Movie Review: 127 Hours

127 Hours (2010)
Starring: James Franco
Written and Directed By: Danny Boyle

It's a rare Hollywood movie that will (1) only feature one main character and (2) manage to make that one main character interesting enough to sustain viewer interest for the entire two hour running time.

The reason 127 Hours works so well is thanks to the partnership of actor and director: James Franco and Danny Boyle.

Hot off last year's Oscar win for Best Director (Slumdog Millionaire), Boyle looks at the true story of Aron Ralston (Franco) and his (mis)adventure in the summer of 2003. Backpacking alone across an isolated canyon in Utah, Ralston makes the near-fatal error of jumping across a boulder wedged in between the canyon's crevice. As Ralston falls, so does the boulder, pinning his right hand between the boulder and the canyon wall.

The film has been much-talked about since its debut on the film festival circuit in the past few months. The main reason for all the talk? The now infamous arm-cutting scene (complete with broken bones and bloody tendons). Although that scene is definitely not for the squeamish, the film is so much more than a violent act of desperation. It is, essentially, an ode to survival and the endurance of the human spirit.

Like all of Boyle's films, the visuals are compelling. All the oranges, yellows and blues practically make you feel as though you are right there with Ralston, in the light and shadow of Utah's canyons. However, even more interesting than the aesthetics, is how Boyle chose to structure the story of Ralston's lonely hours trapped in the canyon. Boyle utilizes the technology Ralston carried with him (he takes pictures of his mangled hand and videotapes a running commentary of each day of his misfortune), which allows the viewer to actually hear Ralston voice his misery and fading optimism. His dehydration and desperation result in interesting flashbacks, as well as hallucinations in which Ralston imagines his loved ones are with him in the canyon. This is arguably one of Boyle's greatest and most challenging films.

James Franco is one of the most interesting young actors to come out of Hollywood in years. He has moved well past his earlier career days in the cheesy Spider-Man films and has since built a solid resume of small indie films and challenging roles. Franco makes Ralston a charming and surprisingly sensitive anti-hero. His seemingly selfish behaviour in not informing family or friends that he'd be taking off alone into dangerous territory is played off as a genuine mistake made by an adventurous spirit. Watching Franco go from optimism to almost complete defeat is wonderful to watch. I'm a sucker for a great performance, especially one that requires the actor to relate to the audience all on their own, just them and the camera. It's through Franco's performance that the audience truly understands his will to survive, his realization of his desire for a child of his own and his genuine repentance over not telling his mother often enough how much he loves her. But, the truly great thing about Franco's performance is that he doesn't actually need to say the words at all. He's able to convey those feelings through body language and facial expressions.

While there is a strong supporting cast (including Kate Mara, Amber Tamblyn, Clemence Poesy and Treat Williams), it all comes back to Franco.

In an otherwise mostly weak movie season, 127 Hours is a breath of fresh simply for being an incredibly well-made and well-acted film. For just under two hours, you are guaranteed a tense, gripping an emotional film experience.

FINAL GRADE: A

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 15

Day 15: FAVOURITE FILM CHARACTER


I love Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, Marlon Brando in The Godfather, Charlie Chaplin as The Tramp or Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind.


I also love a lot of characters from recent films that aren't necessarily deemed classics: Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation or Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds.

But, in the end, it all comes back to Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.

There's no way to make this sound cool, so I'm just going to put it out there: I'm an Indy fangirl. Tried and true. What can I say, I'm a sucker for history-loving archaeologists who wear fedoras, carry a whip and can balance his brain with brawn.

Harrison Ford may not be the world's greatest actor. Like Kevin Costner or Bill Paxton, he's one of those regular joe's you love simply for being reliable and likeable.

But, Harrison Ford was born to play Indiana Jones.

At the age of six my parents showed me Raiders of the Lost Ark. The experience pretty much solidified my love of film (yes, at that young an age). It pretty much captured everything a person could want in a film: action, excitement, romance, comedy and a strong script. Unlike your typical, generic action film, Raiders of the Lost Ark (and, later, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) went above and beyond what one might expect in a film of the action genre. I wanted to be Indiana Jones and I actually credit the films with inspiring my love for history.

