Tuesday, 4 January 2011

127 Hours

I really think Danny Boyle needs to calm down. When you reach the point where you can't show somebody drinking from a bottle of water without sticking a camera in the straw you need to take a step back and check yourself.
If you don't know the entire story of 127 Hours by now then you must have been living under a rock for ages, ho ho ho. So it's a bit unnecessary actually going to see the film now, except to enjoy the sight of (spoiler) a man ripping his own arm off with a blunt knife. There's nothing else of any substance in the film - no real insight into James Franco's character, no revelatory spiritual journey for him to undertake while he's stuck in his horrific predicament and no sense that the whole experience changed him any more than leaving him a couple of kilos lighter.

All the trippy editing, innumerate fantasy sequences and flashy flashbacks do is remind you that YOU'RE WATCHING A FILM, and A DANNY BOYLE FILM at that, which kind of does a disservice to Aron Ralston, the man whose story was probably told perfectly adequately in his book, upon which the film is based.

Having said all that, 127 Hours is an entertaining and obviously, at times, challenging watch, but when a story's been Boyled this much it just feels like all the human drama has evaporated into hot air. Last year's best film, Buried, proved you didn't need visual Tourette's to skillfully and thrillingly tell the story of a man trapped in a confined space. Just confidence in yourself, faith in the story and respect for your audience. All qualities Danny Boyle began his directorial career with, but which he seems to have at some point amputated and left under a rock of box office success in the great crevice of cinema.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the worst metaphor you'll read today.


  1. Well, sharply too the point, that was a blunt but armless review. Were you legless when you wrote it?

  2. What a poorly written review... As I cean read, you can't tell the difference what's movie making and what's not. "When you reach the point where you can't show somebody drinking from a bottle of water without sticking a camera in the straw you need to take a step back and check yourself." What hell does that mean? I'm not sure if you even watched the movie, beacuse it's not just about a man who "rips off his arm with a blunt knife".

    "...no real insight into James Franco's character." What?!?! This movie is about the insight of Franco's character..... This is just stupid, why do I even bother posting a comment to this lame review....

  3. I don't know but I'm very glad you did.

  4. I kinda like your reviews even if I don't always agree with them, they're always amusing. As for whether I agree with this one, I'll let you know.;D

  5. I find the important thing to remember when watching any movie is to forget who is directing, who is starring, who is whatever, and just sit back and enjoy the film. Going into a movie with preconceived notions is gonna hinder the way you view the film. (not to say i'm an expert, and I too sometimes forget to "forget")

    I think the film really gets the audience into the mindset or perspective of Aron with the flashback sequences. while i agree that Buried is well done with Ryan Renold's one man show, you can't quite do that with a film that has a timeline over "127 hours". (or maybe you could) But i think what Boyle is trying to do with the flashbacks and hallucinations is trying to get out of the confinement of the canyon, like Aron so wants to do, so that when we switch back to the reality of the canyon we feel frustrated, just like Aron.

    This is just my point of view. I really like the film, but i found the ending to be a little weak.