Let's Go (2010 Independent Spirit Nominees)

So today we get one of the first markers in the upcoming Oscar race with the announcement of the 2011 Independent Spirit Award nominees. These can sometimes be an indicator of things to come, giving a clue as to which smaller movies and performances will make the jump to the big dance (such was the case with BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN in 2005). Other times...not so much (FAR FROM HEAVEN in 2002).

WINTER'S BONE showed up well, and led the way with 7 nominations.

The nominations for best Picture went like so:

127 HOURS
BLACK SWAN
GREENBERG
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
WINTER'S BONE

Here's my only question - are 127 HOURS, BLACK SWAN, and KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT really "independent"? I mean they qualify in the fact that all three were made for less than $20M. But especially with the first two being backed by an indie arm of a major studio (Fox Searchlight), don't they seem a little too mainstream?

On the whole though, some great films and performances have been highlighted. Likewise this has to be good news for the Oscar odds of WINTER'S BONE, BLACK SWAN, 127 HOURS and KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT. The full nominee list is down below the jump.

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
Danny Boyle, 127 Hours
Lisa Cholodenko, The Kids Are All Right
Debra Granik, Winter’s Bone
John Cameron Mitchell, Rabbit Hole

BEST FIRST FEATURE (Award given to the director and producer)
Everything Strange and New
Get Low
The Last Exorcism
Night Catches Us
Tiny Furniture

JOHN CASSAVETES AWARD
(Given to the best feature made for under $500,000; award given to the writer, director, and producer)
Daddy Longlegs
The Exploding Girl
Lbs.
Lovers of Hate
Obsedila

BEST SCREENPLAY
Stuart Blumberg, Lisa Cholodenko, The Kids Are All Right
Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini, Winter’s Bone
Nicole Holofcener, Please Give
David Lindsay-Abaire, Rabbit Hole
Todd Solondz, Life During Wartime

BEST FIRST SCREENPLAY
Diane Bell, Obselidia
Lena Dunham, Tiny Furniture
Nik Fackler, Lovely, Still
Bob Glaudini, Jack Goes Boating
Dana Adam Shapiro, Evan M. Wiener, Monogamy

BEST FEMALE LEAD
Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right
Greta Gerwig, Greenberg
Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone
Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

BEST MALE LEAD
Ronald Bronstein, Daddy Longlegs
Aaron Eckhart, Rabbit Hole
James Franco, 127 Hours
John C. Reilly, Cyrus
Ben Stiller, Greenberg

BEST SUPPORTING FEMALE
Ashley Bell, The Last Exorcism
Dale Dickey, Winter’s Bone
Allison Janney, Life During Wartime
Daphne Rubin-Vega, Jack Goes Boating
Naomi Watts, Mother and Child

BEST SUPPORTING MALE

JOHN HAWKES – Winter’s Bone
SAMUEL L. JACKSON – Mother and Child
BILL MURRAY – Get Low
JOHN ORTIZ – Jack Goes Boating
MARK RUFFALO – The Kids Are All Right

BEST DOCUMENTARY
(Award given to the director)

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP
MARWENCOL
SWEETGRASS
RESTREPO
THUNDER SOUL
BEST FOREIGN FILM
(Award given to the director)

KISSES (Ireland)
MADEMOISELLE CHAMBON (France)
OF GODS AND MEN (Morocco)
THE KING’S SPEECH (United Kingdom)
UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS PAST LIVES (Thailand)

You're The Best Around

I've had a long yet sporadic conversation with a fellow movie geek about rating movies - specifically, in giving something a top score (10 out of 10, 5 out of 5, or where The Matinee is concerned, 4 out of 4).

While I believe that most other scores can't be taken at a glance, a top mark is a pretty clear declaration that the film achieved something extraordinary...be it scary, funny, or moving. But is that top mark lessened if its given out too often?

Scanning the reviews I've written since starting this blog, I see that I've given 168 films the full treatment, and that 30 of them nabbed 4 star reviews. That's close to 18%. Remembering that the sample isn't an exact science (since I'm choosing what i want to see, and deliberately skipping titles I think would waste my time) that means that two of every ten movies I watch theatrically rock my world.

Does this mean I'm being too generous? Does it lessen such a high score by giving it out so often?? Perhaps. Looking over the list, there are certainly one or two that I could potentially demote upon further reflection. But how many of those would be offset by elevating a 3.5/4 film to the top of the class after I've had a chance to soak it in?

Of course, the four I'd give THIE GODFATHER and the four I gave INCEPTION aren't equal in the long run. Furthermore, the score I give a film doesn't matter a lick, except to me and to those of you who keep track of such things. But I believe that for those of us who keep score, it's worth looking at how hard a marker, or how lax we tend to be.

Sure every film is different, and in the grand scheme sometimes one can go a wickedly long stretch without any of these touchstone films to rave about...but I think it says more about the critic when they can't hand out a top score with a certain degree of regularity.

What say you folks? How often do you give top marks? Any you'd like to go back and take away? think you're too tough on films and find you like them more in hindsight, or too lax...giving out gold stars like they're candy on Halloween?

A Different Drum (Hathaway & Franco to Co-Host Oscars!)

For those of you who don't know, I'm an Oscar junkie. Little provides me more interest in the winter months than thinking about who wil, who won't...and examaining the tea leaves of awards gone by to get some sort of insight on to what will happen.

All of this silliness will begin in earnest again very shortly, with announcements from the National Board of Review and Independent Spirit coming soon. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

But it would seem as though surprises already abound if this story is to be believed according to this story about James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosting this year's ceremony.

It might turn out to be complete hogwash, but the sources seem to be pretty sound. If it is indeed true, I'm intrigued and excited all at once. Both Franco and Hathaway are what I'd call "good sports" (Hathaway especially - for evidence search for her recent katie Holmes impression on SNL). Their enthusiasm and glitz might make for some much-needed energy on the show.

More Hugh Jackman, less Steve Martin.

Then again, how will this all work with Franco potentially being a nominee in the lead actor category? Not like he's a lock to win or anything, but it seems odd for such a contender to be pulling double-duty, no?

Thoughts?

Back to Basics - TRIP TO THE MOON

The 1001 Series has returned! As you may recall, this is a blogging series I take part in, where I examine films on the list of 1001 Movies to See Before You Die. My take on them is not to review them, but to provide a reaction to the overall tone, and perhaps comment on a greater meaning. I end each piece with an examination of just how "essential" it actually is.

So a raise of the glass to Squish for kick-starting this series back into motion...and what better way to do it than to start with film #1 on the list? Take a look beyond the jump for Georges Melies' UN VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE.

A TRIP TO THE MOON deserves a tip of the hat for endurance alone. It is truly a sign of innovation and lasting statement when an artist's work is still being studied and dissected more than a century after its creation. Melies' most famous film was first projected to the public on September 1st, 1902...making it just more than 108 years old. I'd be proud if anyone is talking about anything I created 108 months from now.

What sparked a smile for me within the film's brief 8 minute runtime, was its focus on the human imagination. Throughout human history, men like Melies looked to the heavens and could only wonder. The night sky was filled with nothing but possibilities: possibilities of vast frontiers...of unknown terrain...of little green men. And while astronauts would eventually slay the notion of 'the man in the moon', that was still an entire lifetime away.

