127 Hours (Danny Boyle)

[Lazlo]

Didn't see a thread for this one, so here we go.

Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3AHv2E5jg&feature=player_embedded)

Looks really great if you ask me. This coupled with Boyle's statements that he's trying to challenge the audience with most of the movie being Franco stuck under a rock really excite me. Count me in as a Boyle supporter. Franco's the man, too.

[Sven]

Man. I forgot how much I hated Slumdog Millionaire. Thanks, trailer, for bringing that one back up.

Trailer was okay. Boyle is kind of reaching Tony Scott levels of tacky visual schtickiness. Hopefully it's good.

[Watashi]

Boyle has been losing me recently.

Hopefully the awesomeness of Franco can override this.

[megladon8]

Sunshine = mega awesome.

[Ezee E]

Good trailer. Sets it up and shows nothing more.

[Dukefrukem]

Good trailer. Sets it up and shows nothing more.

this. :cool:

[number8]

Nice.

[eternity]

It looks like a Danny Boyle movie except now with things that are intentionally making me cringe. Pretty looking shots though. Yeah.

[Sven]

I have Sunshine rented. Maybe will watch tonite. Jonesing for more Cillian and Chris.

[Derek]

I have Sunshine rented. Maybe will watch tonite. Jonesing for more Cillian and Chris.

I don't think you'll like the film, but Evans' performance should impress you. Murphy's solid as always as well.

[Rowland]

Cliff Curtis, Michelle Yeoh, Rose Byrne, and Hiroyuki Sanada provide strong supporting work as well. How did Boyle go from Sunshine to Slumdog?

[Rowland]

And speaking of James Franco, read the section on his personal life at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franco).

[Melville]

And speaking of James Franco, read the section on his personal life at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franco).
Holy hilariousness: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ab25302c8e/james-franco-s-rejected-ucla-commencement-speech

[Boner M]

Danny Boyle has slowly gone from 'pretty good' to 'hit-or-miss' to one of my least favorite working filmmakers. 28DL and Trainspotting are the only films of his I've truly liked.

Trailer was a bit awkward, esp. with that retarded montage of HIS OWN FILMOGRAPHY FFS at the start, but the actual footage suggests it could be a pretty good experiential/physical immersion if handled correctly.

[Boner M]

I wanna have a beer with Franco.

[EyesWideOpen]

Cliff Curtis, Michelle Yeoh, Rose Byrne, and Hiroyuki Sanada provide strong supporting work as well. How did Boyle go from Sunshine to Slumdog?

It is weird how he went from a film which failed at the box office and has a 74% tomato ranking to a film which blew away sales expectations, won the oscar for best film (along with multiple other awards), and has a 94% tomato ranking.

He's really falling off his game.

[Boner M]

It is weird how he went from a film which failed at the box office and has a 74% tomato ranking to a film which blew away sales expectations, won the oscar for best film (along with multiple other awards), and has a 94% tomato ranking.
And it's weird (and annoying) how people use consensuses to illegitimatize others' opinions.

[Ezee E]

Trailer was a bit awkward, esp. with that retarded montage of HIS OWN FILMOGRAPHY FFS at the start, but the actual footage suggests it could be a pretty good experiential/physical immersion if handled correctly.

No different then what other directors have done. It was so brief that it was basically just a "From the director of..."

[number8]

And speaking of James Franco, read the section on his personal life at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franco).

No, read this: http://nymag.com/movies/profiles/67284/

[Derek]

Danny Boyle has slowly gone from 'pretty good' to 'hit-or-miss' to one of my least favorite working filmmakers. 28DL and Trainspotting are the only films of his I've truly liked.

I forget if you've seen it, but did you dislike Sunshine? I'd be willing to somewhat embrace the guy if he'd let go of his schmaltzy side, a la Slumdog and Millions and stick to making relatively unique genre films.

[number8]

Yeah, he's like Spielberg. Only really good at making genre pics.

[EyesWideOpen]

And it's weird (and annoying) how people use consensuses to illegitimatize others' opinions.

There was no opinion offered to illegitimatize. He said "How did Boyle go from Sunshine to Slumdog?" That's a question not an opinion.

