Spider-Man 3 - "So Good."

The Sam Raimi series is getting closer to the end on Blank Check, which means they covered Spider-Man 3 recently. This notoriously “bad” movie has been re-evaluated over the years, and rightfully so. 

This movie should never be considered a masterpiece or even the best or second-best in the trilogy. But I do think it holds up better once your expectations are altered a bit. Raimi, for whatever reason, was attempting to make a kind of musical comedy with this entry. I can’t get behind some of the musical elements (dancing to “The Twist” while making omelets will never make a bit of fucking sense), but other moments that have been ripped apart were never meant to be taken seriously. 

Of course, I’m referencing the “emo Peter Parker” sequence. It’s very clear that the film is presenting this as a comedic moment and doesn’t seriously consider Parker to be “dark” or “cool” or whatever he thinks he’s being. It’s making fun of the fact that this is the best Peter Parker can do when it comes to being evil: pointing at uncomfortable women, demanding milk and cookies, and dancing like a horny cartoon character. 

Viewing the film as more of a comedy doesn’t make this sequence great, but it does make it a bit more bearable. Honestly, it’s still hard to watch. Rewatching this film recently, I came across another character’s arc that I found much funnier: head injury Harry.

Early in the film, Harry (who I will also interchangeably refer to as Franco) almost dies during a fight with Spider-Man. He survives, but is left with the most convenient amnesia of all time: he’s still Harry, but he’s selectively forgotten that Peter is Spider-Man. So he also no longer blames Peter for his father’s death. For some reason, this turns Harry into a grinning moron, and I love it.

Franco is hilarious in this. His line delivery of “best friends” and his face in general amused me to no end. It’s just so fucking stupid you have to laugh about it. Franco was a murderous asshole, but a knock in the head turned him into a goofy bastard walking around eating cotton candy like a dildo. Yes, Franco was a nice enough guy before he believed Spider-Man killed his dad, but he wasn’t a fucking a mental patient. 

I’ll add my favorite moments of head injury Harry in the Random Thoughts section, but before I want to move on I have to comment on how he turns on a dime when he rediscovers that Peter is Spider-Man. He goes from comically goofy to comic-book villain in a single scene. And Franco is just as funny being over-the-top evil as he is playing too nice. My favorite moment has to be the delivery of the line “So good” when asked how he likes the pie right after he destroys Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship. He is clearly taking pleasure from eating that revenge pie in the scene, and it’s hilarious.

Embracing the ridiculousness of Spider-Man 3 can only get you so far, though. This is still a far too busy movie, but watching it in the current MCU era actually benefits it in that regard. This is still a busy movie with way too much going on (“evil” Peter Parker, Venom, Sandman, head injury Harry, Eddie Brock stealing the photographer job from Peter, MJ’s career problems, relationship problems, evil Harry, etc.). There’s a lot of shit going on here, but at least it’s all contained within one movie.

No matter how busy this trilogy gets, each film works on its own. You can watch any film in the trilogy cold and still understand almost every bit of it. But if I were to just watch Raimi’s newest movie, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, without watching the bulk of the MCU, I would be distractingly confused by everything. 

As a fan of the MCU (I’m actually digging it more now than ever before after getting over a case of Marvel fatigue), I can handle the homework required to properly enjoy the current movies. But watching the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy reminded me of how nice it was to be able to watch a comic book movie without considering the events of twenty other movies. 

That doesn’t make Spider-Man 3 less busy. But it does mean that I didn’t need to watch a six-episode limited series about Sandman beforehand. And I didn’t need to see a spinoff series just about The Daily Planet to understand what’s going on with Eddie Brock. And I didn’t need to watch an origin film about the Venom goo. All this shit could just be introduced out of the blue, and it worked. It doesn’t necessarily work well (that’s a really convenient middle of the night experiment Sandman falls into, and it’s crazy convenient of that space goo to fall to earth right by Peter of all places on the planet), but it works.

Spider-Man 3 is still worse than most of the MCU films, but being able to watch it cold is nice. It still kind of sucks. But you don’t need to do any homework. And if you embrace the goofiness, it ends up being the funniest movie in the trilogy. It’s also the worst, but it isn’t the trainwreck many people claim it to be. 

Random Thoughts 

Spitwads in a college class? That should have been the first red flag that parts of this film would be woefully out of touch.

Concussion Harry is great. It's like, "Hey, I had all the asshole knocked out of me. And I'm also so fucking stupid and happy now that giving me an old basketball brings me immense joy."

