Category Archives: Movie Reviews

And the Oscar goes to…

The list of Oscar nominations was recently announced and I was not impressed.  If it were up to me, these would have been the nominees (for the categories I care about).  UNDERLINED is who I would pick as winner (not the pictures).  Do you agree?  Let me know your picks in the comments.

BEST PICTURE

The Artist

Carnage

The Descendants

Drive

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

The Ides of March

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

We Need to Talk About Kevin

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Jean Dujardin – The Artist

Ryan Gosling – Drive

Ryan Gosling – The Ides of March

Michael Fassbender – Shame

George Clooney – The Descendants

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Rooney Mara – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (tie)

Tilda Swinton – We Need to Talk About Kevin (tie)

Bérénice Bejo – The Artist

Elizabeth Olsen- Martha Marcy May Marlene

(I can’t think of a 5th one… this proves how few and far between good leading female roles are…)

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Christoph Waltz – Carnage

John C. Reilly – Carnage

Jonah Hill – Moneyball

Bryan Cranston – Drive

Paul Giamatti – The Ides of March

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Jodie Foster – Carnage

Kate Winslet – Carnage

Carey Mulligan – Shame

Carey Mulligan – Drive

(again… can’t think of a 5th one)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Artist

Moneyball

The Tree of Life

Drive

We Need to Talk About Kevin

BEST DIRECTING

The Artist

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Drive

Carnage

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Movie Review: Battle: Los Angeles

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (In Theaters)

A group of marines try to save Los Angeles from an alien invasion.

2011.  Starring Aaron Eckhart.

How is it that aliens always know to go to major U.S. cities first?

Battle: Los Angeles was the second stop on Peter, Trevor and my movie extravaganza.  We already had pretty low expectations, but unfortunately the movie wasn’t even as cool as its trailer.  Battle: Los Angeles begins with 15 minutes of irrelevant exposition.  Basically, aliens are landing in the ocean along LA’s shore.  And they’ve pretty much already taken Santa Monica and the entire shoreline.  We get some information on some of the marines, but it is completely unimportant.  The first 45 minutes, unfortunately, are TERRIBLY DULL.  We follow Aaron Eckhart (who retired THIS MORNING but then was immediately redeployed, how convenient) and his platoon who go behind enemy lines to make sure no child is left behind.  They find the cliche scared little family and must return them to safety before the U.S. bombs the shit out of LA.  Of course, they also come across Michelle Rodriguez, our favorite token lesbian in pretty much every bad combat movie since she was killed off Lost for multiple drunk driving charges.  As usual, no one ever runs out of bullets and there is a lot of “hoorah”ing and back-slapping.  Aside from the terrible exposition, I have 3 major problems with the film:

1.  The Aliens: The most disappointing part of Battle: LA was, by far, the aliens.  The aliens were boring and irrelevant.  Unlike all other alien invasion movies, NOTHING was revealed or learned about the aliens throughout the course of the movie other than the fact that they’re invading the earth for its water supply.  Big deal.  There wasn’t anything humanizing about them (which is what usually makes an alien invasion movie interesting– if we can at least sympathize with them / understand their motives).  But the aliens were actually totally unimportant to the story.  You could easily have replaced them with ANY other military force, because the fact that they are aliens had no importance.  We were told one or two times that the aliens were invading other major cities, but there was no attention paid to this detail, and no follow up at the end of the movie to say “the aliens are retreating from New York” or “the aliens have taken Rome.”  As far as the audience is concerned, the enemy could be the Japanese or Russia or Sarah Palin’s mama grizzly army.  The enemy is terribly irrelevant to the plot and we know just as little about them in the end as we did in the beginning, and that is probably the film’s Achilles heel.

2.  The Location:  I read a very good review of Country Strong a few months ago that noted the major problem with Country Strong is that although the movie has country music, it doesn’t actually delve into any of the themes, topics or issues surrounding the country music industry.  You could have easily made the same movie with the same characters and called it Rap Strong or Jazz Strong and simply changed the city names and the soundtrack.  The same goes for Battle: LA. I was looking forward to seeing my former and future home blast to smithereens by aliens, but the city of LA was minimally important and hardly featured.  We saw the Santa Monica Pier and the 5.  That’s about it.  Really you could insert almost any other ocean side city and have had the same film.  Battle: Miami.  Battle: New York.  Battle: Honolulu. (Possible sequels?)  There was nothing important about LA that justified the film’s location other than the fact that LA is on the ocean.  Big deal.  Couldn’t they have at least blown up some famous LA landmarks or utilized the unique natural landscape to their military advantage or something?