Under the guidance of director Steven Spielberg, Ford made Indy a brave, loyal and charming protagonist: one of those good guys who is impossible to dislike. Ford's chemistry with co-stars Karen Allen, Sean Connery, Denholm Elliot and John Rhys-Davies makes it all the better.

The trilogy and 2008 sequel was a throwback to the western serials of the 1930s: those weekly adventures that would end on a cliffhanger. Raiders and Crusade are both perfect homages to those films (Temple of Doom and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls to a much lesser extent).

Indiana Jones is everything you could want in an action figure. They just don't make those heroes like they used too.

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 14

Day 14: FAVOURITE FILM SEQUEL


It's rare to find a sequel to a film that either equals or surpasses the excellence of its predecessor.

Fans of The Godfather films are usually divided into two camps: (1) Those who cite the original one as the crowning achievement of the series or (2) those who believe that the sequel, simply titled The Godfather: Part II, is greater than the original due largely to the presence of Robert DeNiro and his role as young Vito Corleone.

The Godfather: Part II is my favourite film sequel. It continues the Corleone saga with a well-structured and tightly wound script. It boasts some of the trilogy's greatest scenes and proves that sequels don't always suck. Instead of appearing as a cash grab or an attempt to capitalize on the success of the first film, The Godfather: Part II is a legitimate and engrossing continuation of a dark and fascinating family drama. Gangsters never looked or sounded so badass. Forget The Sopranos: who could be scarier than Don Vito and Michael Corleone? They would crush Tony Soprano with their thumbs and those classy suits.

That being said, The Godfather: Part II is not my favourite film of the trilogy. My heart still belongs to the first film, but I'll save that debate for another day.

All in all, The Godfather: Part II is likely the most flawless film sequel you will ever come across (which makes the uneven The Godfather: Part III all the more tragic because it ruined what would have been the rarest of occurrences in the world of cinema: a perfect trilogy).

I believe the reason The Godfather: Part II makes such a great sequel is because it was made in the days before overkill. Back in the day when, for the most part, films were made for film fans. Back in the day when sequels weren't churned out year by year, with no apparent purpose or any evident effort. The fact that The Godfather: Part II is just as solid and well-made as its predecessor speaks volumes to that fact.

Sure, T2: Judgement Day was a great sequel that improved on the first film. Ditto The Dark Knight the Star Wars sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. Some might even argue that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers trumps The Fellowship of the Ring.

But they aren't on the same level as The Godfather: Part II.

Movie Review: Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go (2010)
Directed By: Mark Romanek
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley
Based on the Novel By: Kazuo Ishiguro

Having never read the novel on which the film is based, I thought the trailer for Never Let Me Go looked powerful, if vague. I think that's why I loved the trailer so much. Unlike most film trailers that give away the entire plot of the film they are advertising in under three minutes, the trailer for Never Let Me Go leaves you intrigued by how little it reveals. Well, for those unfamiliar with Kazuo Ishiguro's novel, at least.

The film introduces us to Kathy H (Carey Mulligan) who, in the opening scene is 28 years old and, through narration, is taking the audience back to the unusual events that occurred to the students at a Hailsham boarding house in England in 1978. As child, young Kathy H befriends two fellow classmates, the friendly but untrustworthy, Ruth (Keira Knightley) and the shy, awkward loner, Tommy (Andrew Garfield). Told by their headmistress that all Hailsham students are "special", they grow up without any family connections or a clear understanding about what their place is in society, having never been off school grounds. I remember Peter Howell's review in the Toronto Star and how he mentioned that the sinister Orwellian language with such words as "donors", "carers" and 'completion" all lend an ominous and unsettling atmosphere to the film.

The film is almost ridiculously gorgeous to look at. English landscape is always a beautiful sight to behold and, despite its dark and tragic plot revelations, it remains so. The colour is muted so that everything appears green or yellow; mellow colours for a leisurely-paced film.

Never Let Me Go is not your standard sci-fi film. Like George Orwell's 1984, it's not necessarily about the role of authority figures or government standards, but the human desire to survive, thrive and love one another. The film (and, I presume, the book) doesn't delve into why these things are being done to the students of Hailsham or how exactly they "came to be." It's just an accepted fact of life that this is the way things are in the world. Without the background information on the origins of Hailsham and other similar boarding houses, the audience is allowed to solely focus on the three central characters and their struggle to understand the meaning of life and their role in it, however brief.