In less time than it takes my kettle to boil, this film encapsulates man's ambition to understand the unknown. In a manner evocative of what still happens today, all it takes in the film is a person of great vision to present a wild idea, and a few more brave souls to stand up behind that person. After that great effort to push technology to the next lillypad...well, things take a turn for the silly. However that silliness is so wonderfully fanciful, that it continues to keep a modern viewer enraptured.

Of course, like other legends of the silent era Melies was able to convey all of this whimsy and philosophy without a single syllable of dialogue. As a film lover, one has to respect such a bold statement. A statement that not only can still be made a century later, but can be made across borders without any regard for being clearly understood. Perhaps filmmaking could give mathematics a run as a universal language. Or perhaps not.

(Sidebar: I have to smile at the fact that in the time it has taken me to write this, I could have re-watched the film five times).

One last thing. The 90's music geek in me couldn't resist the urge to watch this film using Smashing Pumpkins songs as a soundtrack. As some of you might know, there are allusions to this film in The Pumpkins' 1995 album "Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness". While I'm certain that it's not at all what Melies intended, the tone of the overall story is captured wonderfully when backed by three singles from this album: "Tonight, Tonight", "Thirty-Three" and "Zero" in that order.

While the runtime of the tracks outruns the runtime of the film, it all lines up rather well and evokes a wonderful mood when it comes to the ambition of the project, the awe-struck astronauts landing, and the eventual encounter and escape from the moon men. Give it a try!

But Hatter, Is it List-Worthy?... Most definitely, since it is so accessible. It's within the public domain so one can legally watch it on YouTube, and I ask you - what are you doing that you can't take 8 minutes out of your day?

Everyone even mildly serious about film should give this charming piece a look.

Doubleback: THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Go figure. I'm on track to see more movies in a theatre this year than ever before...and one still gets past me. Gotta love being able to double back on dvd.

The selection at hand was THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, directed by Lisa Cholodenko. It's the story of Jules and Nic (Julianne Moore & Annette Benning). They're a married lesbian couple who have each given birth to kids from the same anonymous sperm donor. The kids, Joni and Laser (Mia Wasikowska & Josh Hutcherson) decide that they want to know more about their biological father, and eventually learn him to be Paul (Mark Ruffalo), an easy-going restauranteur in town.

What I liked most about the story of THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is the way it deals with the consequences of restlessness. As time passes on a relationship, the desire for a change of scenery can become overwhelming. It happens in marriages, and it likewise happens between parents and children. Hell, it even happens when guys suddenly realize they want more fulfillment out of life.

Think about it: your husband or wife can tell you month in and month out that your circle of friends are actually self-centered dicks and shallow bitches. Chances are you'll shrug it off, or even dig in and argue. But the moment a bright shiny new friend tells you that they are bitches and dicks, you give the judgement some creedence.

Seems backwards doesn't it?

Thing is, that just because we latch on to someone different, doesn't mean we've latched on to someone good - be it a parental surrogate or a romantic fling. Where THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT won me over was in the way it dealt with the fallout from making such changes...because often times the fallout can be a bastard to figure out.

While I loved this movie as a whole, and certainly agree that it's one of the better films of this year - someone is going to have to explain to me the twisted joke of a couple naming their kid "Laser".

Gift Shop

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 11 - 26 (Chatter from Other Bloggers)

Matineecast Feedback Question: What's the worst new film you saw this year?

Know the only thing that sucks about being Canadian during American Thanksgiving? For much of a weekend, most of the American websites I read pretty much stop updating.

But I digress.

Know what's strange? I suddenly find myself in a void of solid-looking new releases. It feels as though there's nothing in between Potter and Tron that I actively feel like I need to see...and that's a gap of about four weeks! BLACK SWAN hits Toronto in that space, but I caught that back at TIFF. This feels especially odd since usually during the holidays I'm struggling to keep up with all the awesomeness unleashed.

On the bright side, it gives me more time to catch classics at The Lightbox...and y'know, enjoy the whole non-movie-going portion of my life too.

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

A TIFF film that I truly loved, CHICO & RITA, is starting to slowly hit theatres. Fandango has seen it and has put together a swell review.

I've been making up for lost time and going on a bit of a music-downloading bender over the last two days. Seems I'm not alone in my musical mindset as Helms has put together a list of five awesome music moments in film.

Funny story - Sasha the Final Girl had arranged a little get-together this week, but then had to back out of the whole thing shortly before...even though she was organizing it! Pity - she's a cool kid, and always a blast to hang with. Anyway, she's posted a film at a particularly craptastic film from my youth, THE WIZARD.

For...like...a year now...I've been trying to see a film called DOGTOOTH (which might finally be available on dvd here in Toronto). Jake has seen it and has put together a mighty fine review.

I recently stumped a lot of people with my Quotable Quote choice on The Reel Insight podcast even though it's one of the best final lines of all time. Laura over at City Lights is feeling rather quotey herself this week and has dedicated a post to some of her favorites.

Enjoy!

Goin' Out West (COWBOYS & ALIENS Trailer)

Happy Turkey Day to all my American brethren! May your day be filled with food, family and football...with as little stress and drama as possible.

Here in Toronto, I'm celebrating the weekly holiday known as "Thursday". It is customary on Thursday to take sixty minutes for take out food, and consume it surrounded by co-workers under fluorescent lights. I know - I spend all year looking forward to this day too.

Allow me to think of happier things...here's something cool coming next summer...

Falling For the First Time (Talkin' FERRIS BEULLER with Castor Troy)

When I first had the idea to ask people who'd never seen some pop culture touchstones to watch them and tell me what they thought, I had thoughts on which films would stand the test of time and which ones wouldn't. "Surely" I said to myself "Ferris is still the man."

Enter Castor Troy.

Sir Castor, blogger extraordinaire whose taste is beyond reproach managed to get this far without knowing why the rest of us get the giggles with the mere mention of Abe Froman...or hearing a verse of "Danke Schoen"...or dryly asking "Anyone?...anyone?..."

So along with feeling like I was righting a great wrong and bringing Castor into the light, I was given yet another crack at continuing my series of asking people how films I find to be pop culture touchstones have held up to the test of time.

So take a look after the jump at my post-Ferris conversation with Castor, and his take on John Hughes' 1986 opus; FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF.

MH: So, did you like it?

CT: For the most part, yes, I did like it but I didn't love it, much like a comparable and equally beloved movie from Hughes: The Breakfast Club. Certainly, Ferris Bueller is a thoroughly entertaining light comedy from beginning to end. However, I didn't think it was all that remarkable. The characters can come off as arrogant, prickly and privileged kids, and the story is on the light side, basically a long ride through the classy part of Chicago.

MH: Surprised the tourism board never co-opted the film. Did you have any expectations going in?

CT: I knew going in that many regarded Ferris Bueller's Day Off as a teen comedy classic. Although my expectations were high, it was tempered by my awareness that the 80's are long gone and that I might not love it as much as some people who actually grew up during that period.

MH: Well speaking of "that period" many of us who grew up with these movies get blinded to hallmarks of the 80's. Did the film feel dated at all?