3.  The Style:  I don’t know why crappy combat movies of the last 10 years have adopted a style of cinematography that involves hiring a cameraman with parkinson’s disease.  Newsflash:  The more you shake a camera, the less the audience can see what is going on.  Shaking the camera does not necessarily make it more realistic.  The first 20 minutes of Battle: LA didn’t even involve any battles or gunfire and yet the camera was spazzing around like the movie was Earthquake: LA.  Maybe they should watch classic war movies like Apocalpyse Now or even more recently, Saving Private Ryan, which employed a camera shake during bomb explosions, but did so tastefully and appropriately, without passing around barf bags to the audience.

That being said, the last 30ish minutes of the film were entertaining and what I was looking for in an alien invasion movie:  Good ole’ fashioned kicking ass and taking names.  Don’t wanna spoil it for you guys, but I don’t think anyone would be surprised to know that the movie should actually be called Aaron Eckhart saves LA.  Woot woot.

2/5 stars

Movie Review: Rango

RANGO (In Theaters)

“Rango is an ordinary chameleon who accidentally winds up in the town of Dirt, a lawless outpost in the Wild West in desperate need of a new sheriff.” (IMDb)

2011.  Starring Johnny Depp, Abigail Breslin, Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina and Bill Nighy

A Movie for Movie-Lovers… not necessarily kids

Yesterday, Peter, Trevor and I spent the afternoon/evening movie-hopping around Boston:  Rango, Battle: LA, and The Adjustment Bureau.  First on the list was Rango, and I definitely thought it was the best.  Rango is another one of those “grown-up” films in kid’s clothes.  While it looks like a kid’s film, it certainly is not.  That is not to say that kids wouldn’t enjoy the film (as everyone is complaining on IMDb.com boards), but they won’t love it like adults will.  The truly unfortunate thing about Rango was that it was made by Nickelodeon studios, and will therefore not get nearly as much press, attention or praise as a Pixar or Disney film would, even though it deserves it.

The biggest downfall of Rango is actually its first 10 minutes.  In spite of how much I ended up liking the film, at first I thought, “well this is a TOTAL waste of money.”  Rango begins with an odd Shakespearean theater routine acted out by this strange reptile and the plastic figurines in his cage and evolves into a sappy “who am I?” monologue.  Kids will be thinking “WTF?” (Or simply “what?”, since they’re children and I really HOPE they aren’t saying WTF just yet) and adults will be thinking “give us a break.”  Luckily Rango’s terrarium is suddenly launched from the back seat of his owner’s car and THAT is when the fun actually begins.  It goes from being a shitty meta-literary statement to a fun, quirky western.  It has everything you’d expect from a good western– rugged characters, accents, gunfights, snakes, bank robberies, pitiful townsfolk, a corrupt mayor and a out-of-towner turned sheriff, Rango.

Aside from a very compelling plot, my favorite aspect of Rango was simply the vast number of movie references.  Characters, plot lines, quotes, shots– I’m not sure anything in the movie was original, but that made it all the more awesome.  The filmmakers basically compiled favorite bits and pieces from dozens of classic and contemporary movies, especially westerns, which I appreciate, because I’ve been doing a lot of research on westerns for a new film I’m editing called Cowboy Café.

These are just a few of the COUNTLESS movie references in Rango. I’m sure I would have thought of many more had I written this right after seeing the film.

  • The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (Bill Nighy’s Rattlesnake character = Van Cleef, amongst other references)
  • Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3 (Rango’s dream sequence)
  • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Rango flying onto Hunter S. Thompson’s windshield)
  • Chinatown (mayor character and plotline)
  • Star Wars (aerial bat fight sequence, Beans character = Jar Jar Binks)
  • The Lord of the Rings (tunneling with the cast of characters to find the origin of the water pipe, including the “evil eye”)
  • The Big Lebowski (there was a shot in the middle of the movie that WAS the opening shot of TBL)
  • Apocalypse Now (Flight of the Valkyries reference)
  • Maverick (Beans character)
  • Once Upon a Time in the West (Bar sequence)
  • It’s a Wonderful Life (1st meeting with the mayor)
  • Fistful of Dollars (and all other spaghetti westerns… for characters)
  • Holes (dried up lake with boat– where did all the water go?)
  • High Noon (gunfight sequence)
  • True Grit (might be too recent, but the little Abigail Breslin rat character was just like Mattie Ross).

The other cool thing about Rango is the way it was made.  Instead of having the actors simply stand in a sound booth and record their dialogue, they actually acted it out (like they did with Fantastic Mr. Fox).  But unlike FMF, they filmed the process and then the animators based their work on the actors’ live performances.  Check out this cool featurette on the making of Rango:

I hope all of you go see Rango, especially if you are movie lovers.  Help support Nickelodeon, since it doesn’t get the press / automatic viewership that Pixar or Disney does.

4/5 stars

Movie Reviews: Biutiful y También La Lluvia

This week I dragged poor Trevor to two Spanish language films: Biutiful (on Tuesday) and También La Lluvia (on Friday).  Both were fantastic (and I’m not just saying that because I’m a Spanish major).

