Xixax Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: modage on August 24, 2010, 04:38:03 PM

Title: 127 Hours
Post by: modage on August 24, 2010, 04:38:03 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrailers.apple.com%2Ftrailers%2Ffox_searchlight%2F127hours%2Fimages%2Fbackground.jpg&hash=3f20c4c6207d2a079ab716cc04197ca619c1c87c)

127 HOURS is the new film from Danny Boyle, the Academy Award winning director of last year's Best Picture, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. 127 HOURS is the true story of mountain climber Aron Ralston's (James Franco) remarkable adventure to save himself after a fallen boulder crashes on his arm and traps him in an isolated canyon in Utah. Over the next five days Ralston examines his life and survives the elements to finally discover he has the courage and the wherewithal to extricate himself by any means necessary, scale a 65 foot wall and hike over eight miles before he is finally rescued. Throughout his journey, Ralston recalls friends, lovers (Clemence Poesy), family, and the two hikers (Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara) he met before his accident. Will they be the last two people he ever had the chance to meet? A visceral thrilling story that will take an audience on a never before experienced journey and prove what we can do when we choose life.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/127hours/
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: matt35mm on August 24, 2010, 05:11:46 PM
That actually looks... pretty fucking amazing.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: mogwai on August 24, 2010, 05:41:26 PM
Who gives a shit? He chopped his fucking arm off... end of story.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Stefen on August 24, 2010, 07:05:00 PM
Spoiler!
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Gamblour. on August 24, 2010, 07:38:38 PM
The trailer is good and I could watch a movie about a dude who chops his arm off, but this copy is terrible.

"A visceral, thrilling story that will take an audience on a never-before-experienced journey and prove what we can do when we choose life[?????] to live?"
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Pubrick on August 24, 2010, 09:21:13 PM
You guys are getting it really wrong lately. Spruiking Scott Pilgrim which turns out to be borderline shit and totally overlooking one of the brilliant films of our time like The Social Network.

This is another case where it was never in doubt that the film would be great. The story is about as riveting as true stories get and it's by someone who has always made GOOD movies. Forget the Oscar taint and Danny Boyle is just a good picker of stories. His premises don't always pan out in the final act but it's usually a great film until then.

This story is amazing to hear from the horse's mouf, if you remember the media blitz he did years ago you'd know the story has a classic three act structure with THREE seemingly insurmountable challenges (the later two made epic due to his delirious state).

I was the one who talked a lot of shit about Into the Wild based on the premise and the unreadability of the book, only to have my ass kicked by the film itself. Don't make the same mistake I did.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on August 25, 2010, 07:50:15 AM
Boyle's style is becoming less and less interesting to me over the years, and this trailer doesn't do much to change my opinion. I'll probably see it, as it can only become a positive surprise.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ©brad on August 25, 2010, 09:01:09 PM
Whattt? That trailer was sick. Third act craziness aside, I will always line up for Boyle. There's no way you can look me in the eyes and say some of those shots didn't get you cinecock hard.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Pubrick on August 25, 2010, 11:46:20 PM
Quote from: ElPandaRoyal on August 25, 2010, 07:50:15 AM
Boyle's style is becoming less and less interesting to me over the years

what style are you talking about exactly? the occasional use of dutch angles?

if you mean the way the trailer is cut, that's just to make the most of his recent success and to make it look like a really exciting film (which it probably will be) and not one where the dude is just stuck in a hole for an hour and a half. i can't really think of what the Danny Boyle style would be, if anything he is actually known for not having one. he's not an auteur in the classic sense, he doesn't make the same film every time. he could be closest compared to Robert Wise, who was never really celebrated for being a visionary director in the Kubrick sense but well and truly made great films consistently throughout his career.

