Most people writing about 127 hours comment on how amazing it was that Danny Boyle was able to make such an effective, stylistic film about a character trapped in one location for almost a week. I say: What did people really expect?
Showing up to a Boyle flick I know I’m going to get the following: Great visuals, fascinating compositions, a great soundtrack, and, more than anything else, a kinetic energy from his camera work that is unmatched by any active film director. Boyle might have more camera movement in 5 seconds of this movie than Eastwood has in all his movies combine.
Who else would travel with the camera being slow cranked (therefore the camera is “fast motion”) from Aron Ralston all the way to his car where Ralston’s Gatarode is? Maybe Aronofsky. Just maybe.
Going into 127 Hours almost everyone knows the deal. Some dude Aron Ralston was hiking alone in Utah and got his arm stuck and had to cut it off. Awesome.
What’s odd is, America seemed to forget about this, but it captivated the mind of Boyle and many other Englanders. I even remember Ralston was one of the people English celebrity Karl Pilkington listed as a guest at his hypothetical “last meal” (Even though he refereed to him as “that bloke that cut his arm off”)
This video is masturbation worthy:
I’m guessing that Americans reacted the same way I did when they heard that he’d gotten stuck alone: Moron. I was wrong. Aron Ralston is not a moron. Well, he kind of is, but he just made a big, big mistake. Franco likely earns himself an Academy nomination for playing Ralston (if that even matters) and he just might win.
He just might be one of the most versatile actors around right now. Jumping from Spiderman to the dramatic Milk then to the comedic Pineapple Express you get the impression he can do anything. And nothing feels gimmicky like Ben Kingsley smoking weed or overtly performance based like Daniel Day Lewis.
More recently a less glamorous “stuck in one place and I lost my arm” event happened. A dude got his arm stuck in his fucking furnace and he tried to cut it off but couldn’t finish. He was then found a few days later by his friends but lost the arm anyway. I laughed really hard when I heard that and hope to hear a glory hole nightmare story emerge.
There are other movies about moronic, adventurous, middle-class, white people abandoning the hustle and bustle of life for the wilderness. The great films Into the Wild and Grizzly Man come to mind. Is being rich, white, and American really so tough? Cry me a river.
When Ralston cuts off his arm it is the ultimate exercise in subjective filming. It should be studied in film classes for its craftsmanship. It is pretty gross, but how could it not be?
This is one of best movies you’ll see this year, outmatched only by The Social Network.
Collin says: A/5
By Collin, on November 26th, 2010
REALLY→
BAD
Nope. Wrong move. Big mistake. Stupid. Jack-off, Boston criminal.
All these words and more come to mind when hearing that Mark Walhberg has decided to ruin a beloved franchise…again. Not to nerd rage, but this ain’t gonna’ work. Wahlberg is the wrong choice for this movie. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They’ve done it. They’ve ruined the movie before it even came out. Is that possible? Yep. How? Well, because of two really big reasons:
1. It will not be a fun adventure film. David O’Russell is planning a bondesque, Die Hard shoot ‘em up. How do I know that? I just do. The game was so fun because it was based in a universe of fun, adventure, and treasure hunting. It might sound childish, but that is because IT FUCKIN’ IS! It has been compared endlessly to to Indiana Jones for a reason.
Speilberg was adapting a genre from his childhood and created a fun adventure for kids and adults alike. That is exactly what needs to be done here.
2. Wahlberg can’t be Nathan Drake. Just like Matthew McConaughey can’t be Dirk Pitt and Ian McKellen can’t be Magneto. Wahlberg had his shot at a sacred franchise and should have used his influence to make Max Payne a good film.
Really →
Lame
Walhberg, to a certain degree, is Max Payne, a hard-boiled, tortured soul, bent on revenge and proving himself. What he isn’t is a fast-talking, flirtatious, ball-busting adventurer. I’d heard this news walking into 127 hours and I’d lie if I said it wasn’t still bothering me. When I saw Franco’s interpretation of Aron Alston I couldn’t help but think, “Now THAT is Nathan Drake.” A fun-loving adventurer who laughs in the face of danger, literally celebrating when he is able to break both the bones in his arm.
