A moment or two on (gasp!) TV

*EDIT* Sorry rushed to post this and had a few typos. For a trained journalist this is appalling, which is why I'm apologizing haha. I've also changed my comment setting so you can comment without having an account :)

Wow I'm getting a lot of visitors to the blog now which makes me really happy. First off - if you'd like me to watch a film and then review it, let me know. It can be anything old or new...I'll literally watch anything.

No review to post today, just a quick update and I should be back with a few reviews and things starting tomorrow. Next up for reviews actually is a great little British film I saw on Saturday called "Made in Dagenham" starring the great Sally Hawkins, so look out for that soon.

Now, onto my little chat about TV. This is predominantly a movie/film blog, but I do watch a couple of TV shows rather religiously too. So, bare with me while I write about it for a minute or two.

I actually made a point of not watching so much television in 2010/2011 and I've stuck to that pretty well. Other than the odd guilty pleasure (Big Brother in the summer, Biggest Loser...more on that below, and 30 Rock...because obviously Tina Fey is a comedy god)...I manage to avoid it often enough. Having said this, last week's episode of Grey's Anatomy that ended in a car crash, and the much-anticipated episode airing this Thursday in which they all SING, is keeping me on the edge of my seat. And naturally since it's all I seem to think about, I decided to blog about it.

Part of my obsession with film originates with my overall ability to obsess over anything if I'm given reason enough. This began back in the day with Prince William (don't ask), went on to Angelina Jolie (pre-Brad era), and currently resides with Jillian Michaels (you don't have to get it, but really that woman is knock-me-down gorgeous). The last exception to this rule is the aforementioned Grey's Anatomy, specifically the Callie and Arizona pairing...of which I have been overly, if not disturbingly, obsessed with as of late.

Now to explain: I'm gay and with this comes a natural bias towards gay-lady storylines. They are few and far between. Yes, Grey's Anatomy is as a whole a very dramatic, sometimes annoying hour-long drama about doctors. But it's also the source of one of the most full-realized lesbian couples ever on television. While the average person might not understand the gravity of this to someone like me, I'll attempt to explain.

There is so much entertainment out there nowadays with movies, TV, web, books, etc. Mainstream television is often just that, mainstream. I don't take a great deal of issue with this actually - to me as long as the stories are well written and the acting is decent, I'm alright with it. Despite all this, when a network show that has been on the air for seven seasons (and has a strong viewer base) decides to prominently feature storylines about two awesome women surgeons who just happen to be in love with each other, I take a great deal of notice.

What makes it even better is I've watched this show since the beginning. Naturally, this makes it all the more epic to me. I can't even really explain television obsessions. Sure, I have a good head on my shoulders and most of the time I realize that strongly obsessing over a show, any show, comes across a bit vapid. Regardless, haha it is happening to me this week.

I guess all it takes is an intense storyline involving accidental pregnancies, two women crazy in love but also crazy different, a surprise marriage proposal and now this week - a hallucinatory episode that leads to a great deal of television surgeons breaking out into song. And I can't help but love it. Hopefully once the episode airs on Thursday, I'll be able to get my brain back into the real world.

In the meantime...check out this wicked sneak peek (if you are so inclined). Warning if you haven't seen this and don't want to...it is a SPOILER.

Oh television, sometimes you are so bad that you're gooood.

Anyway, enough TV talk I'll be back with a new review hopefully tomorrow. In the meantime, please comment! What are your favourite TV shows? Do you have any guilty pleasures that no one really understands? I'd love to hear about it.

RRReview #5: Morning Glory (What's the story? That it's boring)

I seem to be on this kick lately of watching films on DVD (like I may have mentioned I see far more films at home than in the theatre). This is often a good thing, because watching films at home allows you to turn them off whenever you feel like it, especially if they are either:

a) completely and utterly predictable and unoriginal
b) start off promising but then fall into similar patterns of predictability OR
c) are just plain boring/sucky (yes I know this is a juvenile word but seriously, I'm getting frustrated with the state of modern films these days)

Unfortunately, after my little rant the other day about a film that falls wholeheartedly into two of these categories, I'm back at it again today with the unfortunate, and truly disappointing slop that is, Morning Glory.