Seriously, he went from funding fringe scientists trying to create new sources of energy to being legit excited about getting Peter Parker's shitty old basketball.

Then he shows up eating cotton candy and grinning like a dildo at the Spidey parade. It's hilarious. I seriously wish they hadn't introduced any new villains in this and just made the whole movie about Harry rediscovering his hatred for Spider-Man. That way, we would get at least two more scenes of blissful idiot Harry, and I'll take that any day over a sand monster or space goo.

The comical amount of sand that comes out of Spider-Man's boot is a nice touch.

"You'll get your rent when you've fixed this damn door!" 

They look at him like he just killed a puppy in front of them after this line. The dude has been hounding him for rent for YEARS at this point. Even without alien goo, Parker was bound to snap at him eventually.

The woman acting equal parts frightened and sickened by Tobey Maguire weren't actresses. That was their natural reaction to him.

Franco's line reading of "So good" when asked about the revenge pie he's eating might be my favorite moment in the trilogy.

I love the prolonged look of disgust J. K. Simmons gives Maguire as he sits in Jameson's chair.

I forgot that Eddie Brock goes to church to ask God to kill Peter Parker. This movie is so fucking stupid/great at times.

I can think of plenty of other TV stars I would rather see as Venom instead of Topher Grace, like Alf or Balky from Perfect Strangers.

The news guy says Mary Jane recently had a "brief stint" on Broadway. Ouch.

Hey, Houseman, maybe you could have told Franco about how his dad died a movie ago. 

This is the first time I noticed Flash Thompson at Harry's funeral.

"This Is the End" Makes the Apocalypse a Very Funny Thing

Written and directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen, based on the short film by Jason Stone, starring Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Danny McBride, and Jonah Hill - Rated R

The Kurgan loved it, but he thinks all end of the world movies are funny...

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewing comedies isn’t really my thing these days, but I do make exceptions for interesting comedies.  This Is the End is, at the very least, an interesting film.  End is unique not because it boasts a who’s who from comedic films of the last decade; it is different because all of the actors are playing themselves (sort of).  The fact that this is the most anticipated comedy of the year for me (and others, I assume) says something about our obsession with celebrity.  Is it an easy laugh to just have Seth Rogen play himself and riff on his past successes and failures to a knowing audience?  Yeah, but it’s still a laugh.  In a world filled with Kardashians and Real Housewives, I don’t think it’s all that terrible to use celebrity for comedy.  At least these people are doing it intentionally.  I was laughing with the guys of This Is the End; whenever I am forced to watch the other type of “celebrities,” I’m laughing at them.

 

Celebrity aside, This Is the End takes a familiar premise, the end of the world, and plays it for laughs.  It only makes sense that we’ve come to this.  There are so many hyper-serious end of the world movies out there.  Isn’t it time we laugh about it?  And honestly, who hasn’t had the conversation with their friends about what they would do if the world ended or how (zombies, rapture, aliens?) they wish it would end?  For anyone who has thought or talked about the end of the world, or needs a break from the bleakness of films like The Road, this film is for you.

 

As with all comedies, though, it all comes down to whether or not you like the actors.  I don’t want to spoil all of the cameos (although most surprises have been shown in previews), but there should be something for nearly everyone in this film.  That said, the main players are Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride, and Jonah Hill.  Most people enjoy most if not all of these actors, but some might be put off by a few of them. 

 

What’s great about End is that you might like it even if you hate some of these guys.  This is a very aware movie.  Rogen comments that some people find his laugh annoying; Franco is called out for his perceived pretentiousness, etc.  Once again, these are easy laughs, but laughs nonetheless. 

 

The only issue some may have with the film is the amount of references to other works.  It’s not required that you see everything else these guys have done, but it certainly helps.  I’m a big fan of most of these actors, so I was able to pick up on references to Freaks and Geeks, Eastbound & Down, Your Highness, and Pineapple Express, to name a few.  I would say the closest thing to required viewing is Pineapple Express.  The majority of that cast is in this film, and they even film a homemade sequel to it within the film.  You might not find that sequence funny if you have no clue what they’re referencing. 

 

This Is the End is mainly about the apocalypse, though.  While it is filled with outlandish laughs, there is still the very serious threat of death and eternal damnation throughout the film.  If there is a message behind it, it’s about friendship and being a good person (which are lacking qualities among the cast of this film, apparently).  This is hardly a message film, but at least there’s a little something there. 