The reason the unusual plot plays out so well on screen is because of the stellar casting. Carey Mulligan is one of the top five young actresses working today. She gives a lovely performance as Kathy H, giving her character quiet strength and sad, world weary eyes. Even though we know so little about Kathy H's background, it doesn't matter because Mulligan manages to make her so likeable and sympathetic. Andrew Garfield nearly steals the film as Tommy, the gangly and shy love-interest of Kathy H (although he settles for a relationship with Ruth). This is my first time seeing Garfield in a film and I was impressed by his stuttering, twitchy Tommy. I'll be pulling for him this Oscar season for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. There were two or three occasions in the film where I got teary-eyed and it was all thanks for Garfield and his performance. As for Keira Knightley, I'll be the first to admit I'm not her biggest fan; however, I was impressed with the fact that she chose a role different from her usual historical snarky-heroine screen portrayals. She actually gave a nuanced performance as Ruth, which is no easy accomplishment since Ruth is a difficult character to love.

In this early stage of the Oscar race, Never Let Me Go has a legitimate chance at some major nominations, especially considering we are in for another year of 10 Best Picture nominations. I just hope that, after all the other hyped films that will come out in the next couple of months, critics and voters will remember Never Let Me Go - a quiet, powerful, philosophical and compelling film. I hope it doesn't get lost in the chaos.

FINAL GRADE: A 

Movie Review: Let the Right One In

Let the Right One In (Sweden, 2008)
Directed By: Tomas Alfredson
Starring: Kare Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson

I've been a little behind on my entries, but not my movie-watching. Last weekend, I finally got around to seeing Let the Right One In; that Swedish vampire film that everyone was talking about two years ago.

What I didn't realize was that, more than anything else, Let the Right One In is a coming-of-age story. The fact that young Oskar's new friend, Eli, is a nocturnal bloodsucker is beside the point.

Twelve-year-old Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is shy, awkward and mercilessly bullied at school. At night, he spends time by himself at the playground outside his apartment building. There he meets Eli (Lina Leandersson), the girl who has just moved into the apartment next door with a man she claims is her father. When asked what her age is, Eli replies, "twelve-ish." Despite the fact that it's the dead of winter, Eli wears only short-sleeved shirts outside, has cold hands, pale skin and appears older and wiser beyond her years. Oskar is immediately drawn to her and the two develop their friendship in the little playground at night, which is the only time Eli can come out and play.

Let the Right One In is a slow-burning film. Its opening shot is of falling snow, without any soundtrack. Everyone speaks in hushed tones and Oskar and Eli must overcome many obstacles before becoming genuine friends. It's more about the coming-of-age of two marginalized children than horror film (although there are unsettling scenes of blood and gore). The more you get to know Oskar and Eli, the more you feel for their sad situations: his because of the constant bullying he faces, hers because of her inability to connect to humans and violent desire for blood. Despite the supernatural situation, you want their friendship to endure. Somehow.

It's an intelligent film, made for audiences who love  character development and emotional connection mixed in with their horror. It's completely unique and unlike any vampire film you've seen before (it even twists around some vampire folklore to make it seem fresh and original). The fact that it effectively manages to combine gothic horror with tragic realism, is no easy accomplishment. I was surprised how affecting, tragic and emotionally charged a vampire film could be when put in the right hands.

One of the things I can't get over is how beautiful the film looks. Visually, it's better than the large majority of what you'd see in the cinema. The colours are darkened, in keeping with the atmospheric mood, and it makes Stockholm look like a beautiful winter wonderland. The darkened colours only serve to make the blood stand out even more, whether it's splashed on the snowy sidewalk or a dirty basement floor.

I'm not usually the biggest fan of child actors. They tend to over-emote and, because of their age, don't necessarily pick up on the subtleties of the development of their characters. Hedebrant and Leandersson go above and beyond what you'd expect from a child actor. There were times I forgot I was watching two pre-teens instead of two full-fledged adults. Both Hedebrant and Leandersson convey their loneliness and world-wearniess with their sad eyes. Their chemistry onscreen is also what makes their performances work so well. You can see their yearning for connection to one another. And, despite their obvious differences in the lives they lead, they are both looking for the same things.