The point is, this movie will be entertaining. How could it not be? I remember my parents couldn’t get over the fact that the filmmakers fucked with Spock in the newest Star Trek film and made him vicious. They despised the film, but were entertained by it.
To hardcore fans of the Uncharted games this movie is going to suck balls. (In a bad way, not a beautiful lady sucking your balls) We won’t be able to get over the fact that Wahlberg ain’t Drake. Drake is Drake and actors can only do worthy interpretations. Because after all, in my mind, Drake is as real as Luke Skywalker, Barbra Walters, or The Situation.
Really →
Big Boners
- Collin
By devon, on November 24th, 2010
The Kids are All Right (2010)
By Devon Gilbert
The Kids are All Right is a well-made movie about marriage. In a lot of ways it is a basic movie about the subject. For example, one partner doesn’t have enough time for the other because of work and one partner is having a fling with somebody else, just like any movie about marriage. In this movie, the couple going through the normal trials of marriage is Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore). Both Nic and Jules used the same donor’s sperm to get pregnant, so they have raised two children together. Though they are a lesbian couple, they don’t seem much different than any other marriage. Their kids, Laser (Josh Hutcherson) and Joni (Mia Wasikowska), seem to also view their parents as perfectly normal too. However, Laser is interested in meeting his donor father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), so he gets Joni to set up a meeting since she is now 18 and can request one.
Right off the bat I will say the premise is very routed in real human emotions. It’s very understandable that no matter how much the kids love their moms, they would be curious about their sort of father. It’s also understandable that Paul might really take to the kids and feel sort of like their father, because technically I guess he is. Finally, it’s understandable that Nic and Jules will feel threatened by this because it could potentially disrupt their family unit. And let’s face it; the premise for this movie is only going to become a more common one in America as time goes on. It is nice to see a comedy that has its head grounded in reality, though this movie’s more like a dramedy. There are some funny parts and parts that just make you smile, but ultimately the movie gears more toward drama. Though to be fair, the movie is never sad and it’s certainly not heavy.
In some ways I wish the movie had gone for more of a comedy vibe or gone the opposite route and gotten more serious with the material. There are some humorous situations and funny lines but mainly the movie focuses on how Paul’s presence is breaking down Jules’s family, though mostly because Jules sleeps with him. Without this being a straight comedy I would have expected some serious issues to be addressed. For instance, I mentioned before that the kids were all right with their parents being lesbians (and indeed the title of the movie acknowledges this) but you’re telling me they don’t get teased at school for it? And honestly, Laser wouldn’t ever get mad and say something about them being lesbians? I doubt it. The movie should have dealt with that but my biggest gripe is how director Lisa Cholodenko treats Paul.
Paul seems like nothing but a nice guy and a positive father figure in the lives of Laser and Joni. Many scenes of the movie even show the positive aspects of having a father figure for the children, like how he lets Joni live a little by riding on back of his motorcycle or how he plays basketball with Laser. Yet in the end the movie treats him almost like a villain, essentially saying Nic and Jules family was perfect before he came around. I found that outrageous, especially since the worst (and really only) bad thing he did was have sexual relations with Jules. The sex was totally mutual and instigated by Jules (who is the one betraying a spouse and so is obviously the more guilty one), yet in the end the kids and Nic are madder at Paul. That felt a little off and I would have at least liked an explanation. And did Nic and Joni really never discuss how having a father figure seemed to be a good thing for the kids, or were they too selfish? Or could the movie not handle the discussion without ending the movie with the message it wanted to end with.
Ultimately I think The Kids are All Right is a good movie, but no masterpiece. The acting by Bening, Moore, and Ruffalo is excellent. The dialogue and pace work well too. And as a movie about marriage and its hardships, it’s also a winner. The movie is light, the characters likeable, and there is room for thought afterward. I just wish the movie had tackled its subject with a little more honesty. Clearly the point of this movie was to show that two lesbians could raise a family just as well as any heterosexual couple, thru good times and bad. That point would be stronger had they not ignored the idea of fathers in the lives of children, especially since this movie seems to show that it is good to have a father figure only to ignore that fact because it didn’t fit into writer/director Lisa Cholodenko’s PC message that lesbians can raise a family too.