BIUTIFUL

Biutiful is a film I’ve been waiting a long time to see and I’m thrilled that I finally had the opportunity.  Prepare yo’self: just like all of Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film’s, Biutiful is a dark-as-hell depressing-ass movie (how’s that for a description?)  In the tradition of Amores Perros (rent it!), 21 Grams (rent it!), and Babel (eh), Biutiful weaves together the stories of several different people from different cultural backgrounds in an elaborate tapestry of tragedy that doesn’t really become clear til the end.  This time, though, Iñárritu really gets it right.

Set in Barcelona, the film deals with three different groups of people: the Spaniards (Javier Bardem and his family), the Chinese (a group of exploited workers who make knock-off handbags in a basement), and the Africans (a group in trouble the police who sell the knock-off handbags on the street).  And as you can guess, if you’ve ever seen an Iñárritu film before, all of them are COMPLETELY f***ed.  There is very little hope for anyone.  There’s a lotta death, a lotta sorrow, a lotta family problems and a lotta desperation.

So why go see this sad-fest?  Because it is brilliantly done.  Javier Bardem is FANTASTIC.  In fact, he is the first actor to be nominated for an Oscar for a performance entirely in Spanish.  The cinematography and the production design is literally stunning.  (Go Rodrigo Prieto– one of my favorite cinematographers of all time.)  The name of this film is extremely appropriate to its visual style.  Every single shot is so vivid and so visceral.  It’s raw, it’s gritty, it’s depressing– but it really is a beautiful film.  In spite of all the darkness, it has its poignant moments that make the whole experience worth the watch.

And please, ladies, who doesn’t wanna watch Javier Bardem for two hours?  C’mon!

5/5 stars.  Phenomenal acting.  Stunning images.  A “biutiful” film.

TAMBIEN LA LLUVIA

Seeing También La Lluvia was a very interesting experience for me because my cannibalism class recently read the diary of Christopher Columbus (Cristobal Colón) from his first voyage.  While the class is titled “Cannibalism in Latin American Literature,” most of our discussions focus on the colonization of the “new world” and the relations between the natives and the Europeans. Cristobal Colón is the perfect example of a European oppressor in the 15th century, as we all know (especially if you grew in Colorado, where there are huge demonstrations against Columbus every year on Columbus day).

Half of the movie presents a director making a movie about Colón’s encounters with the natives, and half of the film presents the encounters between the native Bolivians and foreign companies that are trying to privatize water and increase the price 300%.  Of course these two halves mirror each other perfectly and show us that the injustices of the 15th century are still alive more than 500 years later.  One of the highlights of the movie was Luis Tosar’s character (who somehow becomes the protagonist midway through the film…) who, in a way, represents Bartolomé de las Casas.  Bartolomé de las Casas was the man who actually wrote the majority of Colón’s diary (not the most appropriate word then, “diary”).  Although Tosar’s character doesn’t initially see the light, he eventually becomes the primary advocate for the suffering “indigenas” (natives).  In real life, las Casas spent his years after the voyage as an advocate for the proper treatment of Indians.  He wrote of the injustices of slavery, which was clearly commonplace at the time, and noted that no man should be enslaved, whether he be black, Indian or otherwise.

Of course, if the historical aspect of this movie doesn’t interest you, the scenery is worth your ticket price.  All filming took place on location in Bolivia and it is STUNNING.  I’m considering moving to Bolivia after I graduate (Joking, parents).  I’m so jealous of the filmmakers that got to spend time in such a lush, breath-taking environment.  Just watching the footage made me extremely depressed about living in this concrete city.  Bolivia is beautiful.  Bottom line.

4/5 stars. Great story.  Good acting.  BEAUTIFUL locations.  This movie probably won’t be available in a theater near you, but don’t forget about it in your Netflix queue!

Movie Reviews: Buried

BURIED (2010) – On DVD

Paul is a U.S. contractor working in Iraq. After an attack by a group of Iraqis he wakes to find he is buried alive inside a coffin. With only a lighter and a cell phone it’s a race against time to escape this claustrophobic death trap (IMDb).

2010, Starring Ryan Reynolds.

“170,000 square miles of desert. 90 minutes of Oxygen. No way out.”

Every semester, BU requires its Film and Television majors to attend two Cinematheque events.  Cinematheque is a BU-run evening program that invites filmmakers to share their work and talk about their process with us students.  This week, I attended an evening with Chris Sparling, writer of the 2010 film Buried.  Buried, as Sparling mentioned, was a very difficult film to write– the entire movie takes place inside a coffin.  I was already amazed by the ability of Danny Boyle to bring 127 Hours to the big screen, but at least in that film Aron Ralston is out of the canyon for a good 20-30 minutes.  Buried takes this concept to the next level and is also able to achieve what is seemingly impossible– keeping an audience entertained for an hour and a half in only one location with one character.  Of course, you hear other voices through Paul’s cell-phone, but you never see them.  Sparling said that he originally wrote this film because he wanted to shoot something EXTREMELY low-budget himself– and the most low-budget thing he could think of was a film with one character and one location.