CT: Surprisingly, I didn't think the movie felt all that dated. This is partly due to Tak Fujimoto's cinematography. I think a bright and vibrant cinematography always helps a movie to feel more timeless. Also, the thematic content of the movie just never goes stale with teenagers of all eras going through their tumultuous and rebellious phase. Now, as I alluded earlier, maybe it feels dated in how I see Ferris Bueller.

MH: Well going back to that, are you saying that from an adult's perspective, Ferris seems less like an icon and more like a brat?

CT: In more ways than not, yes. I realize that the movie is supposed to be completely innocent and harmless but I would think that many contemporary viewers would deem Ferris to be a spoiled brat who thinks the entire universe is revolving around him. What I see is some upper middle class kid who has accomplished absolutely nothing in life, yet thinks he deserves to live the good life. Not only that but he goes and bully his best friend, manipulates his loving parents and gets into all kind of trouble without any consequences. Is it because we have gone through something like 9/11 that I can't see the innocence and iconic nature of Ferris Bueller?

MH: Wow. To me that's amazing since many of us who saw him through younger eyes thought of him as such a "cool guy"...the sort of cat who was able to charm his way in and out of any problem.

CT: Indeed, I could see how teenagers could look up to Ferris in that light but once you are a little more mature and realize there is a consequence to doing these kind of "cool" things, it detracts from the movie. What is the message of this movie? That you can act like a brat and bear no consequences?

MH: The message that most take away is Ferris' declaration that "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and take a look around once in a while, you could miss it"

CT: Is that a question?

MH: I'm not sure myself and I asked it.

CT: Ferris says that a couple times in the movie but I don't think skipping school and acting like a spoiled child is actually enjoying life. One of the main problem with the movie is the fact that Ferris is a relatively stagnant character. While his friend Cameron goes through some dramatic changes, Ferris doesn't make any big discovery about himself or the world. He is basically the exact same guy at the start and at the end of the movie.

MH: That last point was probably my inner twelve-year-old talking. This is one of the few films that makes me laugh every time I watch it. How funny was it for you?

CT: I found the movie more chuckle-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Actually, I didn't laugh at all. Sure, it is pleasant and lightweight but for the most part, I thought the movie was more amusing than hilarious.

MH: So, all said and done, you're saying that this film really isn't the neo-classic people like me would have you believe.

CT: That's exactly what I'm saying! This may have captured the hearts and mind of thousands in the 1980's but the movie isn't timeless enough to be a true classic. What is this movie trying to say? That it is ok to be a jackass as long as you don't get caught? Had Ferris called sick and done something actually meaningful and unselfish on his day off, the movie would have been much more memorable. "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and take a look around once in a while, you could miss it", that quote is just an excuse for his boorish actions. It's a fairly pleasant movie but I think it is quite overrated and certainly not in the top 10 or 15 best teen movies of all-time.

MH: Interesting, I coulda swore this film held up. Let's end on a positive note though - I'd wager there was something about the film that you'll take away in a positive light.

CT: That German-American parade in Downtown Chicago with Ferris singing and dancing spontaneously and the band backing him up. It's a well done scene that anyone can appreciate and this is where the essence of the movie should have been.

MH: Can't beat Wayne Newton and John Lennon. So, on a scale of 1 to 5?

CT:It was pleasant enough, I just didn't think it was all it was made out to be. I rate it a 3.5/5

Another State of Mind (Lady Hatter Weighs in on Potter)

Let it never be inferred that I am not an equal opportunist.

Seems as though my beloved ferociously disagrees with my take on the most recent Harry Potter film, and wanted an opportunity to decry my idiocy from the rooftops. How could I deny her the chance?

So please take a look after the jump at Lady Hatter's reasoning as to why I am wrong...and feel free to take a side. We're good like that.

My husband and I have very different taste in films. I should stress this: very different taste. I love light-hearted, joyful, magical films. He loves films that are so depressing they make you want to kill yourself. However, we usually agree and what is good and what is bad, even if it’s not our kind of movie.

This weekend though, we disagreed… and he’s wrong.

It’s no secret that I have an affinity for bad movies. A quick glance at my DVD collection will reveal some truly horrendous titles. However, I’m fully able to recognize and admit if a film I love is crap. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS is NOT one of those films. I love this movie because it is good. Period. It’s not a guilty pleasure; just a good movie.

I saw this film twice within the first 24-hours of it’s release, and it only got better on the second viewing. I was utterly shocked when Hatter started picking it apart as soon at the bar afterward. And after writing his evil review, he’s lucky he wasn’t banished to the couch.

My blood really boiled when he said: “if they shaved ten seconds off every long establishing shot, they could have made the movie shorter or incorporated more storylines.” Now at this, the editor in me really wanted to slug him.

For those of you who don’t know, Hatter is a great lover of music. One of his favourite songs is "Gimme Shelter" by The Rolling Stones: Now, wouldn’t that song be so much better if they lowered the volume on the instruments so we could hear the lyrics better? What if they cut out all the guitars solos so there’d be more time for another verse?

In my opinion, film is visual music, with different pacing and movements forming the tone of the story. THE DEATHLY HALLOWS was beautiful music, and the best film in the Harry Potter series (so far).

I don’t want to go into too much detail about what I loved about the movie, as I fear many of the readers here have not yet seen the it based on Hatters misguided review. Yes, there are a couple moments that I could have lived without (silver body-paint), but overall this is a very good representation of the book.

As for Hatter’s complaint that the film doesn’t stand alone… I don’t think anyone went into this film expecting it to end with some sort of conclusion. This is not a full installment of the series: it’s only part one (it’s right there in the title).
Yes, you’ve been told half a story…get over it.

It’s just the first half of a story - and a very good first half at that.

Midnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 24

I owe somewhat of an apology to the guest of Matineecast #24.

You see usually the point of having a guest in is to make them the centre of attention - the star attraction if you will. I try to enable this by asking questions first, and then offering up my reactions to their opinions. Unfortunately, because of my stance on the movie at hand this time around, I sort of swiped the ball from my guest and made a run for it.

Sorry about that Nick - but when I did let you speak, I quite liked what you had to say.

Good thing too, since I'd wager there are a good handful of people out there who disagree with my opinion of the movie at hand.

Here's the Ricky Henderson episode...



(Go here or to iTunes if the embedded player doesn't start)

Here's what's in store in episode twenty-four...

Runtime
69 minutes, 28 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. Introduction
2. KNOW YOUR ENEMY - Q & A with this episode's guest, Nick from Random Ramblings. (1:42)
3. COME TALK TO ME - Leafing through emails about your favorite actors. (9:15)
4. THE NEW SLANG - Review and reaction of HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS pt. 1 (15:45)
5. THE BEST OF YOU - Nick and I talk about our favorite magic movies. (36:20)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS pt. 1 (Unratable)

I find myself in a quandary. I have seen hundreds of movies over the years, and never felt the way I feel now that I've seen this latest Harry Potter film. I feel dissatisfied...I feel like what I've just watched can't be fully evaluated.

I feel, specifically, like I've just been told half a story.

"These are dark times" as we're told off the top of HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS. Heroes are falling, villains are rising, and death seems to be everywhere you look. All signs point to an inevitable showdown between Lord Voldermort (Ralph Fiennes) and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe)...fulfilling a prophecy that we learned about two films ago: Neither can live while the other survives. But that's getting ahead of ourselves.