Love story, horror film and social commentary wrapped in one, Let the Right One In will be one of the most powerful, beautiful coming-of-age tales you are ever likely to see. It will stay with you long after the film has finished. I now plan on reading John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel on which the film is based.

GRADE: A

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 13

Day 13: FAVOURITE GUILTY PLEASURE FILM

Not gonna lie: I have a ton of films I could have just as easily chosen as my favourite guilty pleasure film. Other potential choices: Hook (1991), Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (1988), Twister (1996), Beetlejuice (1988) and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991).

But, in keeping with the "holiday spirit" of Halloween, I'll go with The Lost Boys (1987); that crazy little vampire movie from schlock-master director Joel Schumacher. Starring some of the biggest young stars of the 1980s, the film's popularity has endured, probably thanks in large part to its incredibly quotable dialogue. It also has a little bit of everything to keep audiences interested; horror, romance and comedy. Although there are some who argue the film hasn't aged well (you only need look to Rotten Tomatoes to find the evidence), I couldn't disagree more. If nothing else, it's a time capsule of a decade when big hair reigned supreme, kids listened to cassettes and teen movies weren't always ruled by raging hormones and nudity.


The Lost Boys is its own brand of fun. Say what you want about the film, but there isn't another movie quite like it. It's over-the-top, over-stylized and completely ridiculous. But it never pretends to be something it is not and for that it gets brownie points in my book. It's the Batman Forever of vampire films, taking the mythology around the "creatures of the night" and throwing in laughs along the way. Completely CGI-free, The Lost Boys instead relies on excellent make-up and actual stunt work.

The plot is straight-forward: Michael (Jason Patric), Sam (Corey Haim) and their single-mom, Lucy (Dianne Wiest), move to Santa Carla for a fresh start. Within hours of arriving, Michael makes enemies with David (Kiefer Sutherland), the head of a motorcycle-riding vampire gang. Sam enlists the help of the Frog brothers, Edgar (Corey Feldman) and Alan (Jamison Newlander), to help him save his brother, Michael, from becoming a vampire. Self-proclaimed vampire hunters, the Frog brothers are the teenaged dimwit equivalent of Van Helsing.

Watch it for the cheese-tastic soundtrack, the vibrant clothing, 1980s pop culture references and some great vampire fight scenes. Did I mention the two Corey's were in it?

Runner-Up:


This almost topped The Lost Boys and, in many ways, it's a much more entertaining film. But, you know. The Halloween theme and all.


Speed (1994) was my favourite action film as a child. That bomb-on-bus, highway-jumping action sequences just don't come out of Hollywood anymore. Granted, CGI has never been better that it is today, but Speed rarely (if at all) had to rely on any of that and it still manages to be more exciting (and openly ludicrous) than the large majority of action films being released today. It's almost as though the film were self-aware: instead of turning away from its outrageous plot, it embraces it and puts its actors through violent encounters with elevators, buses and subways just for the hell of it. Why not?

Reasons I love Speed: (1) Keanu Reeves, never better. (2) Dennis Hopper and his nine fingers. (3) The troubled transit systems in Los Angeles. (4) For keeping viewer interest when a large portion of the film takes place on a bus. (5) It's ridiculous and awesome.

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 12

Day 12: FAVOURITE ANIMATED FILM

With all the wonderful Disney and Pixar films out there to choose from, it would seem hard to pick just one. For me, though, it all comes back to the 2003 Pixar classic, Finding Nemo.

I still remember seeing a late screening in theatres (to avoid all those kids who would have talked over the whole thing) and I was crying three minutes into the film. Single-dad clownfish, Marlin (Albert Brooks), loses his son, Nemo (Alexander Gould), somewhere along Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Along the way, Marlin befriends a blue tang fish suffering from short-term memory loss named Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) and the two embark on an epic underwater search.

It's themes of unconditional love, loyal friendships and family values, Finding Nemo is an intelligent little film. Don't dismiss it as a kids animated flick. It's one of those rare films that rise above that classification. Andrew Stanton continues to write and direct instant Pixar classics.

In terms of visuals, nothing surpasses the brilliant blues and oranges of Finding Nemo. It was like watching an underwater special on the Discovery Channel. Although WALL*E came close, in terms of animation, Pixar has not yet topped Finding Nemo.

The end result is a smart, funny and engaging film for both children and adults. Pixar continues to reinvent both the children and animation genres.