On the one hand, I was very impressed by this film.  As I mentioned, it takes a pretty good screenwriter to make one location and one character work for the majority of the film.  Ironically in film school our teachers are always urging us to avoid cell-phones / voicemails, etc. as narrative devices, but this film uses it very well.  Even though the quality wasn’t very high (maybe it was the DVD copy, maybe not), I very much enjoyed the cinematography in this film.  It might have been less obvious to non-cinematography people, but Buried smacked you across the face with color temperature changes in its lighting scheme.  You basically had four devices with Ryan Reynolds in the coffin and they were established primarily through different colors of light: his lighter (orange), cell phone (blue), glow sticks (green), flashlight (light orange or red, depending on the setting).  This almost seems too obvious or basic, but it worked really well.  The awesome thing about this movie is that it is lit entirely with practicals– Paul’s 4 tools, and for this reason underexposure-connoisseurs will also love this film.  On set, they had 7 different coffins to choose between, varying in size based on necessity or degree of claustrophobia they wanted to convey.  I certainly do NOT envy Ryan Reynolds at all.  Even though he wasn’t actually buried for the shoot (wouldn’t that have been interesting?), it must have been incredibly stressful– especially scenes where sand starts leaking in through the cracks of his wooden coffin.  Of course, even more so than cinematography I must commend the screenwriter– there were so many instances in the film that I was on the edge of my seat.  He did a great job revealing information throughout the course of the film and raising the stakes higher and higher and higher for Ryan Reynolds.

On the other hand, there was one aspect of the film which almost completely ruined it for me.  And you’ll have to watch it before I tell you what it is– Don’t want to spoil it for you.  Also, there were a few parts of the movie that were just way too clichéd / corny for me.  For instance, a scene where a poisonous snake gets into Ryan’s coffin, he sprays it with vodka from his flask and then throws his lighter at it to burn the snake RIGHT before it is about to strike.  Really?  First of all, I think a burning snake would be more likely to bite you, especially in closed corridors like a coffin, instead of just eventually slithering out the side of the coffin like it did.  Second of all– vodka + lighter + wood coffin = bad idea.  Realistically, his coffin should have been more damaged by this incident.  To be fair, however, the writer did mention that he disagreed strongly with the director on this scene.  The scene was originally scripted to be about ants getting into the coffin, but apparently that wasn’t high-stakes-enough for the director.  That is fair, yes, but the corniness of the snake scene (especially since the camera tracked the snake slithering INSIDE Paul’s pants from his crotch to to his foot and out) was out of character compared to the rest of the film.

Regardless, I really hope all of you can watch it and tell me what you think!  Especially so we can discuss your opinions on that one aspect that I hated… In many ways it was the twin sister of 127 Hours, my favorite film of 2010, so it is interesting to compare and contrast those two films.  The main difference, I would say, is the performance.  While Ryan Reynolds did a good job, he just wasn’t James Franco.

Bottom Line: A very good, very tense thriller.  Add it to the top of your Netflix queue so we can discuss :) 3/5 stars.

An after-thought: I LOVE the movie poster for Buried.  Very old-fashioned, very Hitchcockian…

Scor/Cop: Who’s That Knocking on My Door

WHO’S THAT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR (1967)

Summary: “J.R. is a typical Italian-American on the streets of New York. When he gets involved with a local girl, he decides to get married and settle down, but when he learns that she was once raped, he cannot handle it. More explicitly linked with Catholic guilt that Scorsese’s later work, we see what happens to J.R. when his religious guilt catches up with him” (IMDB).

You may recall several posts about the films from my “Gender in Modern Horror” class this summer.  This semester, I am taking a Scorsese / Coppola film theory class, or what I fondly refer to [in my head] as “Scor/Cop.”  Today was the first day, and I was very pleased to find that almost all of my film friends are in it.  Unfortunately, at the last-minute, the professor had to be replaced due to health problems, but the new professor was surprisingly prepared considering he only found out he was teaching the class this afternoon!

Anyway, the first film we watched was Who’s That Knocking On My Door, Scorsese’s NYU thesis film that was the catalyst for his now infamous career.  The movie was shot over the course of four years on an extremely tight budget.  Finally, it made it to the Chicago International Film Festival and was glorified by Roger Ebert, thus initiating Scorsese into the elite world of film.  It is also interesting to note that Harvey Keitel is the lead of this film, though at the time, he was just another NYU student like Scorsese.  Since this early collaboration, Keitel has starred in many of Scorsese’s films, such as Taxi Driver and Mean Streets.  Scorsese also began has collaboration with his amazing editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, at this time.