Morning Glory
Starring: 
Rachel McAdams, Patrick Wilson, Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton AND Jeff Goldblum

Directed by: 
Roger Michell. Don't worry I didn't know who he was either, but he directed Notting Hill AND Changing Lanes which I actually quite enjoyed at the time.

On DVD or in theatres? On DVD and Blu-ray

Spoilers? Yes, many. But if it's any consolation - it's nothing you couldn't figure out for yourself five minutes into this movie.

I should preface all the complaining I'm about to do by saying that I am a news/journalism movie fanatic. One of the films I was most obsessed with as a kid was Up Close and Personal simply because it was about two journalists who fall in love. I went to journalism school at Carleton, I make documentary films, I have worked in television newsrooms on and off camera, including on a morning show (albeit a very small, laid back one) - hence the obsession.

 
Despite all this...I no longer work in journalism, and never really did full time. I do not claim or profess to know anything at all about what it's really like to work full time as a morning show producer for a major television station, as the film's protagonist Becky Fuller (played by McAdams) does in this film. And I suspect that this is actually what the film gets right. I'm sure the depiction here of what it's "really like" to be a workaholic producer for a fledgling morning show is pretty accurate. However, my problem is not with how real this film is or is not; it is with the sheer dullness of it all.

When you have a cast full of film legends that includes two incredibly talented young actors in their own right, even a romantic comedy like this should work. But for some reason it doesn't. And I think ultimately it's because none of them are given anything really funny, original, or even just interesting to do.

Sure, Keaton and Ford (as journalists Colleen Peck and Mike Pomeroy, respectively) try really hard to be hilarious as the aging, cantankerous duo that end up hosting a morning show together. And McAdams puts all of her usual cute smiles and perkiness into this role, although it comes off a bit uneven. I also won't say that I didn't get a chuckle here or there from a particularly crazy news scene.

My ultimate issue with the film is with what I will call the "chick flick complex". This film complex varies among romantic comedy plots, but in this case the formula goes something like this: a girl is so work-obsessed that she struggles with relationships, only to realize the error of her ways by meeting some cute guy who helps her realize there’s more to life. It works sometimes, but when the comedy and romance needed to balance this type of story out are not there – it just falls flat.

McAdams, Keaton and Ford getting' their news on.

It’s also just *so* predictable, a complaint I believe you will find from many a film nut, because we watch so many films. But really, is it so bad to ask for a bit of originality?

To demonstrate I'll explain the plot slightly. First Becky gets a producing job at a major national network that has a failing morning show. It needs better ratings to stay on the air, and Becky needs a job.

She then encounters and subsequently fires a very creepy co-host (played very well by Ty Burrell of current Modern Family fame), only to have no luck finding a new host, and ultimately being led to blackmail a widely respected journalist named Mike Pomeroy (think Dan Rather type) into taking the job. Pomeroy hates the show and the work but is legally required to be on air. He feels that he is above the petty nonsense of morning television and therefore does everything in his power to be an ass. Oh and Becky also meets a television producer (played by Wilson) on her first day of work who catches her eye.

Just by reading this little synopsis – I would be willing to bet that you could predict 3/4 of the rest of this plot. This is how I predicted it: hilarity ensues, the show starts to be successful, the old curmudgeon teaches the young girl a thing or two and learns something about himself in the process, and at the end the girl gets the guy and realizes there is more to life than getting the job at the biggest network.

Sounds about right eh? Oh whoops, too bad that's exactly what happens.

I don't know...maybe this is the kind of film you, dear blog reader, would enjoy. Maybe you think, hey I need a nice "feel good, rom-com" every once in a while. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I agree with you. Some of my favourite films are actually these types of cheesy, easy to watch, easy to relax with movies. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't demand to be thoroughly entertained by these types of films.

Afterall, if they are not being made to win awards, provoke thought or shed light on important issues - shouldn't they at least be entertaining? I think so.

