when Marty goes back to 1985, she isn't fat and an alcoholic but is thin, good looking and doesn't drink or smoke. These changes even slightly alter Marty's siblings. His brother goes from a fast food worker to business man and his sister goes from plain nerd to popular chick.
Two more things, Doc and Biff. Biff was the guy who walked all over George and made him his slave. Once Marty changes the future, Biff goes from the big guy to working for George by waxing his car. Doc also changes by, well, not dying because he heeded Marty warnings.
That's all I hope this was fun because I love Back to the Future and its fun to talk about. Oh I almost forgot, SPOILER ALERT! Is it too late?
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Good Samaritans = Dead Samaritans
Good Samaritans, what are they? I think that they are people who go out of there way to help others when no one else will and do things the average man normally wouldn't for those people; They pretty much go over the top to help, almost a hero. Good Samaritans are still out there and end up doing some pretty great things. However some of these things often end up putting them in bad places and get hurt and/or even killed.
"Good Samaritan Struck by Vehicle." The guy was giving gas some gas to a woman on the side of the freeway because she had none and was stuck. As he gives her some, he gets hit by a speeding truck and is now in intensive care. He died later that week. Here is another, "Good Samaritan groom killed hours after wedding." The groom and his new wife were on there way home when he saw a woman in her car on the side of the road in the snow. He stopped to help her and told his wife that he must do so because it is cold and dark. After he pulls her out of the car, they get hit by an oncoming vehicle, then another, and another. Three times they are hit and both of them are dead. That bride went from a newly wed to a widow in just a few hours. The groom was a retired Army Ranger. Las one, "Stranded Motorists Attack Good Samaritan." A woman named Stephanie got out of her car to help some stranded people on the side of the road. Afterwards, she gets attacked by the motorists and finds her Christmas Presents in her car are stolen.
All of these articles show fine examples of Good Samaritans, except they end up dead. The last one doesn't have the Samaritan dying in the end, but she most certainly could have. In the end, if you choose to help a person you aren't only doing a good deed, but also putting your life on the line. Take the people above as fine examples. The were all Good Samaritans who gave there lives, and became heroes, except the last who almost did.
"Good Samaritan Struck by Vehicle." The guy was giving gas some gas to a woman on the side of the freeway because she had none and was stuck. As he gives her some, he gets hit by a speeding truck and is now in intensive care. He died later that week. Here is another, "Good Samaritan groom killed hours after wedding." The groom and his new wife were on there way home when he saw a woman in her car on the side of the road in the snow. He stopped to help her and told his wife that he must do so because it is cold and dark. After he pulls her out of the car, they get hit by an oncoming vehicle, then another, and another. Three times they are hit and both of them are dead. That bride went from a newly wed to a widow in just a few hours. The groom was a retired Army Ranger. Las one, "Stranded Motorists Attack Good Samaritan." A woman named Stephanie got out of her car to help some stranded people on the side of the road. Afterwards, she gets attacked by the motorists and finds her Christmas Presents in her car are stolen.
All of these articles show fine examples of Good Samaritans, except they end up dead. The last one doesn't have the Samaritan dying in the end, but she most certainly could have. In the end, if you choose to help a person you aren't only doing a good deed, but also putting your life on the line. Take the people above as fine examples. The were all Good Samaritans who gave there lives, and became heroes, except the last who almost did.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Homeless in Cleveland and Comparison to "The Street Lawyer"
So after reading this article, I've noticed some similarities and differences between it an "The Street Lawyer" and some differences as well. First I will compare them then contrast them. Ok, here we go.
What I noticed to be similar is how dedicated the main guy in each was. Michael gave up everything to help in " The Street Lawyer" and Brian Davis spent all his time with the newspaper using what power he had to get the local homeless issues noticed. Both also achieved their goals in getting noticed by the mainstream media. Both of them even occurred obstacles in their lives. Michael got arrested and had to go to court for stealing the file while Brian had received threats from his boss.
Some differences that I saw is what actually happened. Michael went through realistic but semi-unrealistic events such as theft, coincidental car accidents, jail-beatings without defending himself and much more. Brian however just worked and worked at his newspaper and had no serious obstacles. There are many other differences but I'm low on time.
In the end, many similarities and differences but they both were good stories and were for a good cause. Both of them, Michael and Brian, earned GOML rights. Have a nice day!
What I noticed to be similar is how dedicated the main guy in each was. Michael gave up everything to help in " The Street Lawyer" and Brian Davis spent all his time with the newspaper using what power he had to get the local homeless issues noticed. Both also achieved their goals in getting noticed by the mainstream media. Both of them even occurred obstacles in their lives. Michael got arrested and had to go to court for stealing the file while Brian had received threats from his boss.
Some differences that I saw is what actually happened. Michael went through realistic but semi-unrealistic events such as theft, coincidental car accidents, jail-beatings without defending himself and much more. Brian however just worked and worked at his newspaper and had no serious obstacles. There are many other differences but I'm low on time.
In the end, many similarities and differences but they both were good stories and were for a good cause. Both of them, Michael and Brian, earned GOML rights. Have a nice day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)