The Kids Are All Right: B
By Collin, on November 24th, 2010
Content Manager Frank O’Conner says there will be a Halo movie
The owners of great video game franchises keep their property pretty damn close to their chests. After adaptations get worse and worse I think the owners of these franchises are becoming more timid about releasing the rights to filmmakers.
I really, really believe in the adage that it takes a lifetime to create a reputation and only a minute to destroy it and when franchises give away rights to film companies and the movie is awful or has nothing to do with the video game, I think it really does affect the brand.
Pretty good examples are the Mario Brothers film, Resident Evil series, and Final Fantasy Spirited Within. I really think the Mario movie affected Nintendo’s brand in the western world. Moreover, I love the Resident Evil films, but don’t think they have anything to do with the video games.
Capcom made bundles of money from movie, but the Resident Evil films’ tone is unsatisfactory when relating to the fantastic video games. I remember playing the first game and when the dogs popped out of the windows, I turned off the game and ran into my room. How it turned into Mila Jovovich flying through a window on a motorcycle firing machine guns, I’ll never know.
140 million budget..85million gross...whoops
And finally Spirited Within was so bizarre for a Final Fantasy adaptation that people showing up expecting to see Squall and Cloud, got a weird story about aliens. So weird in fact, that the film BOMBED and led Square to dissolve Square pictures and put their merger with Enix in jeopardy.
My point is, it is risky making these movies. Really risky. Nintendo has never attempted a Donkey Kong film, Yoshi, and god forbid a Zelda adaptation because they know these franchises are sacred. Do I think the same thing is happening to Halo? In a way, maybe.
Techradar.com reports that Halo’s franchise development director Frank O’Conner made it pretty damn clear that there will be a Halo movie, saying, not ironically, “there will be a Halo movie.” When addressing why the movie didn’t happen yet he claimed that, “It was the lawyers, when they went behind closed doors with the contracts, things fell apart.” He indicated that the film company didn’t just want to make money on the franchise, but on other products and services regarding the franchise.
Obviously the film company was kidding themselves when they thought Microsoft would give up elements of their Halo empire. Film companies are used to making money on other stuff, posters, shirts, mugs, dildos, everything. Many companies consider their film’s gross a small part of their profit. Ancillary income brings in BIG money.
O’Conner even brought up the possibility of a television adaptation. A mistake, I think, that would ruin any possibility of the adaption being good. Finally, O’Conner eluded to the fact that they might even fund the film themselves. Something I also don’t think would be a fantastic idea.
Creating a film business and funding a film correctly is complicated. Maybe they’ll buy out a film company and put Halo into the pipeline. They only acquired Halo, as well as Frank O’Conner himself, through another company Bungie, so maybe if they pull the same move with a production company the movie will finally get made…but I doubt it.
-Collin
By devon, on November 24th, 2010
An Unbiased Look At Horror Remakes
By Devon Gilbert
Sorry George, you got owned
Of course, by now it’s common knowledge that remakes have taken Hollywood by storm. Many people bitch about them, but somehow they continue to make a lot of money. It seems the horror genre has been hit the hardest with this craze. As an avid horror movie fan I must say that this craze hasn’t really bothered me. Sure I wish there was more original horror movies, but I don’t mind remakes. In fact, usually the remakes are better than the original.
Though many people think that’s blasphemy to say, it’s the truth. The Dawn ofthe Dead remake absolutely is a more intense and entertaining movie than George A Romero’s original. The original is okay for its time, but I find it way too boring for today’s times. And the update from slow zombies to fast zombies is crucial. Anybody who likes slow zombies better than the fast zombies is truly ignorant and deserves to be eaten. It seems painfully obvious that a zombie running full blast at you is scarier than one that is moving at a snails pace. But I digress. Rob Zombie’s new Halloween is more entertaining than John Carpenter’s original. I give Carpenter a lot of credit for creating a classic movie, but frankly it’s too boring to watch. It’s a slasher movie with no gore or intensity. Zombie’s remake isn’t original like Carpenter’s was; but it is funny, vulgar, violent, and highly watchable. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning disturbs me far more than any of the old Massacre movies including, of course, the original. Friday the 13th remake hands down trumps any of the previous 10 Friday movies, though to be fare that series sucked and the remake is merely okay. I could list many more examples from The Crazies to The Last House on The Left, but instead I’ll summarize my point. There are a lot of old horror classics that were great for their time but now are way to tame/weak for a post Saw/Hostel cinema. Updating them is wise.