he's a master craftsman but he doesn't really have anything amounting to a "style". other than being interested in fun looking movies.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on August 26, 2010, 08:48:09 AM
To both P and ©brad: Yes, the trailer seems to have some fine shots, but the way it's edited, mostly in the beginning, reminded me of his latest taste for quick cutting his way out of everything. I know it's a trailer, edited by someone in the marketing department, but seriously, how many shots and cuts can you have of someone riding a bike in the desert? It almost doesn't even allow us to look at the landscapes which are certainly a big part of this man's passion to explore. I'm not saying the movie is going to be like this, because I haven't seen it yet, but the editing style of the trailer reminded me a lot of his most recent stuff. I mean, look at Slumdog Millionaire and the amount of unnecessary cutting there, and the will to just be fast, and cool and pacey. The first thing I always remember about that movie is one of the flashbacks when his village is under attack and he sees that blue kid/god/whatever - it's an editing mess, all over the place. And I certainly feel that's part of a style he's been developing lately and was very present in Millions or the bad parts of Sunshine. While I think some of his crazy stuff works in Trainspotting, 28 Days Later or even The Beach or Shallow Grave, due to the nature of the movies, it on the other hand completely ruined Millions, Slumdog and Sunshine to me (especially the last one, where the pace is completely changed in the final act, coming out of nowhere). Again, I stress that after a mere trailer we can't really say much, but yeah, Boyle's last three movies have disappointed me and mostly due to his choices as a filmmaker.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: MacGuffin on October 08, 2010, 01:41:36 PM
New Trailer here. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/127hours/)
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: modage on October 08, 2010, 01:51:25 PM
Trailer almost made me cry.   :cry:
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: jerome on October 08, 2010, 02:06:48 PM
Band of Horses' The Funeral does that to you.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Pozer on October 08, 2010, 02:07:53 PM
it's that damn overdone song.

edit: me n jerome were brainsynced.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Pubrick on October 08, 2010, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: P on September 15, 2010, 07:22:55 PM
So yeah, I'm pretty much vindicated.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: children with angels on October 08, 2010, 08:15:41 PM
Are you kidding? The film may very well turn out to be good, but that trailer - and particularly the use of that song (which I haven't heard before) - is pretty painfully bad, considering the hip/gritty edge Boyle is seemingly going for. That just does not seem to fit - and if it does suit the mood of the finished film, I'm out. I have a feeling it probably won't be representative though.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: modage on November 09, 2010, 08:04:40 PM
from my blog (http://modage.tumblr.com/post/1529914213/127-hours):

I'm usually not a fan of true stories (and especially biopics) but Danny Boyle's 127 Hours is an intense, viceral film and yes, one of the best of the year.  From about 10 minutes in you're completely tensed up and remain that way through the end.  I couldn't imagine eating popcorn and enjoying myself because the film just makes you feel the pain, the claustrophobia, the hopelessness that you can't not be involved as a viewer.  Boyle said his mistake in making The Beach was that it wasn't a "city film", which is why he decided to shoot 127 Hours like one.  It's extreme closeups make you the claustrophobia of the space, but the split screens, editing and music keep the films pace moving quickly throughout, never slowing to become a ponderous look at nature.

James Franco gives a great performance as Aron Ralston and the flashback scenes help flesh out his character to give the ending true catharsis.  I was thinking what a mistake it would have been to cast a more intensely serious actor like Leonardo Dicaprio in the role.  With Franco, he alternates between subtle comedy (that had me laughing out loud) and also playing the emotion but never overplaying.  I hate to mention "the scene" because it seems like that's all anyone wants to talk about, but I'll say it was intense but not gratuitous.  (It has some great sound design though.)  Boyle is great at making feel-bad, feel-good films.  You go through hell first but come out feeling like life is beautiful.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Pubrick on November 10, 2010, 04:25:18 AM
fuck yes called it.