Ultimately, this is standard fare...and for me that's not good enough. It may be enough for you.

Morning Glory is out now on DVD and Blu-ray.

What do you think about my review of Morning Glory? Agree or disagree? I really, really, really want to hear from you! Please leave a comment, I don't bite :)

My favourite Rotten Tomatoes critic's quotes about this film:

"A bizarre celebration of dumbing down that fails to work as satire, comedy or romance. The characters are one-note and a good cast is wasted."

 "Basically a self-serving justification for the prominence of fluffy entertainment over sharply written and intelligently crafted stories."

"Presumably, we are meant to find this cute, rather than intensely depressing."

"Little glory in this heavy handed formulaic comedy."

In honour of a true legend, RIP Elizabeth Taylor

As most of you know by now (word travels fast these days), Elizabeth Taylor, a true screen legend and icon, passed away this morning at the age of 79.

Since this is ultimately a film blog, and one that has a great deal of respect for everyone involved in them, I had to write a little something about the amazing Liz Taylor. She was an actress from a generation that knew what glamour and talent were really about. Throughout her insanely varied and sometimes sordid life, one thing remained steady: she was a truly great actress and philanthropist, who stood up for AIDS and gay rights at times when it was not popular to do so. She was a class act, and will hopefully be remembered for generations.

In lieu of reviews, I'm simply going to list some of my favourite Elizabeth Taylor films and roles. I would encourage all of you to check some of them out. Older films really shouldn't be just a novelty to us modern-day folk; because they are a glimpse into the real past, a past that in part shaped who we are today. It is for this reason that given the choice, I would watch a classic Hollywood film over a modern popcorn flick any day of the week.

My "Liz Taylor Top 5"

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Role: Martha

Little Women (1949)

Role: Amy March

Cat On a Hot Tin Roof (1958)

Role: Maggie Pollitt

Father of the Bride (1950)

Role: Katherine 'Kay' Banks

...and OF COURSE (my personal favourite even though it's not really a great film at all) 

Cleopatra

Role: Cleopatra

Rest in Peace, Elizabeth Taylor. 1932-2011

DVD RRReview Double Feature... "Apocalypse: The Second World War" and "Band of Brothers"

I think there comes a time in each person's life (at least in mine haha) where you realize that so much history has happened before you. For me that point was learning about the Second World War.

My grandparents lived in Holland during the Second World War and my grandfather was sought after by the Germans throughout most of that time for helping Jews. I heard this story and others from them growing up, but naturally had no real sense of how horrendous a time it was. I have luckily grown up in a time when this was not a part of my reality.

In the past few years, I have read the odd historical review and finally delved into some great books about the period. I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and last year read Hell's Cartel: IG Farben and the Making of Hitler's War Machine, both fantastic historical books.

But naturally, seeing as I'm a film nut, I sought out films that would show me this world I could not imagine ever existing in.

This was when I discovered the excellent HBO 10-part miniseries Band of Brothers and the unbelievable documentary six-part series Apocalypse: The Second World War.

Seeing as they are both now available on DVD (the English version of Apocalypse came out this week) I wanted to take the time to review two sets that I HIGHLY recommend you check out.

Band of Brothers
Starring: Scott Grimes, Damien Lewis, Ron Livingstone, Shane Taylor, Donnie Wahlberg, and many other amazing actors
Created and Produced by: Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg (among many others)
Spoilers in this review? Not much.

When I first stumbled upon Band of Brothers it was one of the episodes that happened to be playing on TV halfway through a marathon run of the miniseries on HBO Canada. I had no real idea who the characters were, but I was immediately enthralled by the acting and overall feeling I got from it.

I decided to seek out the first episode, and was glad it was the weekend, because by the end of that night I had watched the first six episodes (out of ten) straight through. I then went on a mad dash through Ottawa to try to find the series on DVD just so I could finish watching it as soon as possible.

But why would a ten-part miniseries about American soldiers during the Second World War be so intriguing to my generation? Apart from unbelievable storytelling and excellent directing and acting, I can't quite put my finger on it entirely. Ultimately I think you have to watch it for yourself to understand.