[Rowland]

There was no opinion offered to illegitimatize. He said "How did Boyle go from Sunshine to Slumdog?" That's a question not an opinion.I think the context of the question was pretty clear, given the nature of the discussion preceding it. For what it's worth, I felt Slumdog Millionaire was pretty lousy whereas Sunshine is hugely underestimated. My question was largely rhetorical.

[Raiders]

There was no opinion offered to illegitimatize. He said "How did Boyle go from Sunshine to Slumdog?" That's a question not an opinion.

Considering the tone of your own response, you seemed to grasp Rowland's intentions pretty well, so no point in playing dumb now. Plus, even if you love both films or feel vice-versa, it is a pretty legitimate question. They are remarkably different films.

[Winston*]

Dude made Trainspotting. Lifetime pass.

[EyesWideOpen]

Considering the tone of your own response, you seemed to grasp Rowland's intentions pretty well, so no point in playing dumb now. Plus, even if you love both films or feel vice-versa, it is a pretty legitimate question. They are remarkably different films.

I'm not playing dumb I understood his tone perfectly but that's still not an opinion. I was more annoyed by Boner accusing me of illegitimizing Rowland's opinion with a consensus which I in no way did. He was using the question as a knock against Boyle and I listed the reasons why it shouldn't be considered that way. Even if you didn't like Slumdog you should at least realize that with his oscar director status along with Slumdog's box office take it gives him a lot more leeway to get his movies made and seen by more people.

And I don't know what your last thought even means. Most directors with decent sized catalogs make remarkably different films.

[eternity]

Christ, you people.

[number8]

Look, what's really important is, who wants to be a millionaire?

[NickGlass]

I thought all Boyle's film projects were decided by fate.

[Wryan]

This looks dumb as a pile of bricks.

[Morris Schæffer]

Reviews are staggeringly enthusiastic. I will see this!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/127_hours/

[Ivan Drago]

Didn't know that A.R. Rahman did the score for this until yesterday. Good that Boyle's keeping him around afer the awesome music for Slumdog.

[Watashi]

Anyone (besides E) seen this yet?

Boyle's spazzaratic direction becomes a bit unnecessary in some of the more quieter moments. Boyle should have let Franco do his thing without any editing trickery. Franco is pretty phenomenal as he carries this film entirely. It would be interesting to see a double feature of this and Buried. The last 20 minutes are some pretty exhilarating stuff (which is quite the change for Boyle).

[DavidSeven]

Man, I really didn't like this movie. Five minutes of Sigur Ros might be the only thing saving it from being one of the most unpleasant experiences ever. What a pointless exercise. Boyle's aesthetic is balls. Did you ever wonder what "Man vs. Wild" would look like if filmed like Slumdog Millionaire? Yeah, me neither, and I didn't even hate that movie.

[Watashi]

What was pointless about it? Seems like an odd criticism. Would you have wanted a more traditional story told? I would think a mainstream film to feature most of its runtime in a small space with just one actor to be pretty bold.

While Boyle's aesthetics may be jarring, Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography is fantastic.

[DavidSeven]

What was pointless about it? Seems like an odd criticism. Would you have wanted a more traditional story told? I would think a mainstream film to feature most of its runtime in a small space with just one actor to be pretty bold.

While Boyle's aesthetics may be jarring, Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography is fantastic.

The film had absolutely nothing interesting to say. Boyle subjects us to 90 minutes of unpleasantness for what? The sake of showing how many different ways he can capture James Franco's reflection in an inanimate object? I don't care how bold it was; it wasn't enjoyable, and it wasn't substantive. This whole thing can be boiled down to a pat lesson of "don't do everything on your own." Unless, of course, you actually do want a lucrative book and movie deal.

[Watashi]

The film had absolutely nothing interesting to say. Boyle subjects us to 90 minutes of unpleasantness for what? The sake of showing how many different ways he can capture James Franco's reflection in an inanimate object? I don't care how bold it was; it wasn't enjoyable, and it wasn't substantive. This whole thing can be boiled down to a pat lesson of "don't do everything on your own." Unless, of course, you actually do want a lucrative book and movie deal.