 

No one is going to this movie to learn about being a good person or friend.  This movie is all about the laughs.  I loved it, but as I like to point out, my sense of humor might be (and usually is) different from the general population’s.  Perhaps the main two things to keep in mind if you’re on the fence about this movie are that it’s rated R and the cast is almost exclusively male.  Some people don’t take the R rating all that seriously, but they should.  This is certainly not a comedy for children.  It’s not a comedy for easily offended adults, either.  It’s not the filthiest comedy by a long shot, but it’s definitely not squeaky clean.  As for the lack of women in the film, this didn’t bother me (probably because I’m a man), but it might be hard for some women to identify with many of the comedic moments since this is very much a movie for the guys.  In fact, when a woman finally does show up (another moment played up in the previews) the guys instantly tense up and create a very awkward situation.  I can see a lot of women enjoying it, but they are not the target audience.

 

This Is the End is a comedy tailor made for fans of the all the actors involved.  So this movie is made for people like me, which is why I loved it.  But even if it’s not for you, I think it’s possible to enjoy it.  Because even if you don’t like them, it’s still funny to watch celebrities have to deal with problems that can’t be taken care of with money and fame.  And, finally, look at it this way: if you hate some of these actors, at least you get to watch some of them die.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

I didn't really mention it at all in the review itself because it was getting too long as it is, and I didn't feel like finding a logical spot to include it, but Rogen and writing/directing partner Evan Goldberg deserve a lot of credit here.  Not just for the writing and everything (they've already proven that they can write some funny stuff), but for the directing.  The death scenes were handled well, and they created a decent hellscape with what I assume is a relatively small budget for an apocalyptic film.  The CG was a little cheap-looking, but I can't imagine who would care about that.  Anyway, hats off to Rogen and Goldberg. 

 

Okay, now for the cameos that I loved.  Michael Cera.  I know, I know, it's all in the previews, but I still found him hilarious.  To take such a notoriously softspoken actor like that and turn him into a cocaine-blowing psycho is hilarious enough; to imagine that that is what Cera is like in reality makes it doubly funny. 

 

All the rest of the little cameos are great and all, but Channing Tatum showing up later as McBride's dog/sex slave was amazing.  I lost it when McBride said he had taught him to do tricks.

 

Not really a spoiler, but a final note: All of these guys yelling expletives at each other will always make me laugh, but for some reason when they do it as versions of themselves, I find it absolutely hilarious.

An Uneven Trip to Oz Is Still Fun, Even If It Does Feel a Decade Too Late

Oz the Great and Powerful - Directed by Sam Raimi, written by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, starring James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Zach Braff - Rated PG

I really should not have watched Oz.  It kind of represents the very films I've been condemning lately.  My most recent post involved asking, or demanding, that Hollywood stop making this movies that straddle the age line in an attempt to make a film truly for everyone.  I also complained about the fact that they seem to all be in 3D and come across as cash grabs.  Despite all of that, I still went to see Oz the Great and Powerful, and, worse yet, I actually liked it.  In my defense, I did point out that Oz was more prequel than revision of a classic story.   

I must stress that I only "liked" it.  I didn't love this film and odds are I'll never watch it again.  But I enjoyed the experience of the film (in IMAX 3D) and found myself lost in it a time or two.  It is not an amazing film or anything, though.  It is confusing in tone at times, parts of it did rely too heavily on CG, and some major roles are miscast.  More often than not, however, the film entertained me. 

The story is basically the origin of the wizard from the original 1939 film (even though this cannot be considered an official prequel because of rights issues between two different studios).  The wizard (played somewhat successfully by James Franco) is two-bit circus performer who aspires to be a great man, but succeeds only at conning gullible women into sleeping with him.  When this leads to problems within the circus, he escapes, only to be sucked into the vortex of a tornado a la Dorothy.  The wizard wakes up in Oz and begins a quest to save the land from a wicked witch. 

As far as storylines go, the film is pretty childlike and lame.  But who's watching this for a story?  All people need to know is that this is not a remake of the original, so don't expect to see the Tin Man or anyone like that. 

Oz is first and foremost a visual film and in that regard it succeeds.  I watched this in IMAX 3D, and I have to admit that I am a sucker for that format.  For one thing, the inflated ticket price makes me want to like it to justify the expense.  Secondly, when done right, it can look amazing.  Oz is certainly not a home run as far as visuals go, but there are enough moments to justify spending the extra money if IMAX is an option.  Honestly, if I had watched this in regular 2D, I would be much more harsh in my judgment. 

The greatest trick Franco ever pulled was convincing Sam Raimi that he looks like he's from 1905.