Based on the book of the same name by WWII Historian Stephen L. Ambrose, the scriptwriters for this series made a strong effort to tell the real stories of the soldiers in Easy Company throughout the war. This group, some of the first ever paratroopers, lived, sweat and died together for years.

Each episode begins with real interviews with these now old men talking about their war experiences. The story that follows each set of interviews, ends up being the fictional depiction of what they've just explained. It is not only effective stuff, it's absolutely enthralling.

I should say that I'm not big on war, in general. I'm not the type to read or watch war related material; and I'm not that fond of the constant glorious depictions of American soldiers, when the Canadian effort (which was astounding) is often left forgotten. But this series is an exception to all the rules.

It is a bit of a time commitment, but one that you will not regret. I think the stories speak for themselves, which is why I will refrain from going into further detail. Suffice it to say...Band of Brothers is not just one of the best miniseries' ever created, it does great justice to all who served the world during one of our darkest hours.

Best episodes of the ten-part series:
Part One "Currahee" Establishes the relationship these men have and where it will take them.
Part Six "Bastogne" Depicts the epic battle that took place in the depths of European winter.
Part Nine "Why We Fight" The soldiers stumble upon a concentration camp and are forced to deal with the consequences. They then take Hitler's Eagle's Nest in Bavaria.

------------------------------

Apocalypse: The Second World War
Documentary series of "Declassified, colourised, and restored footage reveal World War II as it has never been seen before."
Created by: Daniel Costelle, Isabelle Clarke, Jean-Louis Guillaud, Henri de Turenne
Spoilers in this review? No.

This is yet another series I happened to stumble upon last year. Created in France by expert documentarians, this six-part documentary series is one of the starkest and most beautiful restorations of WWII footage and photos ever realized on film. It tells the story of the war in Europe from its beginnings, to its ultimate end in some of the most riveting scenes I have ever witnessed.

While Band of Brothers is ultimately a fictionalized take on real-person accounts of the war, this doc is made up of *entirely* recovered and restored footage taken during the war. It includes never before seen footage of Hitler taken by his personal videographers; it also includes the amazing work of filmmakers who risked their lives to document this period in time, and showed the world what was really happening in war ravaged Europe.

As a documentary filmmaker myself, I watched this footage and was so inspired by what it must have taken to gather it. The access and trust they were given was astounding. Added to it all that much of the black and white footage has been restored to colour, which makes it all the more haunting.

Documentaries (particularly historical docs) often get a bad rap for being "boring" or "slow" simply because they attempt to tell the story through the eyes of those who experienced it, rather than giving it the sensationalized "Hollywood" version of events. While this is obviously an unfair assumption, in the case of Apocalypse it would be a real shame if people did not see it based on these preconceived notions.

By watching this series, you will not only be learning about this world-changing series of events in history, but you will perhaps be able to imagine how horrible it was for those who lived through it.

I HIGHLY recommend checking out the Blu-ray version of this disc if you are able, as it most clearly and sharply renders these striking images, an amazing feat given that this footage is now almost 70 years old.

RRReview #2: Love and Other Drugs (you'll need drugs after watching this)

Wow, I would really have hoped to start updating this a bit more regularly since the first post…but with the Japan nuclear stuff happening (part of my job is to help respond to it) AND the added bonus of my getting a laryngitis-type something sickness and being sick for almost a week now…it just hasn’t been in the cards!

But I have seen a lot of movies lately (although sadly, not very many good ones).

I’ve decided that while this is Renée’s Rambling Reviews, I am not going to bore you by going into insane depth about the plots of films. You can read these anywhere and really…this is really just a random blog with my opinions of these things.

No more rambling…on to a review (one for now, more as I have time to write them).

Love and Other Drugs

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway, Anne Hathaway’s boobs, and Jake Gyllenhaal’s stomach and lip mole

Directed by: Edward Zwick (other films include Blood Diamond, Defiance, and Legends of the Fall)

Spoilers in this review? Who cares if there are? This movie BLOWS.