On to the film!  On the one hand, there were many aspects of Who’s That Knocking On My Door that scream “student film!”  Focus problems, sound problems, double shadows– you name it: clichéd student errors in filmmaking.  However, the caliber of work and the originality certainly justify Scorsese’s rise to fame.  If only I could produce such an excellent student film!  His style is very edgy for the time period, the acting is great, the soundtrack has some of the best pop tunes of the era, and the film certainly delves into new and controversial territory.  Don’t expect this film to have a great plot, however– I found myself thinking 20 minutes into the film “wait, what is this about?”  It’s much more of a 90 minute character piece than his more recent plot-driven films, but as far as character pieces go, this one was certainly bursting at the seams with energy.  The only part of the film that didn’t make any sense to me was a very artsy dream sequence / sex scene between Keitel and a brunette, which threw me off because his love interest is a blonde.  Our teacher explained that late in production, the producers insisted that Scorsese add a sex scene so that the film could be advertised as a “sexploitation” film.  However, it is very important to the plot that Keitel and his girlfriend DON’T have sex, so instead, there is a completely random dream sequence in the middle of the film.  Hooray for producers and their common lack of creative sense.

For all you Scorsese buffs out there, I highly recommend seeing this film.  Our class caught onto many “Scorsese-like” things in this film that become even more prominent later in his career.  For all you non-Scorsese people, I would recommend other Scorsese films like Raging Bull, Goodfellas or The Departed first– they are much, much better (and understandably so).  And for all my fellow ladies out there, I would recommend Shutter Island or The Aviator.  Don’t get any ideas, though, I already have dibs on Leo.

More next week…

Movie Review: Exit Through the Gift Shop

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP (On DVD & Netflix Instant)

Originally started as a long-term documentary project on the street art movement by amateur French “filmmaker” Thierry Guetta, internationally renowned street artist Banksy took over and turned the camera on the cameraman himself when he realized Guetta had no abilities as a filmmaker.   Banksy documents Guettas almost instantaneous transformation into a phony but successful
“artist” who copies everyone else’s work and sells it under the name “Mr. Brainwash.”

2010.  Directed by Banksy

Oh, burn!

Exit Through the Gift Shop is one of the most excellently crafted documentaries I have seen in recent history.  Banksy uses a combination of Guetta’s footage and first person interviews with very successful street artists (most of whom thrive anonymously because of the illegal nature of their work, including Banksy himself, who is disguised throughout the entire film) to establish Guetta’s intentions to film the movement and be the right hand man of the major players.  It is only after Banksy agrees to help the filmmaker that he realizes Guetta is a complete fake– over the years he has recorded literally THOUSANDS of tapes under the pretenses that he is making a documentary– but he stores them, unlabeled and unorganized, in boxes in his house.  He has no intentions of making a documentary, and when Banksy tells him to wrap it up, the results are unbelievably bad.  So, Banksy takes over the project and we are left with this: “Exit Through the Gift Shop,” a bloody brilliant documentary that seamlessly turns against its own protagonist (Guetta) partway through the film, and exposes him for the fame-seeking phony that he actually is.

What I love about the film is that it is an incredible commentary on the realities of the contemporary art scene from one of its most important players.  For those of you interested in the controversies of contemporary art, I highly recommend the book The $12 Million Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art. I read this book a few years ago and became fascinated by the subject.  Although many people question whether what famous contemp’s like Banksy or Hirst do is or isn’t art, there is no question after watching this movie that what “Mr. Brainwash” produces is a self-centered project that thrives on stealing– yes, stealing– other people’s work.  Banksy notes, “Warhol repeated iconic images until they became meaningless, but there was still something iconic about them. Thierry really makes them meaningless.”  What is brilliant about this film is that without realizing it, you go from thinking Guetta is weird but okay to literally hating the man.  And that’s what makes Banksy brilliant.  I’ve been a fan of Banksy’s visual art for a long time, but if Banksy can produce this quality of work on film, I want to see more of where that came from.

Of course, I have to note that many people wonder whether or not Guetta is even a real person– or just a fictional character that Banksy created for the sake of film.  Knowing Banksy, this is very likely.

Bottom Line: A fascinating commentary on the world of contemporary art– and for those not interested in the “art world,” an exquisite character study.  4.5/5 stars.

Movie Reviews: 127 Hours

127 Hours (In Some Theaters– Coming Soon to DVD)

Based on the true story of Aron Ralston– A young outdoorsman is trapped when a falling boulder crushes his hand.  After 5 days alone in the crevasse, he must take desperate measures in order to survive.

2010, Starring James Franco, Directed by Danny Boyle. Nominated for 3 Golden Globes.