The first order of business is to get Harry safe, and this in itself is no easy feat since with every passing day, more and more protective obstacles set out by his loved ones seems to be falling. He finally flees to the home of The Weasleys, where hopefully he can soak up some last drops of protection. While he hides out, he hatches a plan with Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to take down Voldermort once and for all.

This plan was briefly explained to Harry by Dumbledore in the previous film. Unfortunately, the plan was only vaguely explained to Harry in the previous film...and as such, when our hero and his friends take to the road in hopes to put this plan in motion, they do so with a massive amount of uncertainty.

This film is very well acted, shot, edited, and scored. It has a moment or two that rubbed me the wrong way, but they're not important in the long run. My problem with this film, and what makes it "unrateable" is its construction. This instalment of Harry Potter's adventures is half a book, and unfortunately for the filmmakers, that book was not written in an act one/act two manner. Thus, when the decision came down to split this instalment into two films, the tricky bit would be where to split a story that doesn't have a natural break.

By breaking off this story where they have, the filmmakers leave audiences off balance. There isn't much of a beginning, and there is no real ending. What we go through is an awful lot of middle, which at this late stage does nothing to serve the overall story. What's worse, is the fact that the "middle" we endure is meandering, introspective, and unsure. I have nothing against long contemplative moments spent with Harry, Ron, and Hermione...but not with this little time left on the clock.

If there's a flaw in the Harry Potter films, it's that the filmmakers have always been so in love with the world their stories are set in, that it distracts them from actually telling their stories. Instead we spend moment after moment sweeping over hillsides, castle corridors, and meditating on detail after detail. It's all very lovely, but believe me gang - it adds up. In this film, that tendency to look to the horizon while our characters sort things out runs amok...which is not a good thing for a film that is already breaking the rules of structure.

So is this movie bad? No. But all by itself, is this movie good? Again, no. The book Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows is intricate. Rowling dropped a lot of bread crumbs in those first six novels, and this was finally the moment to follow the trail. The problem is, there is no way to pick up all those crumbs in 2.5 hours.

So how to handle it? Two movies? Maybe...maybe not. I'd offer that in lieu of sacrificing an instalment, that filmmakers might have been better off going all David Lean, and creating one long epic film. As it stands I don't think this film works without its sequel anyway, and its audience is an absolute quantity at this point. So now would have been the time to be daring - to drop a 3+ hour tome on audiences and tell the story the way it was written.

Instead what we're given lacks any urgency. It plays less to the bravery of these three friends, and more to their insecurities. Harry Potter is sometimes accused of getting where he is by luck and circumstance, sadly this film doesn't do much to dispel that myth. This film contains a daring mission to The Ministry of Magic, and a dangerous jailbreak from the heart of enemy territory. Unfortunately, the film feels compelled to dedicate just as much time to Harry getting a haircut...or slowdancing with Hermione...or lots and lots of staring out to the horizon.

Perhaps not rating the film is a cop-out. If that's the case then I would have to give this film no more than two stars. I cannot foresee myself watching this film without immediately moving on to its sequel, and if the film's construction does not allow it to stand alone as its own story...then perhaps splitting this tale in two, was likewise a cop-out.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS.

House Lights

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 11 - 19 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Feels like a lifetime has passed since my last blogosphere roundup. Just less than one week ago I was talking to Rachel and Jess while posting an image of a car wreck for my "Today, I Feel Like This" post. (Sidenote: The ladies did not in any way prompt my feeling like a car wreck). So having life get back to normal this week, immersing myself in all things Potter, and of course getting my monthly fix that is Toronto movie blogger pub night, and I'm back in black.

Speaking of Potter, I'm actually slightly relieved to be seeing that film tonight since all I've been watching this week has been the other Potter films. I love 'em and all, but man cannot live on Quidditch alone. (Feel free to disagree in the comment section).

There's lots to do on and around the blog this weekend, so without further ado, here's what the posse is up to.

For your reading enjoyment, I give you...


A new release that's just sitting on the margin for me is FAIR GAME - I want to see it, but think I'd better act quick since it might be a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't sorta release pattern. Well, Joel has seen it and says it's pretty good, so perhaps I should step up my effort.

As I weigh whether or not I want to ask for a blu-ray player for Christmas, Steve the Cynic wonders about dialing back his collecting of physical media altogether!

Must give some thanks to Andrew at Row Three who's been a good sport in recent months and rather encouraging to what I'm doing on this little mad experiment. This week, he nabbed some BACK TO THE FUTURE goodness. I really don't plug that site enough around here.

I've been very much about Danny Boyle in the last few months (I wonder why?). Well new papa Vance has taken a moment to examine his whole career and rank it all.

Nick's working through some classics, and this week he got to one of my all time favorites: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.


Enjoy!

Version

I've been thinking. (Shut up!)

Yesterday evening while looking for a bit of inspiration, I stopped by one of my favorite non-movie blogs Cover Me: a site dedicated to the art of the cover song. Last night I got a smile as I listened to an evocative arrangement of one of my least favorite Springsteen songs.

This got me curious - what if there was such thing as cinematic cover songs?

Now I understand that what I'm suggesting sounds a lot like the remake phenomenon we have to endure...or worse, Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO. But follow me on this for a moment. It's entirely possible that if you handed a lauded project over to another director, you'd get something like this. But is it possible that that second director could come back with something else?

On a recent /Filmcast, SPLICE director Vincenzo Natali spoke about a film school exercise where a dozen directors were all given the same script and they came back with six very different takes on it. You hear it all the time: "I envisioned that differently". So what's to stop...let's say Natali...from taking a crack at something left a little wanting. Like SALT?

On the one hand, perhaps a fresh perspective could correct some of the things that went wrong. Give someone a mulligan and they could rearrange some chords, pick up the tempo, and create a catchy ditty. Then again, they might come back with something even worse. On top of that, i suppose it's unlikely that any sort of audience would fork out to see the same story a second time. The toughest part of all would be for the director ignoring what's already been done (which, while I love it, is what holds back LET ME IN).

Still, on some sort of an experimental level, I'd love to see this...even just a scene or two. How would that kiss in the rain in THE NOTEBOOK go if it was directed by Lars von Trier? Or how's about Baz Luhrman taking a hack at EDWARD SCISSORHANDS?

Who knows, you could end up with something classic.

Falling For the First Time (Talkin' BACK TO THE FUTURE with The Film Geek)

Some of you might remember a post I did a few weeks ago where I asked Vanessa to watch THE BREAKFAST CLUB for the first time. I was really excited to find out what holds up and what doesn't about films I grew up with that someone else was watching for the first time. I was so excited in fact, that I decided to continue with the series.

The next victim to get called on to the carpet is Emma The Film Geek, who writes both her own blog Final Cut, and contributes to Flickering Myth. She had come all this way without ever seeing the 1985 pop culture classic BACK TO THE FUTURE.

(Side note: If you have a blind spot for a touchstone film of the 80's/90's and want to do one of these with me - drop me a note and let me know).

So take a look after the jump for our analysis of how the film stands up today.

Where we're going, we don't need.....roads.

Hatter: So, did you like it?

Emma: I did, and I guess it has a lot to do with why I love movies generally: it's the magic and escapism. It's something that you know would never really happen but you lose yourself in it and get swept away by the possibilities. A lot of my enjoyment with films is based on how I feel about the characters and I really loved the characters in Back to the Future. I had assumed it would be all about Marty but found that I cared more about his parents.