Nothing interesting to say? Dude, really? I'm with you on the Boyle overload of his trademark style, but there is a lot of stuff in this film that goes beyond "don't do everything on your own". You don't find Rolston's story fascinating at all? I think it's a great positive story about embracing the willpower to survive. I think it's a film that Herzog would have loved (though I'm sure his take on the material would be more meditative and funnier). I didn't find it unpleasant at all (unless you're talking about the climax). Franco's performance kept it entertaining and he's the primary reason why the whole film works.

To boil it down to a financial decision is really close-minded. Out of all those "based on a true story" uplifting films, I felt this event was really worth it.

[Watashi]

Do you view Lars Von Trier's films the same way, David? I had similar complaints about Antichrist (which similarly has a shocking gruesome climax, shot by the same DP, and has a very distinct visual style all throughout), but even amongst the talking fox and such, I could tell what von Trier was conveying. Does a film like 127 Hours need to be "enjoyable" or "pleasant"?

[DavidSeven]

I didn't see Antichrist, but I consider myself a von Trier fan. Love Dogville and Dancer in the Dark especially. But von Trier is a good storyteller and he has provocative things to say. I usually appreciate his craft too (notwithstanding The Idiots). 127 Hours doesn't even have a story and it isn't provocative in the least. Usually filmmakers use unpleasantness on the screen to convey something deeper; Boyle has no such ambitions. If it's not interesting and its not enjoyable, what am I left to appreciate in one of his films? A bunch of camera tricks that feel like cinematic wankery? No thanks.

[Watashi]

127 Hours doesn't even have a story and it isn't provocative in the least.

It has a main protagonist. It has a beginning, middle, and end. I'd say that qualifies as a story. Fuck plot anyways. The film restrains itself of being saccharine by limiting the flashbacks and developing Rolston through his present actions, not his past. It's way more provocative than just reading a Wikipedia page on the guy. It seems you're caught up in Boyle's direction more than anything (which I agree with), but it's not like the split-screens and fast-editing was in every shot. I thought the music video-style of filmmaking worked sometimes (like the way the video camera was used as a portal into Rolston's insanity) and sometimes it didn't (like the split-screens). If anything, the film needed to be more experimental.

[DavidSeven]

Fine. The story just sucks and the main character is poorly rendered. Franco is fine, but his performance isn't that special. But how could it be when Boyle is too preoccupied with tilting his camera and what not to capture anything meaningful? Yeah, I'm caught up in his direction, but this film is all direction + a smidgen of Franco. How long was the script? 10 pages? There's nothing else to judge this thing on.

[Watashi]

So a film's quality needs to be judged on script length now? I don't see how that matters at all.

What happened to you Dave? Where was that poster years ago that I fell in love with?

Gone. :sad:

[DavidSeven]

So a film's quality needs to be judged on script length now? I don't see how the matters at all.

Man, you really aren't paying attention to what I'm saying, are you?

[DavidSeven]

Anyway, you said I was too preoccupied with the direction. I'm saying that, by the very nature of the film, you can't really judge it on anything else. Most of this film is one actor doing mostly physical things. My comment about the script length is just highlighting that point; I'm not making any judgments there.

[Watashi]

Anyway, you said I was too preoccupied with the direction. I'm saying that, by the very nature of the film, you can't really judge it on anything else. Most of this film is one actor doing mostly physical things. My comment about the script length is just highlighting that point; I'm not making any judgments there.

Yeah, I understand. I just don't see this as a criticism. It seems from your complaints like you wanted a more fleshed out backstory, told in a more traditional Hollywood way. I'd argue that Franco dominates the film more than Boyle does.

[DavidSeven]

I don't really know what I wanted it to be. Less annoying, maybe. I think I would prefer it exist as a five minute news segment on CNN and nothing more. Alternatively, I would prefer to have simply ignored it. I was wary of the premise going in, but I was going to see something tonight and the consensus duped me.

[Barty]

Yeah, Wats is right.

[number8]

So far, no one has explained why watching a guy trapped under a rock is compelling.

[Watashi]

So far, no one has explained why watching a guy trapped under a rock is compelling.
Same reason why a guy creating Facebook is compelling? The way it's told?

[DavidSeven]

So far, no one has explained why watching a guy trapped under a rock is compelling.

