Skip to main content

90 minutes with 127 HOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

127 Hours is the third movie I've seen in the past year that deals with theme of isolation (the first being Frozen and the other being Buried). All three use a minimalist approach to film making and despite the limitations of locations, manage to tell three very different, yet unique and emotional stories. Frozen dealt more with victims battling against forces of nature, Buried focused more on the mystery aspect of a man trapped in a coffin and finally, 127 Hours was more about one's drive to overcome the self.

127 Hours is a true story about a mountaineering/canyoneer named Aron Ralston who goes out to explore the vastness of canyons offered in Utah. He's shown to us as a thrill seeker and one that wants to connect more with nature rather than a life afforded by an engineering career (his words not mine). On one particular trek, he stumbles and falls into a crevasse only to have a boulder fall and trap his right arm. That's only the first 10 minutes. The remaining 80 minutes shows us his struggle and determination to persevere and survive.

It goes without saying, but Danny Boyle is a great director. Just look at his past 5 movies. He's covered horror, sci-fi and drama. And he did all of them well! It's a testament to his versatility as a director. 127 Hours turns things upside down, as he's given an opportunity to show how much he can do with so little.

But much should be said of James Franco as well, who spends 95% of the movie alone on screen. Franco himself is sort of a renaissance man. He's an actor, a painter, a writer; one who always seeks to fine his craft. A few years ago, he went back to acting school to do just that. In fact, while studying at NYU, he took a recurring role on the daytime soap opera General Hospital (after the fact that he's made it big). I read a few of his stories in Esquire and he does a fine job of weaving words together. Anyhow, in 127 Hours he really pushes himself, and it's probably a side of Franco that we haven't seen yet on the big screen. We see the full spectrum of emotions on his face through the duration of the movie (well, that's all we really get to see).

I really recommend that all three movies. They each have different offerings but really do what's been missing from Hollywood movies this past year: storytelling. Until next time, later geeks!

Comments

Beka said…
Have you seen "Rear Window" by Alfred Hitchcock? I think it belongs to the category of isolation as well and good storytelling. Whole thing is filmed on from one room. We have it here next time you're free NEIGHBOUR!

Popular posts from this blog

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have.

In The Science of God, Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible.

The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will.

In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genesis. Duri…

DTV Madness: Jack Brooks - M.S. and Gingerdead Man 2

Okay, honestly, I think this will be the last DTV post for a while. One man can only take so much shit. I'm only human, I have feelings too. These two movies pushed my limit. I'm going to be in DTV-detox for the next month or so.

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer

I thought that with a title like this, it couldn't fail. I thought that with a poster like they had, it couldn't fail. Then I realized something... I failed. I failed in thinking that this movie had any hope.

I was expecting some fun horror, mixed with comedy in sort of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer kind of fashion with a bumbling hero and smart quips. I mean, with a title like Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer, was I wrong in expecting a variety of monsters get slayed as the title suggests?

It didn't help much that the monsters looked uber cheesy. They looked like something right out of a Power Rangers episode. But to their credit, at least they stuck with practical make-up and effects rather than CG.

The movie its…

MAX PAYNE was oh so PAYNEFUL!!!

What a failure this was. An EPIC FAILURE~! And I'll tell you why. This movie had everything going for it which was why it made the failure seem so huge. It had star power. It had a very competent director. The visual style was there. It had a simple storyline... a storyline that was basically fuck-proof because it's so basic. The effects (when there were any) were also pretty great. So where did they go wrong?

Pacing.

If the first two-thirds of the film was like the last third, I think it would have been a fine film. Not great by any means, but fine. I mean, there was hardly any action in the first hour. It was all talk and build up. Every 5 minutes I was saying to myself, "okay, something cool is gonna happen now". But it never came. I think had they added 2 or 3 big action sequences during that hour, that it would have helped the film breathe and flow better. I mean, didn't they realize that the source material was an action game?

Max Payne is based…