Aron Ralston: What a Badass

One Hundred and Twenty Seven Hours… I’m sure you’ve heard of it.  That’s right, it’s the movie that makes audiences throw up.  Well, you know I love nothing more than to gross my mother out, so even though I saw this movie in October in Boston, I had to take her over Christmas Break.

Nah, truth be told, I consider 127 Hours to be one of the best films of the year and one of the best performances of the decade, regardless of whether or not it is EXTREMELY painful to watch.  “One of the key challenges in making 127 Hours,” said American Cinematographer, “was that the story builds up to and is centered on a single, shocking act, and most viewers already know what it is.”  When I first heard of 127 Hours, I thought, okay, why on earth would I voluntarily watch a man get trapped in a rock and cut off his own arm with a dull blade?  I remember reading about Aron Ralston in the news back in 2003 and it did not sound pretty.  For those of you familiar with Trainspotters or Slumdog Millionaire, you know that Danny Boyle has a history of making films that are extremely vivid and tactile– you sit in the audience and feel like you are touching, smelling, tasting, feeling and breathing the world of the film.  Vivid and tactile + graphic amputation = not my cup of tea.  Well, tickets to see a sneak-screening with Danny Boyle himself quickly changed my mind.

The first time I saw 127 Hours I was almost too nervous to appreciate it.  “Oh god, he’s gonna get trapped… any second now, he is gonna fall down a crevasse and get trapped by a boulder… any second now… oh god… it’s coming…”  For the first 20 minutes of the film, I could hardly focus because of nervous anticipation.  So, he fell and got trapped by a boulder.  Then: “oh god, he’s gonna cut off his arm.  He’s gonna take a dull blade and saw through his damn arm until he cuts the whole thing off… any second now…”  In fact, the only thing that really made watching 127 Hours bearable the first time was knowing that Aron Ralston was gonna survive the incident.  The whole film kind of washed over me because I was so nervous about it– and all because I already knew what was going to happen!

For that reason– I’m glad I got to see 127 Hours again, because it really convinced me that this is one of the best films of the year and one of the best performances I have ever seen.  The interesting thing about Danny Boyle’s style is that it is so off-beat and non-traditional– but I gotta give the guy credit– 127 Hours is great because you know every member of the cast and crew was totally on-board with his vision and style.  Everything about the film breaks conventions.  First of all, Danny Boyle shot seven days a week and hired two directors of photography– that is unheard of!  The ability to work with two different cinematographers and create a unified vision is an interesting task.  Second of all, Boyle used several small cameras at once and had Franco “break the fourth wall” by talking into the cameras and looking at them as if he was reaching out into the audience.  Although this is very non-traditional, it made me sympathize with Ralston that much more.  You are literally “up in his grill” for the entire crevasse experience.  Third of all, even though it is a drama that takes place in Utah, Boyle incorporated many of the unique musical and auditory sensibilities that he gained from his experiences in India with Slumdog Millionaire.  At first I was thrown off by how Boyle seemed to apply many of the stylistic sensibilities of Slumdog to 127.  I simply didn’t expect it– but guess what?  It totally works.  I can only imagine how boring and dry 127 Hours would have been without the visual and auditory gimmicks that Boyle thrives on.  You are literally trapped in a rock with Aron Ralston for an hour– it would have been a piece of cake for a director to let that get boring.  Instead, Boyle’s style breathes life into a lonely and desperate situation.

And God forbid I forget James Franco in this praise orgy!  Without Franco there is no 127 Hours– it is literally the James Franco show.  I’m sure Colin Firth will probably reign in all the acting awards, but Franco deserves them.  I can’t imagine hitting all the beats Franco does.  In the first 20 minutes, Franco’s performance instantly convinces us that Ralston is a damn good guy– one that is friendly and helpful– one that you would, for instance, support til the very end– through an amputation, even.  Then we see the brave and resourceful side of Ralston.  At the beginning of his entrapment, we see how determined he is and how he will try every last trick he knows to get out of that rock.  Then we see the scared side of Ralston.  He’s running out of water and he knows he’s gonna die.  Franco does this impeccably.  We also get a sense of his sentimental side– memories of lovers, of his family, of his future son.  And finally, we see his brave, rabid determination to save himself.  It takes a lotta balls to saw your own arm off– and Franco’s performance gets you TOTALLY on board with that.

The first time I saw the film, my major complaint was how cheesy and “epic” the ending is.  No spoilers here, guys, we all know he made it.  The second he frees himself from his trapped arm, the swelling music comes on and we follow Ralston out of the canyon to the choppers.  It is, in essence, cheesy.  On second viewing, however, I felt this was justified.  After such a grueling, painful struggle, Ralston deserves a “romantic” ending.  The second time I saw the film, many audience members started clapping when Ralston was rescued.