They can't. It's not.

Especially when your protagonist is portrayed as a typical extreme sports frat boy goof off. There is nothing interesting about this movie. WTF critics! I'm pissed that I watched this.

[Barty]

They can't. It's not.


It was to me. Subjective valuations for the win!

[number8]

Same reason why a guy creating Facebook is compelling? The way it's told?

Mark Zuckerberg is not stationary.

[Barty]

Mark Zuckerberg is not stationary.

The body is stationary, the mind is not.

[Watashi]

They can't. It's not.

Especially when your protagonist is portrayed as a typical extreme sports frat boy goof off. There is nothing interesting about this movie. WTF critics! I'm pissed that I watched this.

Are you fucking kidding me? Stories can come from anywhere. 12 Angry Men takes place in one room. Do I have to pull out the Ebert quote again.

I can't believe you would even question this.

[Watashi]

I feel like I'm on the imdb boards.

[DavidSeven]

They can. I wish Boyle found one here. His direction is shittier than his storytelling anyway.

Stop trying to narrow my opinion of this film into something it's not. You can't have your "fuck plot" or "who gives a shit about characters" moment here. The film is a failure in every conceivable aspect, and Franco's performance is overrated as heck. You have failed to describe anything enlightening or interesting about this film to me or an objective observer. Please explain why anyone should see this movie before you label me an IMDBer.

Kisses.

[Watashi]

They can. I wish Boyle found one here. His direction is shittier than his storytelling anyway.

Stop trying to narrow my opinion of this film into something it's not. You can't have your "fuck plot" or "who gives a shit about characters" moment here. The film is a failure in every conceivable aspect, and Franco's performance is overrated as heck. You have failed to describe anything enlightening or interesting about this film to me or an objective observer. Please explain why anyone should see this movie before you label me an IMDBer.

Kisses.

You are pathetic.

[DavidSeven]

You are pathetic.

LOL.

[Watashi]

LOL.
Please explain why this film is a failure on every conceivable aspect.

[Ezee E]

It's still one of my favorites of the year.

[Barty]

The film is a chaotic mishmash of no storytelling, rapid storytelling, internal examination, disorienting frustration and jubilant moments. In short, it felt like I was inhibiting the chaotic mind of Ralston and was enraptured throughout.

The film succeeds precisely because it puts the audience in the mind and even body of Ralston, producing a roller coaster like effect of jarring experiences. I didn't think for example the amputation scene was graphically gory, but thanks to Franco's and Boyle's direction was nearly physical shaking from unease, something that never happens to me. I couldn't shake the thought what if I was there trapped, and imagining myself doing the same.

In short, it worked for me, because it's meant to be an experience and I got one. There's no such thing as an "objective" observer here.

[Ezee E]

I don't understand the idea that there isn't a plot. The plot couldn't be more obvious. Guy gets trapped and wants out. What the hell?

[Watashi]

The film is a chaotic mishmash of no storytelling, rapid storytelling, internal examination, disorienting frustration and jubilant moments. In short, it felt like I was inhibiting the chaotic mind of Ralston and was enraptured throughout.

The film succeeds precisely because it puts the audience in the mind and even body of Ralston, producing a roller coaster like effect of jarring experiences. I didn't think for example the amputation scene was graphically gory, but thanks to Franco's and Boyle's direction was nearly physical shaking from unease, something that never happens to me. I couldn't shake the thought what if I was there trapped, and imagining myself doing the same.

In short, it worked for me, because it's meant to be an experience and I got one. There's no such thing as an "objective" observer here.

DavidSeven says your wrong. You can't like this movie. No one can. It's a failure on every conceivable aspect.

[DavidSeven]

I don't understand the idea that there isn't a plot. The plot couldn't be more obvious. Guy gets trapped and wants out. What the hell?

Never said that. That's Watashi reducing my criticism to an easily defensible position. There's a barebones plot. It's not interesting, but it's there.

[Watashi]

The film is compelling because it really puts you in the spot of claustrophobic chaos of having your life be drained from you with every passing minute. Rolston is not a stereotypical extreme sports frat boy (where did you get that from?). He is cocky, yes, but he just someone who loves the thrill of being alive. This thrill fuels him to not give up and accept death even when most people would not be able to survive. I found it a very powerful and sincere film about realizing what kind of person you are and decide that a future is worth it without the need of a limb.