this is one of my most anticipated films of the year because i KNOW it will be deliver

this year is a wash as far as xixax's ability to back winning horses is concerned. let's hope we (as a collective) get our heads out of our asses and get back to recognizing great films before we see them cos that's why we're the number one place on the entire internet for savvy movie-loving losers. it's all well and good to recognize a great film AFTER you've seen it, i think we generally have that covered, but it is another (and more admirable) skill altogether to know when a movie is going to be great before it's even out.

it's what separates us from ppl who go see Robin Hood just because russell crowe is in it and they've convinced themselves they liked Gladiator. it's what gives us the right to call things overrated and underrated, or to like asshole films but for different reasons. just look at the hype that UNBELIEVABLY built up around that piece of shit MONSTERS (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11239.0) that was so clearly a waste of everyone's time -- i mean SO obviously crap that.. i'm just speechless that ppl legitimately compared it to District 9 (favourably, to say nothing of the ppl who are still on the wrong side of that film). less of that, more of ppl knowing this film was going to be awesome because it so freaking obviously IS.

just sayin.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Stefen on November 10, 2010, 04:52:47 AM
He's right, guys. At the end of the day it's not about who won or who lost. Who was crowned and who was defeated. It's about who tried!

Now let's go watch some movies! 
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: cronopio 2 on November 10, 2010, 04:55:22 AM
I'M SEEING SCOTT PILGRIM TODAY!!! *WAR CRY*
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 14, 2010, 05:56:03 PM
wow. boyle's best.. a film about the senses. i disagree that franco's character is fleshed out. i think the beauty of the flashbacks is how vague they are to the point where they stand in for our own experiences. franco becomes emblematic of humankind/what we are when stripped of everything: a collection of nerve endings. all we have is what we feel. most 'appreciate your life' movies are about larger, human-specific concepts like relationships, war etc. but this movie is so much more immediate. appreciate water. appreciate sunlight. franco is sooo well-cast. keeps it funny. but his face is also a bottomless well of pain, regret etc... along with the absolutely essential comedy. it's boyle, so there are one or two really on-the-nose things here and there, but not nearly enough to derail the mood and make you go 'come onnn'. it doesn't fall apart towards the end, either. maybe cause the story is so simple. i'm pretty sure this is the first fully great boyle movie.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: matt35mm on November 14, 2010, 07:55:30 PM
This is definitely one of my favorites of the year.  Although I didn't think about it at the time, I have to agree that this movie wouldn't have worked with a very serious actor like DiCaprio.  Franco is fantastic in it, and I was relieved that I got to laugh a lot throughout this experience.  There's one moment in particular that was probably one of the biggest laughs that I've had at the movies ever.  And without all that, I'm not sure I would have given a shit about any of this, or at least would have preferred to read what's been written about the incident instead of watching a movie about it.

There's one interview with Boyle (maybe I read it here) where he says that he really wanted the audience to feel like they would have done the same thing as Ralston did.  I think Boyle succeeds here.  At least, for me, I was cheering him on while the deed was being done, and was very happy to see him get free.  Lots of people were definitely having a hard time watching it, though.  But because the movie was so much more about life than death, you really get the sense that it comes down to his arm or his life.

I particularly identified with Ralston's selfishness, and when he calls himself out on it, I suddenly felt like he was talking to me.  Maybe it's a part of being a 20-something guy who pretty much has always had access to everything he wants (not in terms of material goods, but as far as doing what I want to do with my time), and feels like he can do it all on his own.  I mean, just recently I went to Burning Man and didn't tell a bunch of people.  With no phone signal there and no Facebook updates, my parents and family began to worry, of course.  And the only reason I didn't tell them where I was going was because I wasn't really thinking about anything but my own enjoyment.

