Thrills, Tension & Inspiration: All Within 127 Hours
November 5th, 2010 by Aaron Neuwirth
127 Hours is a fantastically made dramatic thriller about survival and reflection. Based off of a pretty amazing true story about a mountain climber getting stuck in a horrible situation, this film does a great job of taking the viewer through this experience by injecting it with lots of energy, slick photography, a great soundtrack, and a wonderful lead performance from James Franco. The film has its share of thrilling moments, with one particularly hard to watch scene, but it is still well worth it, because the whole film is both gripping and poignant. Continue reading ‘Thrills, Tension & Inspiration: All Within 127 Hours’
I suppose it can be construed that Director Todd Phillips took on this project to give himself some much needed distance from his previous surprise hit (The Hangover) before tackling his next project, The Hangover 2 (currently in production). I could completely understand if this was true and in all honesty, I would not blame him a bit before doing so. However, maybe he was forced to take on this. But really, who cares? What it all comes down to is the big question of whether or not his outing was successful? 
So to get this out of the way, this movie is pretty terrible, but gets a bonus half of a star because the film was in fact shot in 3D (as opposed to converted) and did feature saws. Anyway, seven years later after the flawed, but only acceptable film in this series, Saw once again opens on Halloween weekend, but this time adding a whole new dimension. While I am aware that the gore-hounds will once again enjoy this film for the most part, the same problems and reasons for why I dislike this series exist: Ridiculous logic, plot, and characters, along with a lack of suspense, instead replaced by ample ways for you to feel dirty afterward. But hey, at least this should be the final Saw we see. 
There are certain words that I generally don’t like to use. One of those words is corny. Unfortunately, upon seeing initial trailers for this film, “corny” was the only word that really kept coming to mind. I was not quite sure why. The film was directed by Clint Eastwood, who has a pretty solid track record. It stars Matt Damon, who is consistently good in films. And it has an interesting premise, which is quite a change up as far as Eastwood films are concerned. Fortunately, this film actually delivered far greater than I thought it would. 
As a quick message for those trying to go in as fresh as they can: This film works for what it is. If you enjoyed the first film, then you will most likely enjoy this film. It may not be perfect, but it achieves something that most horror movies, these days, don’t – it scared me. Similar to the first film, this film plays with a simple idea and covers much of the same ground that the first film did. However, with a change in location, use of multiple cameras, and a higher budget, this film manages to build upon what the first achieved as well as tie in nicely to the story that took place in the first. 
Many will definitely be mislead by the title, but Monsters is a low budget sci-fi drama about two characters trying to get back home. While the film is certainly set in a world where aliens exist, with many scenes that show the destruction and changes in the world that have resulted from them, the film is in fact handled in a much more minimalist fashion. Structured as a road movie, the film is more about developing the relationship between two characters on a journey, with subtle commentary regarding immigration and government protocol, among other themes. 
Stone is a meandering drama that makes sure to preach its themes pretty loud and clear, but also features very good performances from its stars. It deals with characters suffering from their own flaws and also looks to add some twists on atonement and what makes someone a sinner. Then you have the element of a sexually charged thriller to bring in the kids. Basically you have a lot of ins and outs for this OK film. 
MTV has a knack for releasing films that do not necessarily follow any one given path. For instance, take their most successful film franchise; Jackass. Johnny Knoxville and the boys have returned for a third and likely final go-around, but this time in 3D. Aptly titled, Jackass 3D, Knoxville, Pontius, Weeman, Steve-O and the rest of the gang have put together what is arguably the best of the three films, certainly outdoing the choppy humor of the second film in which lulls were abundant. 
A decent action comedy that I feel is going to get more love from general audiences than I had for it. I certainly enjoyed the movie overall, thanks to its casting and a couple of fun action scenes, but something about this film’s energy just did not hold up well throughout. While based on a much darker graphic novel, I was not as much disappointed with this film’s departure from the source material as much as I just didn’t really care for the story presented in this movie. To make a vague reference, this movie is more fun than it is good. 