Other than that, it's a great survival story of man using his knowledge of nature to overcome it.

[Barty]

Never said that. That's Watashi reducing my criticism to an easily defensible position. There's a barebones plot. It's not interesting, but it's there.

You implied it's impossible to find the premise compelling or explain why it is. So:

A) I found the basic premise itself compelling enough without any descriptors of the style nor knowing any opinions of the quality of performance when I first heard of the movie to make me want to see it.

and

B) I just explained why it was compelling to me.

So, in conclusion, while your opinion is completely correct in so far as you didn't like the movie and personally find it lacking in every regard, your blanket assertion that nobody could explain why it's compelling or the concept itself is inherently uncompelling, is frankly, wrong, and disproven by the very existence of the fact you are arguing the position you are against a couple of us.

[DavidSeven]

Please explain why this film is a failure on every conceivable aspect.

Fails to engage. Fails to enlighten. Fails to be interesting. Fails to entertain. Fails to go beyond the limited scope of this barebones story. Poor characterization. Average acting. Boyle visualizes the urine. The direction is beyond horrid. Movie looks like a Mountain Dew commercial if the director drank Red Bull instead of Mountain Dew. At the end of movie, I came away with nothing more than a hankering for Gatorade and Coca-cola. The themes are in your face (dream of empty couch then "I need help! I need help!" then rescue/survival then couch full of friends and family). I rolled my eyes.

The movie is a guy trapped under a rock for a long time, and then he gets out. He muses in between. It's shot like Slumdog Millionaire. There are some hackneyed flashbacks inserted here and there. Does anyone want to see this movie?

[Watashi]

Never said that.


127 Hours doesn't even have a story

I'm only reducing what you plainly stated.

[DavidSeven]

Other than that, it's a great survival story of man using his knowledge of nature to overcome it.

He cuts off his arm. A mouse has the same knowledge of nature. They just do it 125 hours sooner.

[DavidSeven]

Plot and story aren't the same thing, man. Anyway, I later conceded that 127 Hours did have a story. It just sucked.

[Watashi]

Does anyone want to see this movie?

You keep asking a lot of questions when many of us (and thousands of critics and people out there) have answered them.

Does anyone want to see a movie about a woman cutting off her clitoris? A lot of people here apparently do.

[Barty]

Does anyone want to see this movie?

There was about 15 people in my auditorium last night during the show I watched it in, so yes, they do.

[Barty]

He cuts off his arm. A mouse has the same knowledge of nature. They just do it 125 hours sooner.

A mouse can't use a tool.

[Watashi]

He cuts off his arm. A mouse has the same knowledge of nature. They just do it 125 hours sooner.

Would you cut your arm off in that situation?

[DavidSeven]

Would you cut your arm off in that situation?

I don't know. Probably? Eventually? I know a mouse would.

[Watashi]

I don't know. Probably? Eventually? I know a mouse would.
You know? A mouse is dumb enough to fall for a mousetrap. Why would a mouse chew its arm off in that situation? The mouse would probably die.

[Barty]

I don't know. Probably? Eventually? I know a mouse would.

That's the point, that's what makes humans interesting, the same stimuli can produce vastly different outcomes among different people. Hence the reason comparing a mouse to this movie is not apt.

Also, the rock would crush the mouse and be dead.

[DavidSeven]

You know? A mouse is dumb enough to fall for a mousetrap. Why would a mouse chew its arm off in that situation? The mouse would probably die.

Your understanding of mice rivals your understanding of this movie.

[Watashi]

Your understanding of mice rivals your understanding of this movie.
I didn't realize you were such an expert of mice being crushed by rocks.

[DavidSeven]

The film is a chaotic mishmash of no storytelling, rapid storytelling, internal examination, disorienting frustration and jubilant moments. In short, it felt like I was inhibiting the chaotic mind of Ralston and was enraptured throughout.