Hatter: I've always loved that about this film. It's one thing to let Marty stumble through being back in time; there's much more at stake when he realizes his family's whole existence is riding on his actions.

The movie is 25 years old this year. Coming into it now, how would you say it holds up?

Emma: I think Back to the Future has aged a lot better than the Hughes/Brat Pack films in terms of costume, music and characters. If the film was made now instead of then, I would imagine it would be much the same as the characters and plot lines are universal and timeless.

Hatter: This post could go on for a week if we talked about how well or how poorly the Brat pack films have aged. Back to the matter at hand, there must be some things you'd switch if you could get into that DeLorean and give Zemeckis some notes. What didn't work for you?

Emma: One of the things that really bugged me about the film was the closeups on Michael J Fox's face whenever he had to look shocked. It just made me giggle. And the whole thing with his mum having a crush on him - which I know is meant to be funny - just didn't work for me.

Hatter: Gotta love incestuous storylines in major pop culture movies!

Emma: I also haven't quite figured out where I stand on the ending regarding the McFly family. I think I would have preferred it if Marty just came to understand how his mum fell in love with his dorky dad and that she was a bit crazy back in the day. I didn't particularly like how they became really successful as it says that's the kind of lifestyle you need to be happy.

Hatter: Perhaps. But Marty sorta brought that all on by accident.

Emma: Now that I'm thinking about it, it's not like Marty chose to make it that way. He just fudged up his parents' chance encounter and fought to get them together... so yeah, I guess he had to fix what he broke.

Hatter: There's a bunch of 80's winks that don't land the same way they once did...Marty trying to order a TAB or a Pepsi Free for instance. Do those winks to the time hold the film back?

Emma: Nah, I think 80s references would only be an issue in a film made after the 1980s but set in the 80s, like The Wedding Singer. As Back to the Future was released in 1985, you would expect it and it works in the context of the story.

Hatter: Good to know there's a clear distinction between this and HOT TUB TIME MACHINE. so it's not dated?

Emma: You can tell it's an 1980s film but it still works. Obviously films are a lot about the time they are made and the time they represent, so there is a strong 1950s and 1980s feel but to say the film is dated would sound negative and overlook the timeless quality it has.

Hatter: Good to know. Steve at The Film Cynics asked me this question once, so I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you. We're never expressly told, so if you had to guess, how do Doc and Marty know each other?

Emma: Doc and Marty - hmm... it is actually making my head hurt trying to think about the whole Marty going back in time and going to Doc's house and explaining stuff to him which then begs the question: in the future how do they know each other? Is this a result of Marty going back in time and Doc found him somehow... Argh, the complications. I reckon he was a crazy-ass science teacher at his school who got sacked but they kept hanging out... maybe Marty used to walk his dog or something

Hatter: I never considered the time paradox angle - nice pull! Did that memorable score stick in your head?

Emma: I'm normally one of those people who gets film scores stuck in their head for days but this one has actually managed to by-pass me.

Hatter: Weird. So not like you need to or anything, but d'you think you might watch the rest of the trilogy now that you've broken your DeLorean cherry?

Emma: Seeing as I borrowed this off a friend and she lent me the entire boxset, I'm tempted to give the others a go before I give them back.

Hatter: Good call - but the first one is the best. Bring it all home: From a newbie's perspective 25 years after its release, what would you score BACK TO THE FUTURE on a scale of one to five?

Emma: And I'd give it a 3........ maybe 3.5. Slightly above average. Definitely entertaining and I'd probably watch it again, just not a favourite.

Space Cowboy (GREEN LANTERN Trailer)

Oh hell yeah!!

Elsewhere: Guest Podcasting on Reel Insight

So after displaying my prowess at calling movie quotes through the month of October, I was given the chance to sit in with Jess Rogers and Rachel Thuro to record an episode of The Reel Insight Podcast.

(Note: None of us are pictured in that photo above)

This show has quickly become one of my favorites, and much of it is owed to the wonderful chemistry these two ladies have with each other. If you're not already listening to their witticisms, you should because they run the gauntlet through new releases, catalogue titles, and TV before settling in to talk about a movie star's body of work. Pretty nifty format if I do say so myself.

There's talk of RED, IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, THE WALKING DEAD and COMMUNITY before a good long discussion about the latest choice for Star of The Week.

So give a listen over here or through iTunes to our spirited Saturday morning, and be sure to listen all the way to the bitter end to hear a sign-off that ranks amongst my dorkiest moments.

And believe me gang - I have had some dorky moments!

Review: HEREAFTER * * 1/2

Uncertainty can disrupt our lives like little else. We celebrate what's going right, and can grieve what's gone wrong. Not knowing what has happened, or continues to happen however, can set our thoughts on a long, seemingly unending treadmill.

Never is that uncertainty greater, than in coping with death.

HEREAFTER begins in Thailand. It's here that we meet Marie Lelay (Cecile de France); a French journalist on vacation with her producer and boyfriend Didier. She leaves the hotel on her final morning of the trip to do some shopping, but tragically on this morning, the wave of the Indian Ocean tsunami rips through the town. Marie gets swept up in the tide, and for a moment seems to be done for. She is ultimately revived, but while she was out she experienced...something.

On the other side of the world in San Francisco, George Lonnegan (Matt Damon) is trying to get a handle on his life. He works below his paygrade at a sugar packing factory. He does this, because his previous venture of capitalizing on his ability to commune with the dead left him a shaken and shelled medium. Desperate to escape that ability, he seeks refuge in a simpler life...one that involves an unimpressive apartment, Dickens audiobooks, and adult night classes.

Then there's a third story - the story of an unexpected death. It has little to do with either Marie or George, and almost drags the whole film down, so the less I say about it the better.

As I think about HEREAFTER, I find myself comparing it to a painting. When I lean in, and examine its technique, I'm fascinated by the bold palette and beautiful brushstrokes. But when I step back and look at the piece as a whole, I find its composition lacking. Few directors in the last decade have made the impression on me that Clint Eastwood has. Some of his recent films I count among the best of the decade; other of his recent films I count among my all time favorites. However, in the case of HEREAFTER, this goes against its favour, since I must consider the painter along with the painting.

Using the great beyond as the backbone of a story is a goldmine. It holds unlimited potential since there are so many opinions of what's on the other side, and the lack of any concrete proof provides unlimited possibilities. While death is an absolute, how we cope with death, and the closure that death provides varies from instance to instance. HEREAFTER understands this, and weaves it into the story. It makes for some subtle satisfaction when some people are told to let go, and for heartbreak when others get apologies too late in the offering.

Unfortunately, it isn't the afterlife that holds this film back - it's the earthbound narratives that are clumsily blended together. Two of the three narratives are adequate, even touching at times. Had these two storylines been the crux of the film, I'd likely be singing a very different tune. Sadly the tale goes one storyline further, and it feels like a step too far. Not only does it have precious little to do with the other two avenues the film is driving us down, but it's predictable. It's so predictable in fact, that the first glimpse we're given of the characters involved, it's easy to guess what will happen to them.