Yeah, you should be covering your mouth Gyllenhaal, to stop my having to hear this horrid dialogue again.

Ok so I’m not going to go into too much detail about this film, other than to say in a few different ways how much I really, truly hated it. Yes, you would think a film starring two of young Hollywood’s best looking and (arguably) talented actors would be at the very least a decent film, right? WRONG.

The main issue with this movie is it does not know what it is. Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a biting satire on the pharmaceutical industry? Is it a melodrama about Parkinson’s disease? Is it a sex comedy? Well really…it tries to be all of these things, and ends up being none of them, all at the same damn time.

Jake plays Jamie: your typical movie “cad” who is an amazing salesman both in life, and with women. He could sell sand to a camel, or however that expression goes. We learn this through a series of incredibly annoying shots of him working at an audio/video store (this is set in the mid to late 90s).

Jamie, being a failure in a family full of doctors, decides to become a pharmaceutical rep for Pfizer, which is where the satire bit comes in. Except that it’s not biting. And it’s not really satire. It’s just plain dumb.

Through a bunch of insanely idiotic shenanigans, Jamie meets Maggie: a cutely aloof young girl with early-onset Parkinson’s disease. They fight, she turns him down. They have sex one night even though they both don’t want anything serious. They fall in love. Way to be original, screenplay.

The movie then unfolds in the confusing matter I outlined above. We learn that Maggie is really sick and will continue getting sicker as life goes on. Despite a few touching moments here, and a real valiant attempt by Hathaway to honour those with Parkinson’s, it comes across as mixed up. Naturally, Jamie is upset that his girlfriend will eventually need to be taken care of fulltime. Cue melodrama and cheesy nothingness.

I think what ultimately bothers me about this film is that there is really nothing (at all) redeeming about it. It seems more hell-bent on making both actors look bad with its horrendous dialogue, uneven and confusing narrative, and ultimately shallow approach to a very serious disease; a disease that deserves to be presented properly, not simply used as a narrative device to show how the characters “change” when they meet each other. And don’t even get me started on the horrendous plot points that involve Jamie’s pharmaceutical rival, and his insanely disgusting, unfunny brother.

Oh and I haven’t even mentioned the nudity yet! Unnecessary nudity might I add. If I had more patience and less urge to pop my eyes out with a fish hook while watching this, I could have counted how many times we see Hathaway’s boobs, Gyllenhaal’s giant bug eyes, mole and (even I’ll admit it) gorgeous abs. But, why are they fully nude in pretty much all of their sex scenes? I cannot for the life of me figure out an answer to that. 

Haha we love being naked for no reason. Where's our Oscars?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love nudity as much as the next gal. Nudity in films can definitely be appropriate and serve as a key moment in a story. But in this film it is totally unwarranted! Think: any Julia Roberts film, but instead of the cute kissing and waking up in bed together…there were full-out, raunchy sex scenes where you don’t just see boobs…but an entire naked woman’s body! Again, I love naked bodies tons (tons!) but not when it’s just there to see like an “edgy” film.

Lastly, the music. Ahhh how easily a movie soundtrack can make or break a film. In this case it takes something that is already dying, and really flogs it dead. Apart from the horrid musical montages, there is the incessant “church music” as one other reviewer described it, that they insist on playing behind each and every scene with Jamie and Maggie in it. This might be fine, except that it is not emotional…it’s just plain HILARIOUS. It’s some throaty woman humming no particular tune. It would have been better suited in the sex scenes if you catch my drift (bown chicka wahn wahn). I could hear it in my dreams the night I watched the movie.

Ultimately, to end this rant…I do NOT recommend this film. Unless you have a real hankering to see either of these actors naked. Perhaps the single and ONLY redeeming point? A scene when we see some real Parkinson’s patients making light of their difficult situations. Yes, that’s right folks. It took REAL people to redeem any part of this movie.

NEW BLOG FEATURE!!!! My favourite quotes from reviewers that also hated this film (courtesy of the amazing website Rotten Tomatoes):

“At least we now know why Anne Hathaway's co-presenting this year's Oscars. She's not gonna make it to that stage any other way.”