The movie hasn't really changed that about me, but it's helped me to spend a little bit more time thinking about it.  It put into my mind the very lofty goal of maybe someday being not such a selfish asshole.  It's very rare for an "appreciate your life" movie to really work, but I think that part of why this movie at least succeeds in getting me to think a little bit more about the way that I live my life is because it never pretends to be anything it isn't.  That is, it's a movie about a dude who gets his arm stuck and after 5 days, cuts his arm off to get free, and 80% of the movie is exactly that.  Its focus on what it is allows you to pull so much more from it than if the movie got too philosophical and preachy for its own good.  It keeps pushing in instead of pulling away in order to hammer in the message that we all already knew that the story had anyway.  So it doesn't waste time on those things.  There's really only one or two actual flashbacks that I remember, with most of the scenes (except for the opening) that aren't him trapped under the rock being hallucinations, which actually take us further into his current experience rather than getting all nostalgic.

Anyway, all very smartly done; a hilarious and horrifying experience that will likely stick with you.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 25, 2010, 12:17:51 PM
I can't recommend this enough.  People would run out of the theater and vomit into the garbage and we'd have a handful of people literally faint and everyone would panic and we'd have to call an ambulance, I don't get it.  I understand squeamish, but this isn't that rough.  Don't let horror stories deter you from seeing this, folks.  It's a masterpiece.

I was going to see Monsters instead because my theater will only have it till yesterday, actually.  I'm pretty sure we don't have it anymore, as something has replaced it for Thanksgiving... Made In Dagenham, I think.  Regardless, I was more invested in seeing 127 Hours and it was incredibly revitalizing and empowering.  It epitomizes the struggle that everyone individually faces when dealing with problems themselves, and how stuck they can get without any help. 

The amount of power in the very weakness of his voice when he sputters out "Help me" once he finally gets out was an incredibly chilling moment for me.  This year has been a great year for flicks.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Robyn on November 26, 2010, 07:01:46 AM
Swedish cinemas can go fuck itself in the ass, is it really necessary to release this four months later than the U.S.? I mean, it looks amazing and I can't wait.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: squints on November 26, 2010, 10:17:46 PM
this was good, not really amazing or anything. USA Today says this movie "scales the heights of film-making," i dunno about that. i liked inception and the social network better.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 26, 2010, 10:50:33 PM
could you justify that opinion in some way?

so it's useful to people who read it and aren't you?
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Stefen on November 26, 2010, 11:45:03 PM
^That's a bit of a jerk thing to say. He just didn't feel it met the lofty hyperbole that some critics are using to describe it. He liked it a lot, but thinks other films were better this year. Seems justified to me.

I'm seeing it tomorrow afternoon. Can't wait. Really looking forward to this one. But first I have to put together a bookshelf. I'm gonna have to use tools like a hammer. Really looking forward to doing man things and watching a man movie.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Sleepless on November 27, 2010, 07:40:01 AM
To be honest, I'm surprised this film is getting so much love here. No doubt I'll wind up seeing this eventually as the wife is such a huge Franco fan. Whatever. But this definitely isn't on my must list. Admittedly, I'm pre-judging the film but I've never really been an admirer of Boyle and this extract of Film Comment's review sums up my thoughts and expectations surprisingly well:

"But another aspect of this scenario is quite uncongenial to Boyle's on-the-run style: for most of the film, the hero can barely move. In interviews, Boyle has described this as a challenge that appealed to him. In practice, he effectively cheats his way out of it. One might have hoped that the restricted space would force Boyle (as it did Ralston) to pay close attention to the most minute details of his environment, to discover hidden opportunities for action, and to systematically develop the scenario's progress. Boyle may not be Robert Bresson, but here he doesn't even try to be. Instead of latching onto substance, he overdoses on style."