It generally takes a lot for me to recommend a documentary on better terms than whether it was good or bad, or if it’s strong enough to catch in cinemas. Some, in recent time, have naturally led me to strong recommendations, like King of Kong or Murderball, which are very well made, but also edited to have a fairly linear plot line, despite being a doc. For docs such as this one, where the film has a lot of strong things to say about its subject matter, but also functions like a lecture or an info-dump, it can be harder to strongly get behind. 
A mildly entertaining comedy drama that functions like a John Hughes film set in a psychiatric ward. There are elements present that could have made this a much better movie, chief among them being the performance by Zach Galifianakis, but the overall tone of the film never quite pulls off being both effectively comedic and dramatic in the right fashion. More disheartening is that the lead actor’s performance is incredibly bland, which really does the film no favors. It is unfortunate for a director team coming off two better films. 
Wes Craven deserves some kind of recognition this year. Despite having to suffer through such duds as The Last Airbender, Jonah Hex, and even a remake of Craven’s own horror classic A Nightmare On Elm Street, somehow, Craven has managed to write and direct the worst film of the year, which is the best thing I can say about My Soul to Take. I am not one to be caught up in the star ratings I assign to movies, but while I may give only so many movies five stars, it is definitely rarer for me to give a movie half of a star. It is not something I take joy in; really, it just makes me sad. 
I told my friend Allison that I would be attending a screening of Katherine Heigl’s latest rom-com disaster. Her response to me was as follows: “The JD [Josh Duhamel] one? The cliché about the couple who get the baby, fall in love, and have a bunch of funny mishaps along the way?” Allison gets props for this, because it is a very accurate summation of the flick, with the mishap of course being that this film was made. That may be a bit harsh, but suffice it to say, there is nothing very special about this very predictable story. 
The best way I can describe this film is “very Disney.” It follows all the rules of the inspiring, Disney-produced, sports film, based on a true story. You have a few underdogs, characters with determination, the wild card mentor character, the skeptical stand by characters, the arrogant former champions, and even a “magical negro character.” All of these factors add up to making a film deemed “crowd pleasing” by general audiences. There is nothing inherently wrong with this film (despite the many character changes for it); it is just very shallow and by-the-numbers. 
Oh man, this was a movie alright. I need to hurry up and type this one out quickly, because I might literally forget what happened in it in the next few minutes. This was a horror film made as if plenty of others hadn’t done anything like this ever before, and it proceeds without any sense of irony or satire. There is no joke to be in on here, instead you have a film trying way too hard and characters shouting things like “he’s watching us!” and “I don’t wanna die!” And then you of course have the required amount of gore. I’m still recalling things about this movie, so brace yourself for more…
An important thing to note right off the bat about this film is that it is not “Facebook: The Movie.” This is a film, based on a novel that recounts the creation of Facebook through multiple perspectives and the legal action that followed. I believe this film could have just as easily been about the creation of some other type of defining invention and still be able to tell the same sort of story. However, as this film is about the creation of Facebook, it certainly has the task of showing the value of social networking and giving a portrayal of what it means to be growing up in this generation as far as some are concerned. 
Of all the films adapted from graphic novels released this year, Tamara Drewe will probably be the one met with the least amount of fanfare. Despite being based on a very popular British comic strip by Posy Simmonds, it is not one about having a flashy genre premise. As fun as those films can be (and as much as I enjoy them, e.g. Kick-Ass and I think I’ve been clear about my love for Scott Pilgrim) Tamara Drewe is a very enjoyable and sexy contemporary comedy. 
Let’s start off with the obvious question. Who out there reading this doesn’t have a Facebook account, a show of hands please? I futilely resisted all these years, but when pressured by the marketing forces behind the studios to get one for promotion of our reviews, I reluctantly succumbed having no choice in the matter really, and you know what? I actually liked it and it can quickly become real addicting if you let it. Heck, even grandparents around the country are on the site daily growing their farms or playing Mafia Wars. 