While this third parallel holds back much of what could be, it doesn't destroy the film as a whole. This is because one character's each for truth, and two other characters search for redemption is all rather beautiful. There's a nobility in a person trying to explain the unexplainable. The character gets that non-believing look from so many that they talk to, but can't let go since the answer isn't entirely rooted in science, it's also rooted in faith.

That thid parallel is also incapable of destroying a timid connection between a man and a woman. Seeing two very bruised people try to fumble their way through an impromptu courtship is pulled off wonderfully in this film. They meet in a cooking class, and muddle their way through chopping tomatoes in the exact same way that they are muddling through their nervous conversation. Their bond is palpable, but so too is the notion that they both need somebody to help the other move on.

And moving on, is of course what HEREAFTER wants to be all about. It wants us to understand what has happened in a loved one's death, and open up to the possibility of what could be. While its unfortunate that the film doesn't trust us enough to get that on our own, and feels the need to spell it out, it doesn't completely drown the overall effect.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions on HEREAFTER.

Elsewhere: Groovers and Mobsters present Bond, James Bond

I don't play it up too much in this space, but I count myself a pretty big fan of 007.

So when Andy over at Fandago Groovers suggested I join in on a blog-a-thon he was putting together with The Movie Mobsters...naturally I ordered myself up a martini, ignored to poor sap losing his card game to me, made an innuendo laden comment to Lady Hatter and joined in.

So when you have a chance click on over to Mobsters who have been counting down everything from Bond's best cars to Bond's best girls all week long...and then dig in to the apex of it all, our "Bond, James Bond" Blogathon.

You Wreck Me

Today, I Feel Like This...

Everybody's Talkin' 11 - 12 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

This has been one crazy week folks...one that seems to have put me through the emotional gamut. I don't really feel like reliving the negative...but on the positive is concerned, I've found myself both proud and humbled by the response to my most recent podcast. Glad those who have listened have enjoyed, and thankful for every note of congrats I've received. Truthfully, I actually have to shake my head because a lot of how this episode came to be happened due to a lucky bounce.

As the weekend begins, I'm excited to finally be seeing IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE tonight (Feel like coming this time Sasha??), and even more excited to be doing a guest spot on someone else's podcast tomorrow.

So as I try to level off my nervous system after this wild week, I turn to my brothers and sisters in the community to prop me up for one more day.


For your reading enjoyment, I give you...

Seems like it was the week to discuss actors. Hot on the heels of my question about which actors draw y'all to the cinema, Helms piped up with five actors he believes are underrated.

Most amusing podcast I listened to this week? Easy - Kai, Helms, and Heather on The MILFcast.

Remember last weekend when I recommended DUE DATE? Turns out Castor disagrees.

For a brief shining moment this week, I thought about going to the Lightbox for a thirty-something-hour Tim Burton marathon. I thought better of it in the end, but it looks like Alex took in a marathon lately. Take a look here and here for her experiences of a horror marathon.

Looks like John's feeling reflective about his movie geekery.

It's no small secret that I love a film festival. Looks like Emma the Film Geek rocked a film festival this week. Check out her coverage of the Cornwall Film Festival.

Enjoy!

One Tin Soldier

Since November began, some of you might have noticed a little addition to the design of this blog - specifically, in the banner. What you see there is a poppy, and it's something that we pin to our coats and jackets here in Canada in the days leading up to Remembrance Day (which is today, November 11th).

We wear these little red flowers to honour those who have served in our armed forces, and who have given their lives in the name of our way of life. While this observance goes back ninety years, it has felt even more resonant in the last decade with my country's troops stationed and risking their lives in Afghanistan.

Therefore, as the tradition goes, my country and many others will observe a moment of silence at 11am today, on this eleventh day of the eleventh month, to honour those who died so that we might live.

For a minute or two, I thought about doing a list of great war films, or revisiting a dvd favorite like THE THIN RED LINE...but such gestures seem trivial, and perhaps a disservice. So if you'll pardon me, I'm going to take a day away from talk of movies. Instead, I quote the great poet and say...

...Lest We Forget.

Abracadabra (L'ILLUSIONISTE Trailer)

Seven years ago, I sat in a state of awe and watched one of the greatest animated films I've ever seen - Sylvain Chomet's THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE. I thought then, as I still think today, that I had just been witness to one of the greatest animated films I'd ever seen.

Fast forward to September 2010, when I was again awed by Chomet with the TIFF presentation of his latest film THE ILLUSIONIST (L'ILLUSIONISTE). Once again my friends, I can tell you that I have seen one of the greatest animated films ever made.

If this film comes anywahere close to you this winter - make sure to get out and see it. Take a gander at the clip below to get a glimmer why...

Not For You

This week, I'm doing some homework in preparation for an upcoming podcast appearance. While it's been mercifully contained to only two films, I find myself watching certain movies only because a particular actor is in them.

This, dear friends, runs completely counter to my viewing habits.

Lately, like many of you, the only name that stands a chance of prompting me to put on my shoes and head down to the theatre is the name of the director attached. While directors are not above misfires themselves (I'm looking at you GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE), they seem to have more consistency on the whole. If I had to venture a guess, it's because they have more control over the creative process than the actors they're directing.

There was a time, back when I was a young cinemagoer, where certain actors got an automatic watch. But the more time has passed, the more crappy parts I see them do - even my favorite actors. Johnny Depp wasn't worth two hours of THE LIBERTINE. I'm all about Zooey Deschanel but you couldn't pay me enough to see YES MAN. And then there's Daniel Day-Lewis (pictured above) and the craptastic mess that was NINE.

This might mean that I'm wearing my film snob sash a little bit straighter, but it's the truth. While an actor I like, or a well-assembled cast might pique my attention, neither of them ensure my hard-earned cash and two hours of my life. Sometimes, they're just too overmatched by the silly scripts they are trying to navigate...other times they're just in it for the money.

What about you folks? Are there any actors that still get your cash no questions asked?

Midnight Radio: The Matineecast Episode 23.5

When I started this podcast close to one year back, if you told me that I'd go on to talk to an Oscar winner, I'd have laughed and told you to try selling the crazy somewhere else. And yet, strangely, here we are.

Walter Murch has won Oscars for his work on APOCALYPSE NOW and THE ENGLISH PATIENT. He was also nominated for his work on COLD MOUNTAIN, GHOST, THE GODFATHER III, JULIA and THE CONVERSATION. And here he is, talking with little old me (Not to be outdone - I was once voted Employee of The Week at a suburban Toronto bagel shop).

So please take a listen to our conversation about APOCALYPSE NOW, the historical context of film, and the art of editing.



(Go here or to iTunes if the embedded player doesn't start)

Here's what's in store in episode twenty-three point five...

Runtime
56 minutes, 38 seconds

Up for Discussion

1. Introduction
2. CHAPTER ONE - My Q&A with Mr. Murch, including an attempt at "Know Your Enemy" (2:15)
3. CHAPTER TWO - Lady Hatter joins the fray and two editors have at it while I chime in from the peanut gallery. (17:34)
4. CHAPTER THREE - After the screening of REDUX, Murch fields a series of questions from the audience gathered at The Lightbox (23:41)

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Review: DUE DATE * * *

In life, you can find yourself in some truly shitty situations.