The visual and the action suffice, but the acting falls short at times.  Franco plays a swindler with a heart just fine and is believable at times, but he still seemed completely out of place, both in Oz and in the real world of the opening.  Look at Franco, does he look like someone from 1905?  I really wish one of the first two actors considered for the role, Robert Downey, Jr. and Johnny Depp, would have taken the part.  Mila Kunis plays one of three witches that could become the wicked witch (Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are the other two), and she seems out of place, as well.  The rest of the cast is fine, with Zach Braff being the only standout, in my opinion. 

It's hard to get behind this film because it just seems like director Sam Raimi is trying to one-up Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.  To be fair, he does just that, as this film is much more enjoyable.  It's just that Raimi, who is already pretty similar to Burton, should not be doing the same safe, lame work that Burton has relegated himself to.  Raimi would be better suited to stick with film's like his last effort, the sickeningly fun Drag Me to Hell.  On an uplifting note, he has said that he doesn't plan on directing the already green-lit sequel.  And on an even more uplifting note, Raimi has said that he is working on a script for Evil Dead 4, later clarified to actually be Army of Darkness 2.  In fact, many people have noted, and I agree, that Oz is very similar in structure to Army of Darkness.

Which brings me to the biggest source of contention for a film like this: what is it?  Is it a children's movie, a teen movie, or a family film.  I guess I would say it's a family film above all, but it contains elements of everything.  Is it too intense for little kids?  Maybe.  I think the original Wizard of Oz film is more disturbing than this film, though.  (CG flying monkeys have nothing on the 1939 version of a flying monkey...)    Sam Raimi did toss in a screaming witch scene (which seems to be a requirement for each of his films) that could bother some children.  This complaint applies to the humor, also.  Some of the gags are childish, but then there are multiple jokes about the wizard being promiscuous.  Sure, most of it will go over younger heads, but it still felt uneven.

Sure, this flying monkey might look goofy, but I'd still freak out if I saw this thing in person.  CG monkeys don't scare me...

Perhaps the largest part of the audience wasn't looking for any type of film other than a new Oz movie.  Let's face it, it's not like the franchise has been utilized with any regularity (although now I'm sure it is about to be exhausted).  I must admit that childhood nostalgia for that classic film was the biggest reason I bought a ticket.  But this leads me to my potential biggest problem.  I always enjoyed the original because of how each character was a physical representation of elements from Dorothy's real life.  That's fine because she wakes up back in Kansas, having learned a lesson.  So Oz is a place of her imagination.  After a little research, I found out that the film made it all a dream while the books by L. Frank Baum considered Oz to be a real place.  This film claims to be an adaptation of the books rather than a prequel to the film, so it is not beholden to that dream concept.  Okay, but then why are so many characters obviously figments of the wizard's subconscious if Oz is a real place?  The China doll with the broken legs is the wheelchair bound girl the wizard couldn't cure in the real world.  His flying chimp helper shares the same DNA as his real world helper.  There are more examples and each one is played by the same actor in each world.  Kids might not have issues with that, but that question stuck with me more than anything else in the film.  I just find it cheap for the film to cherry pick elements from both sources. 

These problems didn't really occur to me while I watched the movie.  That is the most important thing, I suppose.  Oz the Great and Powerful kept me entertained, and I didn't think of most of these negative things until later on.  Sure, a good movie should hold up under scrutiny, but I still consider it a success if it provided entertainment in the moment...and all in 3D!  I know, I know, the 3D thing is getting old, both the element itself and the complaints about it.  I must admit that this is the perfect film to utilize 3D.  The original film ushered in color in an interesting way, so it only makes sense for this film to begin as a square, black-and-white film only to expand in color and dimension when Oz is reached.  This should have been one of the first new 3D movies.  Maybe that's the problem.  This film should have been released five or six years ago.  Then maybe it would just be considered a fun time at the movies.  Instead, it's a fun time, but the scent of cash grab is still in the air.

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes"

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Directed by Rupert Wyatt, written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, starring James Franco, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, Freida Pinto, and Andy Serkis - Rated PG-13

Ape prison? Humans and apes having a battle on the Golden Gate Bridge? Sounds ripe for a Kurgan, I know, but this film is just too interesting and engrossing. A Chigurh it is!

It has been the summer of the superhero this year but one of the best films of the season turned out to be a reboot of a beloved franchise. Rise of the Planet of the Apes, overlong title and all, may have been marketed as an action-packed Apes film, but it turned out to be one of the summer’s most engrossing films. Rise does the nearly impossible job of turning a CG creation into a character that you end up caring about more than the humans onscreen.