The film succeeds precisely because it puts the audience in the mind and even body of Ralston, producing a roller coaster like effect of jarring experiences. I didn't think for example the amputation scene was graphically gory, but thanks to Franco's and Boyle's direction was nearly physical shaking from unease, something that never happens to me. I couldn't shake the thought what if I was there trapped, and imagining myself doing the same.

In short, it worked for me, because it's meant to be an experience and I got one. There's no such thing as an "objective" observer here.

I don't think we really get into Ralston's mind. I think we get in the mind of Danny Boyle as photographer of nature and inanimate objects. Some people connect with the emotional experience of this film. Fine, I accept that. I don't think it has much to say, and I think Boyle's aesthetic is garbage. It's a paper thin story with often distracting direction. If the scenario enthralls you in itself or if Franco wins you over by himself, fine. But I just don't think Boyle has done anything substantial here. Subjectively, of course.

[Pop Trash]

I have a feeling this will be like Into the Wild where people on M.C. will beat it up, but everyone in real life I talk to will love it.

[Derek]

I have a feeling this will be like Into the Wild where people on M.C. will beat it up, but everyone in real life I talk to will love it.

1) I liked Into the Wild and so did at least a few other MCers.

2) People in real life have shitty taste in movies. I'd trust MatchCut 10 times out of 10.

[DavidSeven]

I think Boyle's own Slumdog is the right analogy. 94% Tomatometer; mostly derided on Match-Cut. I mean, if you didn't like Boyle's direction there, I can't see how you would like this. I predict the less populist leaning MCers would hate it, but you never know. I've definitely played the part of lone dissenter before.

[Ezee E]

See, there is a little more to the movie then just an escape from a rock. Ralston's first thoughts of death occur to him during this time. What he screwed up on in life, and the type of life he never got to have. This affected me greatly.

I will say that the movie makes him out to be more of a douche then he really is, and definitely doesn't show how smart he was from the beginning.

[Spinal]

I like Danny Boyle. I liked Slumdog Millionaire. I have zero interest in this movie.

[Watashi]

Match-Cut and I often don't see eye to eye. I didn't expect much from the movie given the fading respect of Danny Boyle, but I was won over. I don't expect many people to follow.

[Watashi]

I think Boyle's own Slumdog is the right analogy. 94% Tomatometer; mostly derided on Match-Cut. I mean, if you didn't like Boyle's direction there, I can't see how you would like this. I predict the less populist leaning MCers would hate it, but you never know. I've definitely played the part of lone dissenter before.
Boyle's direction is the same in Trainspotting and 28 Days Later and I love those movies. It's not like he amped up his style for Slumdog. He's been doing this since day one.

[Rowland]

1) I liked Into the Wild and so did at least a few other MCers.Yep, it was one of my favorites from that year, and I believe it occupied Trans' top spot.

[Boner M]

Yep, it was one of my favorites from that year
Me too.

[number8]

I like A Life Less Ordinary.

[Raiders]

I like A Life Less Ordinary.

Ew.

I will definitely see this as I usually like every other Boyle film and I was "meh" on Slumdog so who knows.

[Pop Trash]

I have zero interest in this movie.

Not enough sexy lesbians?

[Ezee E]

I wrote somewhere on this site that I predicted that Match Cut would hate this movie. We'll see if everyone else follows D7.

[DavidSeven]

Boyle's direction is the same in Trainspotting and 28 Days Later and I love those movies. It's not like he amped up his style for Slumdog. He's been doing this since day one.

Hm. I don't know about that. I really like both of those films as well. It's been a while since I've seen either, but I remember the style of those films being different. Yeah, his style has been frenetic from day one, but it seemed more grounded in a a reality based aesthetic, almost verite-ish with a more active camera. Slumdog felt like a departure or perhaps an "evolution." More overtly polished -- almost like a TV commercial or music video aesthetic. So yeah, I do think he's "amped" up his style in some regard. Haven't seen Sunshine.

[Ezee E]

A Life Less Ordinary might be the most eccentric Boyle movie.

[NickGlass]

Hm, this is a tricky one--not because it's difficult to grasp, but because Boyle does too much visually and too little thematically. And, consequently, I was intrigued but never truly moved. His excessive, but not particularly audacious, cinematic techniques--some that work, a handful that don't--are compelling whether they're inspired or miscalculated. Even with built-in ideas, it all feels so surface-y.