“Strange how for a movie about a Viagra salesman, we don't see the growth of the characters.”

“Beneath the gloss is the deeply unsatisfying feeling that Zwick isn't telling us enough about Parkinson's.”

“I ended up wondering how a screenplay this messy had ever gone into production, let alone attracted two actors of this quality.”

What did you think of Love and Other Drugs? Do you seriously agree with me? Or do you think I’m a nutcase with no real sense of film quality? Let me know in the comments, I’d love to hear from you!

Stay tuned!

To anyone who has read the first two posts, thanks!

It's been a nutty week for me both work-wise and home-wise. I hope to be back with a new review within the next few days so stay tuned :)

On the docket: Love and Other Drugs (which was horrendous), Morning Glory (almost equally horrendous), and Inside Job (quite good, and won the best doc Academy Award this year!).

In other exciting (but personal) news: I have started work on a feature length documentary! It is early days still...but I may use this blog as a way of explaining what it's like to actually make a real film.

No, this is not me. But this is how cool I look when shooting a doc. Haha.

Rambling Review #1: "127 Hours"

Hey there! Awww...you came back! I must be doing something right, or you're just bored again. Either way, kudos to you for making one seriously good decision today.

A self portrait.

So, where was I? In keeping with what will hopefully be one of many reviews to eventually grace this little blog o' mine, I've decided to kick off my Rambling Reviews with the highly entertaining Danny Boyle film 127 Hours which is conveniently available on DVD at your local store starting today.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I can't give it all away in the first two and a half minutes like most modern movie trailers do. First, my requisite ramblings for the day (the blog is called that for a reason).

How did I/will I choose the films that I will review on this blog? Well luckily for me I get a LOT of free movie rentals, so I generally watch those (unless it looks too horrid to even consider). The rest of the time, I head out to my second favourite place in the world, the theatre (please read this in a British accent) to see something that sounds good, looks good or has gotten good reviews.

I should say to that I try (and you should too), to not to let actual reviews stop me from seeing something if it appeals to me. Reviewing films is largely subjective, which is why I think people who review films for a living are often wrong. And why I may often be wrong. But I don't get paid for this. Those other lucky bastards do.

Despite this I am a huge movie review junkie. I read all kinds of blogs and other websites to hear everything and anything about films. So who do I agree with/think you should also check out? Well, this guy is awesome (obviously). Oh and these two guys (who are also awesome and have an awesome podcast that you should ALL download because it is far more comprehensive, nerdy and rambling about films than this blog will ever be).

Anyway, phewf, on to what matters here: the review.


127 Hours
Starring: James Franco, the Utah desert, and a very stubborn reddish coloured rock.
Directed by: Danny Boyle (other films include Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later, and Trainspotting).
Spoilers in this review? Yes, but hopefully not too many.

What would you do if you were stuck in a large mountain crevice in the Utah desert, with your right hand pinned between a large reddish coloured rock and an unmovable canyon wall? Oh yeah, you've also got hardly any water left, little food, no means of communication, no one knows where you are, and to top it all off - you have no real way of getting said rock away from your slowly dying, purply coloured hand. While most of you would probably say "Pish paw I would never get myself in that position to begin with!" this is in fact what happened in real life to adventurer Aaron Ralston. It is then naturally Ralston's book based on this ordeal called Between a Rock and a Hard Place  that is the basis for the film adaptation (I have yet to read the book but it is definitely high on my list now).

Spoiler alert! As I'm sure you all know by now, Ralston did end up surviving the incident by cutting off his own arm and stumbling to safety. But what the film does extremely well, apart from showing that excruciating three minutes when he's actually removing the appendage with a dull utility knife, is depict this man's journey to that lonely canyon, and what was going through his head while his own personal hell is occurring.

What I particularly loved about this film was how it made me feel (like an emotional, blubbering mess by the end), and the overall content of it (beautifully shot, edited, directed and acted). Danny Boyle really gives a lesson in sheer skill here, somehow taking what could have been an incredibly dull 94 minutes of James Franco staring into the camera, and making it insanely watchable.