That being said there are some horror remakes that fail. A Nightmare on Elm Street remake comes to mind, as it was almost a complete failure. It wasn’t as good as the original in practically every way possible, including special effects, which is just pathetic. The Hitcher remake was also dull and unmemorable which is opposite of the original. Another example is The Fog remake, which I found to be absolutely terrible whereas I thought Carpenter’s original was okay. Though I could name a few more, what’s the point when there is about to be a slew more to add to the bad pile.
Yeah, that screams PG-13
Basically I’ve seen more remakes I liked than didn’t but now it seems Hollywood is going to far. There are two upcoming remakes in particular that I really find truly appalling. According to www.slashfilm.com there will be a Hellraiser remake, and the Weinsteins (who control the rights) plan on making it for a teen audience aka it’s going to be PG-13. I can’t even begin to say how ridiculous that is. Clive Barkers’ original still holds up well with its gross visuals, cool creature effects, and adult themes of suffering/eroticism. There’s no way of turning that into a PG-13 movie with out dropping most of, if not all of, the story so why even bother? The original Hellraiser also had a dark tone that can’t be translated into a teen movie. The minute there’s goofy horny teens and pop music, the serious atmosphere is gone. And let me find out Pinhead is going to be popping out of corners screaming “Gottcha” at high school kids before killing them off screen. Shameful. That’s all I got to say. Shameful. But that’s not the worst case.
From this...
I’ve made it pretty clear on this website that Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs is one of the best horror movies ever made.
...to this? Somethin' ain't right
It is disturbing on many levels, brutal, genuinely scary, and thought provoking in a sick way. It’s a ferocious ride that doesn’t let on where it’s going until you arrive to a very sadistic ending. Since it’s French it hasn’t fully captured a huge audience in America yet, which I’m guessing has some to do with not being shown in US theaters. I figure it’s the type of movie that will gain a large audience over the years. But alas, it looks like a Hollywood remake will ruin its reputation before that’s possible. According to www.slashfilm.com the two people attached to the project so far is Twilight producer Wyck Godfrey and Vacancy screenwriter Mark L. Smith. To make matters worse, Godfrey is thinking about casting Kristen Stewart as the lead. And to make matters unbearable, some of Godfrey’s comments allude to the idea of cutting or taming much of Martyrs intensity. It’s hard to imagine a worse trio to take on the remake. Godfrey’s Twilight series is one of the worst blockbuster series to ever be produced, and for a story featuring vampires it is incredibly dull. If anyone can make a girl slashing herself because of visions of a grotesque naked old woman dull, it’s Godfrey. I’ve seen only one movie written by Smith, Vacancy, and remember it was barely okay. Nothing memorable. Nothing that makes me think he can tackle a masterpiece. As for Kristen Stewart, this movie needs a more intense actress. Critics like to over praise her, I believe because they feel bad about not liking the Twilight movies. Stewart has been okay in some movies, like The Runaways and Adventureland, but that’s her at her best. Her lack of screen presence and the inability to get people on her side make her a terrible pick. Not to mention, true fans of horror will be disgusted to see any Twilight star in a serious horror movie. As a side note though, there would be some pleasure in seeing Stewart face all manner of abuse. In short, a Martyrs remake is a terrible idea made even worse thru the people involved. It’s bound to be disgraceful; I just hope it doesn’t tarnish the original.
So the point is that horror remakes can be a great idea, but there are some you just don’t fuck with. Many old horror movies that are considered classics really do suffer from dated pacing, music, effects, and gore. Updating them for modern times can really improve them. Of course some remakes will fail, that’s just the nature of making movies in general. However, there are a small crop of horror movies that just shouldn’t be touched because they were perfectly made and can only be remade into something worse, like Martyrs and The Shining (no remake on that yet…knock on wood.) Others, like Hellraiser, could possibly be made into a better movie if great talents and motivations were involved, but will likely fail due to disrespect toward the original material. If horror remakes are going to continue to be a trend (and they will), Hollywood needs to learn what they can and can’t do, and have the respect and talent to do it right.
Mr. Weinstein, please don't have this crew dance to Lady Gaga
Recent Comments