There you are, flat on your back in a muddy gutter, rain soaking you steadily. There's no wallet in your pocket, there's fresh vomit on your shirt, and you feel like you might have a broken rib. And just when you can't think it could get any worse, a train wreck of a human being reaches down to you to help you up.

And if you're honest, you'll admit that you're actually having to think about things before accepting their hand.

DUE DATE is the story of two unlikely travellers. Peter (Robert Downey Jr) is an architect expecting his first child with his wife, Sarah (Michelle Monaghan). The hitch is that five days before the baby is due, he is in Atlanta, and she is at home in L.A. When he goes to the airport to fly home, he meets Ethan (Zack Galifianakis).

Courtesy of a wild series of events, Peter and Ethan get kicked off the same flight and score themselves a spot on the no-fly list. In the fracas, Peter's wallet was taken so his options for getting back to L.A. become very limited. It's then that Ethan finds him and offers him a lift in the car he's just rented. Without many other choices, Peter begrudgingly agrees.

Unfortunately, Peter hasn't even scratched the surface of Ethan's oddity. Road trips can be trying at the best of times, but when one is forced to share a car with a socially inept, perm-sporting, dog toting, weed smokin' wannabe actor...well...suffice it to say, Peter might have been better off walking to L.A.

DUE DATE isn't out to re-invent the wheel...matter of fact, it specifically seems to be borrowing wheels from a film we saw 23 years ago. But what gives this film some oxygen, and allows the film to succeed is the performances of the two leads.

Zach Galifianakis has enjoyed a wicked rise to fame after breaking out in THE HANGOVER last summer. He has done so by playing characters that feel like a genetic splice of awkward and inappropriate. While there are still slivers of that persona in his take on Ethan, he has taken the next step by adding sadness and loneliness into the mix.

You might well have met someone like Ethan in your life. He's the sort of person you don't get in an elevator with...the person who will make you consider sitting on the other side of the lunchroom...the person who causes your hand to instinctively dive into your pocket desperately searching for a pair of earbuds.

The tough part is that Ethan means well. He might be completely socially inept, and evoke visions of a walking natural disaster, but he has a good heart, and perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to run away from people like him. After all, it's sometimes when we're in a fix, we might need to turn to them for help.

Robert Downey Jr. has a wit about him that has really caught audiences' imagination over the last two years, so in a lot of ways he's a perfect fit as the straight man in this story. He gets to express the collective disbelief without mincing words, or sometimes without uttering any at all. What he best conveys about people like Peter is that they believe to be above people like Ethan, but aren't above reaching out to them.

Ethan has no problem being a smarmy dick when things seem to be going his way, and catches of whiff of getting things under control. However, the second things unravel, he constantly - somewhat amusingly - finds himself right back to leaning on Ethan for help. And there's the paradox: the asshole in you loves to poke fun at people who seem to be at a lower station, but then you're forced to wait patiently as they do the things you can't - or won't - do.

Downey Jr and Galifianakis share a sweet chemistry. In an odd way, they seem like plausible friends...in the sort of friendship that makes one side feel cooler and the other side more human. They share a few moments of very honest connection on this twisted journey, which of course is what makes things so much more painful when the next wave hits the shipwreck.

The film takes a few strange turns on its little roadtrip, such as a question over the paternity of Peter's child and a wild pit stop at the Mexican border. Moments like these seem to stretch our good will a bit too far, and some could see them as one pratfall too many. The bit at the border especially seems to stop the whole roadtrip dead in its tracks for ten minutes, and feels rather forced. (Sidebar: In the Mexican border really "on the way" from Atlanta to L.A.?)

However, the funny thing about a comedy, is that ultimately they're judged on a pass/fail grading system. If the make you laugh, and feel like two hours and admission money well spent, then the comedy succeeds. If you spend most of the time shifting in your seat, groaning, and rolling your eyes, then the comedy has failed. DUE DATE hasn't re-invented the genre, nor does it have anything profound to say like some of the best written comedies out there. However, it entertained, made me laugh, and felt like time well spent. So based on that alone it passes, and succeeds.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions on DUE DATE.

Rest

Today, I Feel Like This...

Review: 127 HOURS * * * *

What do you think about when you’re all alone? Where does your mind wander to? Are you preoccupied with the nagging situations that you need to deal with, or are you more of the sort to let your brain drift through things that make you happy and retreat from problems that need solving.

Everyone is different of course, and sometimes those differences can come in handy when the chips are down. So says 127 HOURS

This film is about a real-life man named Aron Ralston (James Franco). Ralston is most aptly described as an adventurer. He swims, he skis, he bikes, he climbs. For Ralston, the working week is a means to an end…the end being his next foray into the great outdoors. And being the independent spirit that he is, he doesn’t need to rely on others for company on these excursions. He’s quite happy going it alone.

Hell, sometimes he doesn’t even tell anyone where he’s going.

Such is the case one weekend when Ralston heads out for a weekend in Moab, Utah. He packs up the basics, drives through the night, and plans on spending the weekend biking, camping, and climbing. He meets two pretty girls and hangs out with them for a little while, but the moment is fleeting and he goes back on his path alone.

Unfortunately, while he’s off on his own, Ralston makes a slight misstep. While climbing in Blue John Canyon, he has an accident and gets stuck. This would be a big problem all by itself, but considering he’s all alone, well out of earshot, and miles away from help, his big problem becomes a potentially deadly problem.
Ralston’s story is pretty famous by now, and has become even more famous with the release of this film. However, if you haven’t heard it by now, you won’t be hearing any more about it here. What I will tell you, is the fact that 127 HOURS is rather unique in the way that it takes a theme we’ve seen a few times already (one actor with precious little to play off), and gives it a fresh scope.

Director Danny Boyle has achieved this by balancing the gravity of the situation with the expanse of Ralston’s mental state. The film finds a harmony between eerily calm desperation and retreats to a happier place. Based very much on Ralston’s writings of the experience, we see that along with his survival instinct, what carries him through the ordeal is his ability to escape to thoughts and memories of those he loves. When that doesn’t work, a wickedly wry sense of humour goes like gangbusters.

Our survival is controlled by our mental condition, which is why most first aid training warns of the dangers of allowing trauma casualties of falling into shock. So the story of his survival isn’t just the steps Ralston takes, but his frame of mind as he takes them. If there’s a lesson I’m taking away from this, it’s that thinking about the taste of a strawberry milkshake and the memory of the first time I walked into the SkyDome could be just as useful as a tourniquet or fresh water in a pinch.

Another factor that makes 127 HOURS unique is its intense rhythm. While much of the film is focused on one man in one locale, the movie isn’t content to just let the camera sweep and swivel through this one narrow crevasse. Instead, the story is told with an intensely frenetic energy – both when Ralston is in the present and especially when he’s thinking of the outside world.

Moviegoers familiar with Danny Boyle’s body of work will recognize this pulse. It was on display in TRAINSPOTTING, 28 DAYS LATER, and of course SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. When combined with some intricate camera work, and Franco’s powerful performance this energy pulls us into the situation that much further.

And indeed, this energetic filmmaking style gets a workout during “the scene”.

127 HOURS is a visceral achievement. It gives Franco very little to play off, but time after time he shows us that he’s quite content playing off himself. It rises above the tedium, panic, and claustrophobia of the situation and somehow creates something beautiful and life-affirming. Most interestingly, it runs counter to the mental instinct mentioned off the top: it never lets the mind wander.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to 127 HOURS.