And the cinematography– oh the cinematography!  Utah’s natural beauty lends itself to some amazing shots.  But what really got me was how they literally put the audience inside Aron Ralston.  Shots from Ralston’s bike, his perspective, and an inch from his face really puts YOU in his situation, and that makes it all the more emotionally powerful.  Another thing I really loved was how the film focuses on the little details.  Little struggles come across as major triumphs in the film.  Using a stick to pick up his knife off the floor, for instance, are filmed in such a way that the audience literally holds their breath.  And then there’s my favorite shot in the film– the sunlight coming through the canyon.  Ralston notes that he gets 15 minutes of sunlight each day and it only hits one of his feet.  The sunlight is so beautiful, and the way it overexposes on his wiggling toes makes you, the audience, feel the heat and the beauty of the moment.

So, yeah, 127 Hours. Damn good movie.  I know the graphic nature of the film limits the potential audience, but I really feel like this is one of the best films I’ve seen in recent history.

Bottom Line: Despite the amputation, I would eagerly go out and see it again tomorrow.  Too bad it’s only showing an hour and a half away from me…

 

Movie Reviews: The King’s Speech

THE KING’S SPEECH (In Theaters)

Based on the life of King George VI– The Young Duke of York (Colin Firth) must face his fears and overcome his severe stammer when his father King George V dies and his brother Edward abdicates the throne to him.  With the help of Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an untrained speech therapist, and his wife Elizabeth I (Helena Bonham Carter), George VI becomes the voice of Britain during the troubling times of World War II.

2010, Starring Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush, Directed by Tom Hooper.  Nominated for 7 Golden Globes.

Today I noticed that 3 out of the top movies of the year have to do with bodily troubles– in 127 Hours, a man must cut off his arm to save his life, in Black Swan, a ballerina is tortured psychologically by her transformation from white swan to black swan, and in The King’s Speech, a young prince must overcome his crippling stammer to lead a nation into war.

Though it was a very good movie, The King’s Speech is kind of exactly what you could expect from a period piece about 1930s British Royalty– very long and very slow.  The first act of the movie went by quickly– the dynamic between Firth and Carter & Firth and Rush is great and the audience can be easily amused by the My Fair Lady-like, laughable vocal training.  However, in the second act, the film really begins to lag, and that’s where I started checking the time on my phone.  Don’t get me wrong– Firth was excellent, Carter was excellent, Rush was excellent.  But the script and the cinematography left me unsatisfied.  Just when I thought the movie was coming to a triumphant end– SURPRISE!  20 more minutes.  Though it is only 1 hour 50 minutes, there is only so much you can do with a king who can’t speak right.

Nonetheless, my aim is not to turn you away from this movie.  The acting and the art direction are worth the price of your ticket, and if you like period pieces (I don’t), you will love this film.  While I don’t think Firth was better than other “Best Actor” nominees, I would be very pleased if Carter won “Best Supporting Actress” and Rush won “Best Supporting Actor.”  I am glad I saw The King’s Speech, but I can tell that it will be one of those good movies that I see once and never have the urge to see it again.

Bottom Line: Exactly what you would expect from a British period piece:  amazing acting, amazing art direction, but slow as hell.  4/5 stars.

Summer Movie Review!

Since I’ve been pretty bad about keeping up with this blog recently, I feel like I need to do justice to some of my favorite movies of the summer.  People have been complaining about the quality of the movies this summer and the drop in Box Office revenue.  Hello– maybe it’s because by May, theaters across the U.S. had already increased their ticket prices on average by 8%.  Maybe it’s not the movies that suck it’s the prices.  Regardless, there have been some awesome movies this summer, and that’s what I’m here to tell you about, so you can spend those hard-earned dollars on things like Inception (5 stars) and not The Other Guys (barely 2 stars).

Inception (2010): Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine and Cillian Murphey; Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan

If you haven’t seen Inception yet, drop everything you’re doing and get ready for the mind-trip of the century.  Having seen Inception in the theaters 4 times now (embarrassing, maybe, but worth it), I can safely say that it is probably the most intelligent movie I have ever seen, and certainly in my top five favorite movies of all time.  The concept is rather hard to explain to someone who hasn’t seen it– in fact, the first 1.5 hours of the movie are basically a training course for the audience just so you can understand the next 1.5 hours of the movie.  Come in more than 15 minutes late, and you will be super confused.  Before seeing the movie, I read that it took Christopher Nolan ten years to write the screenplay.  After seeing the movie, I totally get that.

Without saying too much, Inception is basically a heist movie that takes place in the dream world– hence the tagline, “Your Mind is the Scene of the Crime.”  Not a sci-fi fan?  Doesn’t matter.  This world is surprisingly not too far from our own.  And who could sit through a movie with such a smoking hot cast and NOT enjoy it?  Very few.  I also highly recommend seeing this one on the big screen– the special effects are astounding.  After you’ve seen the movie, message me about the soundtrack– the story behind it will ALSO blow your mind.  Seriously– need I convince you any more?  Go see this movie.  Right now.  And bring your 5 Hour Energy because you really need to stay awake for this one.