Rise is not a prequel but a reboot of the entire Planet of the Apes franchise. Starting over seems like a fine idea after the poorly received Tim Burton remake from 2001 (a film that I feel gets dismissed and bashed a bit too much). A remake isn’t all that interesting. Starting the story from the beginning and moving on from there? That sounds much better.

The film follows Will Rodman (James Franco), a scientist whose search for a cure for Alzheimer’s (his dad [John Lithgow] suffers from it) ends up creating a drug that turns a test ape into a super intelligent simian. Things go awry and Franco ends up taking care of the offspring of the ape, named Caesar. Over the next few years Caesar develops into an abnormally smart ape that isn’t sure how he fits in with the rest of the ape or human world.

Of course, anyone who has seen the original films knows where this story is eventually headed, but Rise still holds a few surprises. The most surprising aspect of the film is how much you end up caring about Caesar. He is truly the protagonist of the film and you probably won’t mind when the film leaves Franco’s character behind a bit to follow Caesar into a prison-type sequence, which is the strongest segment of the film. Caesar works partly because of the script, but the rest is due to very good CG and a motion capture performance from Andy Serkis (Gollum/Smeagol from Lord of the Rings).

Usually an entirely CG-created character just ends up looking odd and out of place, but Caesar feels like a real presence in this film. Sure, there are some less than polished moments that look a bit fake, but he looks real when he’s around human actors and that is all that counts. And Serkis does an amazing job not just in his movements but also with his facial gestures.

The rest of the cast is fine as well. Franco creates a sympathetic character, especially in his scenes with Lithgow. Tom Felton (better known as Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter films) is perfectly cast as an annoying primate reserve worker. Brian Cox isn’t given nearly enough to do as the reserve owner, though he does what he can in his few scenes. And Freida Pinto is fine as the girlfriend character that is basically just there to be the girlfriend character.

Rise is more about creating emotion than it is about showing action, despite what the action-heavy previews may lead you to believe. The film is definitely better for it, though. There are plenty of action movies out right now. It’s nice to see a character driven summer film. And there is still quite a bit of action later on in the film and it is shot very well. Director Rupert Wyatt allows his camera to get in the middle of the action. Early on he uses this technique to track Caesar as he climbs and roams around and it is nearly hypnotic at times and that use continues with the action, giving the film a bit of style.

Perhaps most importantly, though, this film reminds you of how great this franchise can be. First off, there are plenty of little nods to the original film and most of them also help to set up a possible sequel. The film leaves you wishing the story had kept going and that is certainly a compliment. There may not be a sequel for a while, but you can still check out, and appreciate even more, the original films.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the beginning of what could be a very interesting and entertaining rebirth of the “Planet of the Apes” series. The attention to character and the film’s ability to create a compelling CG character are impressive enough on their own. Add some great segments, some interesting camerawork, and the promise of a new franchise and you end up with one of the summer’s nicest surprises.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I can't stress enough how much I loved the prison sequence of this film. The whole heirarchy of the reserve and how Caesar makes his way to the top was great, what with the use of cookie distribution and befriending a strongarm.

And how great were those sign language conversations with the orangutan?

I understand the marketability of adding "Planet of the" into the title, but I wish the original title of Rise of the Apes had been kept.

Here are some references to the original I noticed (you can check the boards at IMDb for a more complete list). There were a number of references to a lost space ship, referring to Taylor from the original...or setting up something for a sequel. At one point Caesar is playing with a Statue of Liberty puzzle figure. Tom Felton yells out that the reserve is a "madhouse" and even gets to deliver the classic "damn, dirty ape" line, though I felt the inclusion of that line was a bit cheesy and even took me out of the movie a bit. At one point a character is watching a Charlton Heston film (The Agony and the Ecstasy). The makeshift spears the apes use. And at one point Caesar rides a horse...which is awesome.

"127 Hours"

127 Hours - Directed by Danny Boyle, written by Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy, based on the book by Aron Ralston, starring James Franco, Amber Tamblyn, Kate Mara, and Treat Williams - Rated R

I know it's been a Vader heavy year for me, but I can't deny my highest rating to a movie that left such a powerful impression on me.

How far would you go to survive? It’s a theme that has been visited many times but is always interesting. Films like 127 Hours allow the viewer to ask, “What would I do if I was in that situation?” If you can ask such a question, then you can also place yourself in the story. It also helps that Danny Boyle is directing because he is a filmmaker who can place an audience within a film and he’s willing to put his camera anywhere. It is also easy to become interested in a movie when you have an actor like James Franco to completely embody a character and create entertainment as well as inspiration.