For anyone familiar with his other work (Slumdog Millionaire in particular) you will notice some of the same frenetic pacing that Boyle likes to use, with lots of jump cuts, wide establishing shots and some seriously wicked handheld work that we see when Ralston is stuck in the same place for 3/4 of the movie. This paired with an awesome score by A.R. Rahman (of Slumdog fame as well), combines into a truly beautiful film.

The structure of the film is what ultimately works the most here. One of my favourite things about it is how Boyle has book-ended it with shots of crowds: crowds running in a race, crowds getting on and off the commuter train, crowds at a sports game. At the beginning of the film you see the way Ralston lives - we are introduced to him as he scrambles to prepare for another weekend of outdoor solitude, ignoring his sister and mother's phone calls...he's clearly a huge loner. He heads off into the canyons of Utah to bike and hike his way all over the mountains, not telling a soul where he is going. He also keeps a video diary of sorts that looks like something he would later post on YouTube; the camera later coming into major play when he is stuck in the canyon.

The point here is that you almost long to be him at the beginning (at least I did): away from the rat race, biking and hiking through the wilderness with not a care in the world. I'll get back to this at the end of the review.  

After a brief encounter with a couple of girls hiking, Ralston slips and falls down a large canyon crevice, bringing the giant rock (which is totally a character in the movie) down upon his right hand. As the next 127 hours take place (albeit, in a sped up fashion for film purposes) we see him go through a range of emotions from panic, anger and sarcasm, to acceptance and delusions, as he realizes what he needs to do to get out of this very unfortunate pickle.

This is where the other major kudos for the movie comes from: James Franco's exquisite acting. He was nominated for an Academy Award for this performance and rightfully so. Franco here is able to bring to the role all of the things this character needs to convey, and he does it very realistically. Not that I haven't liked him before, but I think this is by far his best performance to date. When you see Ralston apologizing into his little camera to his parents for not being a better son, it is heart wrenching. I doubt another actor would have been able to make this film as interesting as he did.

My other favourite element of the film is the vignettes. As his time in the canyon grows longer and more dire, there are some really beautiful moments where we see Ralston having flashbacks to otherwise minor events in his life: playing piano with his sister, meeting a the first girl he ever loved, laughing with his family. I've read in other reviews that some thought these moments were too stereotypical, but that is really the reason why I think they worked so well - they are moments that anyone could have had, that anyone can relate to, and that anyone would look upon with sadness if he or she were faced with their own impending doom.

It is through these images that we come to realize not only that he is changing as he lays stuck between this rock and a hard place (haha clever, aren't I?), but that we should all consider how precious these small moments in life really are. It may sound trite, but the way it is conveyed is very beautiful...I dare you to not be just a little moved.

Something of course must also be said about the infamous butchering of the arm scene. I challenge you to sit through it without cringing. I managed to stick to it though, keeping my eyeballs glued to all the nastiness that ensues. I read one review that said it best: by this point in the film you are so committed to Ralston getting out of this predicament alive, that you feel it would be an insult to him and yourself not to watch this horribleness unfold. Let's just say it's not for the faint of heart...oh and you might want to employ earmuffs too as some of the noises are quite jarring.

Going back to that book-end sequence that I mentioned before...this kicks in once again at the end of the film. But by this point, the strangest thing had happened to me: I no longer wished to be that carefree guy we saw biking and hiking in the wilderness, I just wanted to live. Live every small, boring moment of my life with gusto and happiness and respect.

Ultimately this is why I loved this film so much (and why, if my girlfriend hadn't been sitting near me I would have cried HARD for a good ten minutes after it was over). It somehow tapped into that core part of me that has always wanted (but likely failed) to subscribe to the Carpé Diem (Seize the Day) philosophy. 

I don't know about you - but when I film can make me feel emotions that strongly...I'd qualify it as a huge success. All in all, if you care at all about any of the things I just mentioned, I would highly recommended checking it out.

So, what did you think of 127 Hours? Did you love it, or hate it? Let me know in the comments.