Franco does a fine job at enacting whatever each scene calls for--sort of like a two-week acting program where one day you have to experience "anguish," the next "hunger," then "delirious absurdist comedy," then "self-realization." Speaking of self-awareness, the one moment that comes to a thematic head--a quick montage and monologue that feels too prepackaged and neat--basically espouses a lame, repurposed summation on fate and regret. Stop that, Danny! Memory is a rich theme--work with it.

[Boner M]

I liked it. Like Into the Wild, it feels exactly like the movie it's subject would've made of his experiences, and all the better for it. The overly celebratory ending and Sigur Ros-scores uplift at the end is a bit much, and Buried is still the better hot-dude-in-a-tight-spot movie of 2010, but I have no problem with the accolades this one's getting either.

[Boner M]

The film is a chaotic mishmash of no storytelling, rapid storytelling, internal examination, disorienting frustration and jubilant moments. In short, it felt like I was inhibiting the chaotic mind of Ralston and was enraptured throughout.

The film succeeds precisely because it puts the audience in the mind and even body of Ralston, producing a roller coaster like effect of jarring experiences. I didn't think for example the amputation scene was graphically gory, but thanks to Franco's and Boyle's direction was nearly physical shaking from unease, something that never happens to me. I couldn't shake the thought what if I was there trapped, and imagining myself doing the same.

In short, it worked for me, because it's meant to be an experience and I got one. There's no such thing as an "objective" observer here.
Good post.

[DavidSeven]

Gotta say, I'm surprised at Nick and Boner's enthusiasm for the film, tempered as it is (much more in Nick's case). I can accept (though might not agree) that Boyle effectively transports you into this experience, but is there anything significant to be gleaned from that or is the transportation in itself enough? Is the simple fact that he got you to the "experience" the mark of success? Are you taking shots now? FYI -- I'm seriously asking myself if that's fair approach to take. Maybe I need to see Avatar. Didn't see Into the Wild either BTW.

[Boner M]

Is the simple fact that he got you to the "experience" the mark of success?
Actually, yeah. I appreciate this kind of filmmaking, that's dedicated above all things - even at the expense of some things - to relating a perspective or experience. I like survival stories, and their innate ability to offer space for emotional projection onto their prolonged depiction of physical processes (thus, the weakest parts here are the flashbacks). The film doesn't always work, but its flaws are the result of overreaching, which are the best kind of flaws. And yeah, Franco anchors everything beautifully. I suppose the 'man vs. nature' and 'indomitability of the human spirit' themes are pretty tired, but I think Boyle breathes life into them. It all felt very alive, and recognisably human - in a way that Slumdog Millionaire didn't.

[DavidSeven]

Fair enough.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think to myself I can never appreciate another Boyle film just from thinking about Slumdog Millionaire, but then I realize, it's not just Boyle's fault, that story was baffling, complete tripe.

[number8]

So I kinda sorta maybe liked this. Framing this as a survivalist story kills it, because that side of it is pretty boring and predictable and not particularly rendered with any tension by Boyle. The film really takes off in scenes where it reflects on the stages of death. The survival mentality is the "denial" part, but it overwhelms the other, more interesting stages.

The film would be much, MUCH better if it's not based on a true story that we know the outcome of.

[number8]

All it does is remind me of this (significantly better) episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_(Homicide:_Life_on_the_ Street)) of Homicide.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ah, crap. It's not the "Sturges Touch." I got that confused with Lubitsch. It was the "Sturges Style" that was mentioned. Well, either way, my point is the same.

[Ezee E]

Ah, crap. It's not the "Sturges Touch." I got that confused with Lubitsch. It was the "Sturges Style" that was mentioned. Well, either way, my point is the same.
Boyle doesn't have the "Sturges Touch?" Got it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Boyle doesn't have the "Sturges Touch?" Got it.

:lol:

Well, I knew I posted that somewhere.