5/5 stars

Toy Story 3 (2010): Starring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and a bunch of other awesome people…

Why are kids movies these days so damn sad?  If you want to cry for two hours straight, go rent Up.  It’s literally impossible not to start crying during that montage at the beginning.  Just hearing the soundtrack to that movie brings tears to my eyes.  And it takes a lot to make me cry in a movie.  And then there’s Despicable Me (below)– so touching that a story about cats drinking milk will make you tear up.  But the mother-load of emotion comes to us in the form of Toy Story 3.  Bring your tissues, people.  This coming of age story hits you in the heart like a 18-wheeler on fire.  And aside from all the emotion, this movie is a masterpiece of screenwriting, character development and especially 3D animation.  I kinda liked Toy Story 1 and 2, but this movie deserves a lot of recognition.  Seriously, Pixar, stop being so awesome.  You’re making me nauseous.

5/5 stars

Despicable Me (2010): Starring Steve Carell, Julie Andrews, Russell Brand, Will Arnett, Jason Segel and Kristen Wiig

Despicable Me is your classic “hooker with a heart of gold” story.  Gru, a criminal mastermind who is planning the ultimate crime– stealing the moon, finds his true calling in life when three orphaned girl scouts show up on his front porch selling cookies.  Cliche?  Perhaps.  Predictable?  Definitely.  Adorable, fun and totally worth your money?  Absolutely.  While Despicable Me isn’t quite as astounding of an achievement as Toy Story 3, this is another awesome animated movie that all adults will appreciate.  While Toy Story 3 was making me cry, Despicable Me was cracking me up.  All the adults in the audience were beside themselves laughing… and then crying… and then laughing again.  I really liked Despicable Me, but unlike Inception and Toy Story 3, I don’t feel like I’d be missing anything if I just watched it on DVD and not in the theaters.  So if Despicable Me has already left theaters in your area (which it probably has), throw it on that Netflix queue and wait for DVD.

4.5/5 stars

Going the Distance (2010): Starring Justin Long and Drew Barrymore

I had pretty low expectations for Going the Distance, but as a girl, it is my imperative to see basically every romantic comedy that hits theaters aside from those starting in “Pride” and ending in “Prejudice” (don’t even get me started on that one…).  However, despite misleading advertising, Going the Distance is more in the vein of popular “guy comedies” like Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Role Models, or basically anything starring Seth Rogen or Paul Rudd.  If you can’t handle a lot of sexual guy humor, maybe this isn’t the movie for you.  However, I haven’t laughed so hard in such a long time.  The cast has a great dynamic and the comedic timing was spot on.  Christina Applegate’s character was, at times, over the top.  But aside from that, I have no complaints.  And for all you ladies out there– who could go wrong with Justin Long?  Seriously.  He’s the mac guy.  What can beat that?  Okay, well, Josh Holloway and Ben Affleck and Matt Damon– but!  that is another story.  My point is that if you’re looking for a great comedy that is good for both girls and guys, go see Going the Distance.  Watching Justin Long getting a spray tan is worth your money.

4/5 stars

Knight and Day (2010): Starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz

And here I thought Tom Cruise’s heyday was over years ago.  Wrong.  With his new action comedy Knight and Day, Tom Cruise proves he’s back in the game.  I only decided to go see the movie because it was filmed in Boston two summers ago and I feel like I need to support my beloved college town.  But much to my delight and surprise, it takes place in 3 cities which I have spent a lot of time in: Boston, Brooklyn and Sevilla, Spain.  Though I assume this movie has already left your theater, definitely throw it on the Netflix queue.  Plane crashes, car chases, and Tom Cruise being chased by bulls in Spain?  You can’t go wrong.  My favorite part of this movie was ridiculous (and yet amusing) device used several times– drug Cameron Diaz and she wakes up in a new city.  I love old Tom Cruise– Top Gun, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, etc. but I was sure his career was over.  If he keeps making movies like Knight and Day, he will definitely make a come back.

4/5 stars

Other summer movies I’ve seen:

8: The Mormon Proposition

The story of how the Mormon Church single-handedly destroyed gay marriage in California.  Very well researched.  Very well documented.  4/5 stars.  Available on Netflix

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

The third installment in the infamous Twilight series.  While it is much better than the first two, it is still corny and still girly.  Luckily there is more Jacob and less Edward in this one.  3/5 stars.

Please Give

An Indie hit about the relationship between a family and their dying neighbor.  Very hilarious, even though I don’t like Catherine Keener.  3.5/5 stars.

The Other Guys

A police action/comedy starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlburg.  Certainly not Ferrell’s best.  I slept through a good portion of it.  2/5 stars.