Everybody's Talkin' 11 - 04 (Chatter From Other Bloggers)

Alright...things should start getting back to normal around here. No more writing posts three and four days in advance. No more three week stretches without any new releases (or one week stretches without any new movies period). No more months where I cocoon myself and don't spend any time reading about what everyone else is doing!

Oh, and for those who were wondering - my dvd collection and Lady hatter's dvd collection are still yet to merge...though I am wavering. The shelves are side by side now, at least that's a step.

For your reading fulfillment, I give you...

A film that continues to elude me is ANIMAL KINGDOM. Stevee at Cinematic Paradox saw it recently and took quite a shining to it!

Reel Insight was one for the ages this week - and not because I managed to win October's Quotable Quotes. This one is double your pleasure with twice the usual runtime, and Rachel admits to never having seen a modern essential.

Nick wants to tackle the gaps in his watched list. Help him out with suggestions, won't you?

Rachel The Film Girl celebrates (or mourns, depending on your politics) this week's mid-term elections by listing off ten great films about elections.

Want more listy goodness? GMan has you covered with 50 great cinematic deaths.

As I mentioned during the last Matineecast, RINGU gives me the creeps. Well Ross and Ross are arguing over which version of the story - english versus Japanese - is better.

Enjoy!

Review: THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNETS' NEST * * 1/2

So you've stared down certain doom twice already and lived to tell the tale. You've faced the demons of your dark familial tale, and somehow still managed to come out smelling like roses.

Well congratulations - that's quite a list of accomplishments - but hopefully you don't think you're in the clear just yet.

THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNETS' NEST begins with Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) in the hospital. She is slowly working her way back to health, and is lucky enough to have a doctor looking out for her. He keeps all would-be callers at bay; good and bad alike. He says Salander needs to recover, and in order to do so, she can't take any visitors...not even the police who have a lot of questions for the girl with the dragon tattoo.

While a case is being built for some of Salander's actions, there are some in the Swedish government who don't think a federal case will be effective enough. these government officials believe that if her story comes to light, that their covert activities will be scrutinized, and they just don't want any part of that. So as if legal trouble isn't enough for Salander to navigate through, she is handed the added distraction of attempts on her life.

As all of this is happening, her friend Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is hard at work at Millennium Magazine compiling a special issue completely dedicated to her plight. Having gone to hell and back twice with her already, he knows a glimmer of who she really is, and how she became this way. Blomkvist puts himself and the staff of Millennium at great personal risk, by trying to expose the truth about Salander, the government plot, and work it all into the record for the court of public opinion.

As Salander goes on trial for her actions, we're left to wonder what will ultimately seal her fate: the government conspiracy against her, or Blomkvists quest for the truth?

By this stage, we've gone through quite a lot with Lisbeth Salander, and in some ways, it feels like this final act really sums up her character. It's at this stage where the deck truly seems to be stacked against her. After everything she has gone through, the system still seems poised to lock her up - in jail, or worse, back in psychiatric care. And were it you or I, facing such a fate might easily push us into a state of desperate contrition.

Not Lisbeth.

Befitting the cold isolation we already know of her character, she says little more than absolutely necessary. Despite being probed with endless questions from authorities about her past and present, she remains stoic. She has already trusted the system once by opening up - she'll be damned if she's going to do it again. Forget bargaining, depression or acceptance - she's angry and is content to remain that way.

She then holds up a second middle finger to the man by staying true to her outward demeanour. To look at a girl like Lisbeth, one might think that she's "a punk", the sort of punk who invites the trouble she finds herself in. Perhaps some members in our society believe that since she lives outside the margins, she isn't entitled to the human rights contained within the margins.

But by remaining true to herself, even in the face of punishment by the highest authority, she shows an inner strength that many of us would abandon. Salander's stoicism and edgy demeanour represents how she lives. She seems to know that her life is what's up for grabs, and wants to raise a flag that this is her life, so if any version of Salander should stand up to be counted - it's this version.

Running parallel to Salander's fight for freedom is the dilemma at Millennium. Erika and Blomkvist are faced with their own tough decision with the question of how long they want to pursue a dangerous truth. Journalism, after all, is supposed to be all about exposing the truth - sometimes a cold, ugly truth. But while truth is a wonderful notion, it often comes at a very high price.

If it were you, and you were working on an exposé detailing a legal matter not directly related to you, how far would you take it? What about if you started to get threatened - are the facts still worth it? Alright, when violence starts knocking at your door? This happens all the time, not just in movies like this. Journalists risk great things to tell us the truth about what's happening in our world - and in an ironic twist, the truer their story, the greater the personal risk for the journalist telling it.

All of these themes and ideas should make for a wonderful movie. Unfortunately, given how far we've come, the conclusion of this trilogy feels a tad toothless. There are no stakes in this final chapter...no uncertain peril that our heroine needs to muscle her way out of. The entire crux of her predicament goes to the only logical conclusion it can. While this endgame provides closure, it also leaves us feeling strangely unsatisfied. Less like kicking of hornet nests...more like trampling of anthills.

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNETS' NEST.

King For a Day (THE KING'S SPEECH Trailer)

Fun fact: I knew close to twenty people who took in this year's Toronto International Film Festival. Not one of them saw THE KING'S SPEECH. And yet, this film snagged The Audience Choice Award for TIFF 2010.

So it's no small wonder that I now find myself looking forward to it quite a bit! After all, in years past the ACA has gone to films like WHALE RIDER, CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, SHINE, and EASTERN PROMISES.

Perhaps such choices point towards this film being a worthwhile two hours, and perhaps one that we're talking about come Oscar season...

We'll Meet Again

Last week, a friend of mine with a particular fondness for films said "so long". It's one of these things where I know "so long" will only be for a while...but how much of a while is what I don't know. Could be months, could be years. What's interesting is that I've been through this a time or two before. It was around this time last year that I said "so long" to another friend, and while it is very much a wireless world...it's still not the same without them around.

But back to the friend at hand, I've spent many a moment over the last few days - moments when I wasn't packing or unpacking boxes - thinking about what things will be like without this friend who most recently said "so long". Specifically, this person's passion for film and for discussion has played a massive part in turning me into the blogger that I am. This person is encouraging, intelligent, and enough of a burr in my saddle never to let me rest on my laurels.

What this person understood in a way that many of us take for granted, is that film is a communal activity. Sure it's flickering images in a darkened room, but it's the way we gather to laugh, gasp, and applaud at those images that makes it more fun. That same communion can be found online, in not just writing about these silly moving pictures, but in reading others' thoughts as well.

Essentially, this friend taught me the difference between pounding out cinematic venom alone in a basement, and engaging in conversation. This person understood that half the fun began the moment the credits rolled.

The bright side about saying "so long" is knowing that this cat is doing it to embark on some of the most rewarding things in life. These words we write and words we read are swell...but let's face facts, they aren't everything there is to life. If I suddenly lost the ability or ambition to do this everyday, it wouldn't be the end of the world. My friend understands that, and in saying "so long", he has inspired me yet again.

This isn't the end of anything. Much as the saying goes in that legendary scene above, it's likely just "The beginning of a beautiful friendship". Hence no goodbye: only so long.

Good luck amigo.