[TGM]

Damn. This movie was tremendous. I was a little wary going in that I'd like it, given the subject manner and all, but it took me by surprise and swept me off my feet. The different visual techniques and split camera stuff worked really well, and the sounds that they used when he was finally releasing himself was gloriously painful to bare witness to. And our main character's complete breakdown was fascinating to watch. This was an outstanding performance by James Franco, it's gonna be a damn shame if he doesn't take the oscar for this.

[Dukefrukem]

watchin allll the oscar noms these past two days. gettin ready for the oscars.

[Henry Gale]

I feel pretty dumb now that I realize I made this the very last Best Picture nominee that I got around to (and one of the last miscellaneous Oscar-nominated movies overall). I basically saw it just to have an opinion on it, but now I'm just completely stunned because it's not only what I feel to be one easily one of the very best films nominated, but now one of my absolute favourite movies of 2010.

The marketing for this was pretty horrible. This is not the movie the trailer makes it out to be whatsoever. The very latest TV spots try to play up the more hopeful side to the story by almost only showing footage from the flashback and swooping landscape bits, but it seems like too little too late. Why did they think it was a good idea to have the trailer simply be what happens in the first 15 minutes and then leave it on the pessimistic note of him stuck under the rock?

Either way, the film it actually happens to be, in my eyes, is as good as anything Boyle's ever done. It's intense, surreal and hilarious when it wants to be, but never frantically or inappropriately so. It always has a very firm grasp with the stylistic choices it's employing, and Franco's game for every moment of it (and it shows in exactly how much he delivers it effectively), and for the most part it's very sure of how those choices pretain to the storytelling tasks at hand.

If it didn't have the stigma of being Ralston's story, therefore having the most prominent and glorified attribute of that story (and the subsequent movie) being that he cuts off his own arm to live, then this would be a much easier film to not only approach, but to subsequently praise and recommend to people as an extremely entertaining and even invigoratingly emotional film.

Its tone and atmosphere are pretty unique and never quite locked into one gear, but the best I could describe it to those who haven't seen it is that it felt like Into The Wild had the subconscious of its subject presented like the dreams in Eternal Sunshine. Added to that there's the way its journey is given its key ticking clock of survival in terms of what gets the plot going and the direction of eventual event it needs to. But above all, it's the element of Ralston's character's baggage, and how his need to sort out the guilt of everything that's come before only complicates his reading of his current situation, and it's those moments that the entire core of the movie's success is built on and, as far as I'm concerned, beautifully delivered from.

A huge surprise for me.

[Morris Schæffer]

I agree with number 8 that this movie would have packed a bigger punch had we not known the outcome in advance, but I found it nevertheless an engaging motion picture. Sure, I don't feel that the movie transcended its one-location premise for I didn't find it overly cathartic by the end, Ralston's predicament just didn't feel as dramatic as for instance in the superior Buried, although I suppose it hardly could given the absolute confinement of the Cortes offering. Franco is good, he keeps our attention throughout, but I wasn't blown away by the performance. Enhanced as it felt by Boyle visual style, I still felt Franco alternated between screaming and looking into a camera although I realize the perf might be deceptively easy. As for Boyle's style, I'm sort of stuck in the middle as to whether it enhances or deflates the experience, but I'm veering towards the former. I wasn't bothered by it, that's for sure. I guess at the end it's about a guy who cuts off his own arm in order to survive and although that is remarkable in itself, it's still about a guy who cuts off his own arm in order to survive. Although I gasped when he spilled his water. Perhaps that is proof that this flick did certainly deliver the goods as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: And I do want to add that the final moments, with Cinematic Ralston swimming underwater only to emerge and seeing real Ralston + wife sitting on the bench smiling at him one of the finest endings of the year.

[balmakboor]

I enjoyed the heck out of this.

[Derek]

I enjoyed the heck out of this.

Is Danny Boyle creating a niche market for suffering as non-horror pop entertainment? Perhaps he'll take on the global hunger epidemic next!

[StanleyK]

This could have been a good movie if it was about 20-25 minutes long and stripped of all the flashbacks (which were mercifully short, but still unnecessary and annoying) and the emotional epiphany crap. Just a man and a rock; the scenes where Aron is figuring out how to survive, enjoying the little bit of sunlight, cutting off his arm, I enjoyed those. Oh, and if they got a good director instead of this fucking hack Danny Boyle.