The fact that 127 Hours is a compelling film is doubly impressive because it is based on a true story. If you want to go into this film completely fresh you need to stop reading right now. I don’t plan on spelling out everything that happens in this film, but the information I will cover would be considered a spoiler for other films, so fair warning.

Franco stars as Aron Ralston who, in 2003, went biking/hiking/rock climbing in Utah without telling anyone exactly where he was going. He fell into a crevice, knocking a boulder loose in the process. The boulder fell with him, pinning his right arm against the canyon wall. This is where that true story aspect becomes troublesome. If you remember the story from the news, or you’ve seen publicity for the film, or if you notice the “Based on a book by Aron Ralston” credit at the beginning of the film, then you know that he survives. That would seem to ruin the suspense of the film, but amazingly, it doesn’t.

Prior knowledge may put a damper on things, but 127 Hours makes up for that with intensity and an amazing performance. I can’t stress enough how great Franco is in this. One scene encompasses his entire performance. Ralston pretends to host a morning talk show playing the host, guest, and caller. It is equally hilarious and disturbing. The writing takes care of a bit of that, sure, but Franco makes the scene memorable. A role about physical and mental survival already demands a certain amount of ability, and Franco surpasses that to create humor and likability, two essential elements that allow a survival movie to rise above all of the rest. His performance had me rooting for Ralston more than any other character this year. Simply put, it’s one of the best performances of the year.

Franco nearly makes the movie by himself, but Boyle has quite a bit to do with it. It’s one thing to place the camera in an enclosed spot with a character; it’s another thing to place the camera inside a character. There is really no place too small for Boyle to give the audience an angle: a water bottle, inside a video camera, inside an arm. Those shots are visually interesting but they also help create a sense of claustrophobia.

This claustrophobic sense helps place the viewers inside Ralston’s head, as well. No, Boyle doesn’t have a shot inside Ralston’s brain or anything, but getting close to the character makes it easier to seamlessly integrate hallucinations, dreams, and memories. None of these moments felt forced or strange. It all felt natural.

The film isn’t all about being close, though. Boyle’s willingness to show the large scale images sets up an interesting comparison of two extremes. One shot may be inside a character’s arm but there is also a shot from miles above the canyon as well. That shot, which starts with Franco and pulls back, gave me chills.

In fact, many moments in this film gave me goose bumps. It also made me cringe. Stories of survival always contain their less pleasant moments, but 127 Hours shows these moments with such intensity that the film will undoubtedly be very difficult to watch for many viewers if not all. Brutal things have to happen on screen in this film, but unlike recent horror films, the point of the gore is not to dare you to look away, but to do you to imagine yourself in the character’s shoes. Yes, it is obviously impossible to truly know the pain Ralston went through without experiencing it yourself, but the filmmakers used more than just visuals to place you in the scene. The sound effects of the film are just as disturbing as the visuals. While they are not realistic sound effects, they do a much better job at simulating the sensation than reality could ever do.

127 Hours is one of the best films of the year simply for being able to put the audience through the emotional gamut. Add Boyle’s direction and camerawork (I haven’t mentioned it but I also liked his use of split screens) and you have something even more special. Round it out with an award-worthy performance from James Franco and I believe you have a movie that will stand the test of time. Does that make it the best movie of the year? Not necessarily (it has been a very good year for film, after all), but it has certainly made my shortlist.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I've seen this movie three times and I still grit my teeth and cringe when he gets stuck on that nerve. All of the foreboding details about the dullness of the knife made it that much worse.

Boyle puts the camera in a water tube and sends urine into the camera. There's close and there's too close. Just kidding, it's not a fault of the film or anything, I just wanted to make sure that I put that on the internet: Danny Boyle shoots a close up of urine traveling through a tube into James Franco's mouth.

I don't think I'll ever look at Scooby Doo again without thinking of a severed arm. That random Scooby Doo stuff was one of the film's many small, but nice touches.

I liked Treat Williams as Ralston's dad in those few short scenes. The man just has a real fatherly look about him.

When Franco rises into frame and yells, "Good morning, everyone!" I laughed aloud. Still laughing after subsequent viewings...I guess it's the crazed joy in his voice and the maniacal look on his face.

I can't recall being happier for a character than I was as Ralston was making his march to the helicopter. His appearance and the music made it an amazing end to an amazing movie.