Full article here:
http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/nd10/127hrs.htm
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: modage on November 27, 2010, 08:31:06 AM
What they mean is "it wasn't boring enough."
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: children with angels on November 27, 2010, 10:35:22 AM
It sounds like they're saying that Boyle didn't find a style that worked appropriately or productively with the subject matter, which I can believe. Though I have not yet seen this, and so can't really comment. Nevertheless, let's not tar all criticisms of flashy style as if they make the writer somehow anti-fun or pro-boring.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 27, 2010, 02:05:08 PM
Quote from: Stefen on November 26, 2010, 11:45:03 PM
He just didn't feel it met the lofty hyperbole that some critics are using to describe it. He liked it a lot, but thinks other films were better this year.
why? why? why? be more constructive with your feedback.

why post that if you're not going to explain why it didn't meet the lofty hyperbole? i'm not asking for an essay. just a reason for the opinion. otherwise it's just pointless. i could have guessed one person on the internet disagreed with the critics but didn't think it was a bad movie.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Ghostboy on November 27, 2010, 02:10:22 PM
Yeah, sure, Boyle 'cheats,' but I don't care. The movie was wholly enjoyable, and sometimes a really great crowd-pleaser is exactly what the doctor ordered. James Franco is amazing in it, and his arm is the best villain of the year.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 27, 2010, 03:38:57 PM
Quote from: picolas on November 27, 2010, 02:05:08 PM
why post that if you're not going to explain why it didn't meet the lofty hyperbole? i'm not asking for an essay. just a reason for the opinion. otherwise it's just pointless. i could have guessed one person on the internet disagreed with the critics but didn't think it was a bad movie.

Used to think the same thing a lot, but as movies are a democracy of different intentions, they also are a democracy filled with different reactions. Some people show their reaction with attributed reasons why and some just play by their gut. Then sometimes both camps switch sides without understanding why.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 27, 2010, 05:59:20 PM
but is there literally no explanation as to why squints thought it was okay? i don't believe that. strikes me as more of a problem of not putting effort into understanding the reaction, or not sharing it. but let's say it was a 100% physiological reaction that can never be explained or understood by anyone other than squints. it just. felt. okay. well, fine. but why would you post that? i don't understand why that's worth putting on a message board.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 27, 2010, 06:38:15 PM
OK, but when someone says they love something or thought it was great and use other words that basically reaffirm those basic things, are they really saying anything? I'm with you in the sense it would be nice for everyone to contribute something which constitutes dialogue about a film, but I have seen lots of film get praised here and I felt like I wasn't reading any real opinions. And that includes heavyweight films like There Will be Blood. Just saying, it happens all the time. I even did it with my original review of Brokeback Mountain, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Lust, Caution. The nature of message boards is for comments both large and small. If the small didn't exist, I don't know what Silias Ruby would do. And yes, Silias, I say that with every intended affection. You're a true fan of movies and that's a good thing.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 27, 2010, 10:21:11 PM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 27, 2010, 06:38:15 PM
OK, but when someone says they love something or thought it was great and use other words that basically reaffirm those basic things, are they really saying anything?
that's exactly what i'm talking about. it has nothing to do with love or hate, just some semblance of a reason behind what you think. lots of things happen all the time. does that make them okay? does that make my quest to know of squints' true feelings any less valid? why is it so weird and 'jerky' to want to know what someone on a film discussion board thinks? i read an opinion on a forum that doesn't seem to mean anything so i want the poster to explain further. that's the point of message boards. and saying things in general, i think. again, i could imagine there were tons of people who loved, hated, mildly enjoyed, didn't enjoy, vomited based on this movie before i came to this board. the reason i'm here is to understand other people's ideas of movies and to share my own. if it's just 'i disagree with critics. the end.', then why am i here? i couldn't imagine a less jerky premise than trying to understand why someone feels a certain way.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: RegularKarate on November 29, 2010, 11:37:19 AM
I'd say this is Boyle's best.  I don't know that I'd watch it again, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment of it.

Boyle's "cheating" is kept at a minimum and I think calling it cheating is a shitty thing to say.  He made choices and I wouldn't call them cheap choices either.

SPOILS
When he says "I need help" at the end, I lost it.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Stefen on November 29, 2010, 05:44:21 PM
It's really, really good. What surprised me the most is that Boyle really jumps right into it. It couldn't have been more than 10 minutes in and Aron is already stuck in the crevice. I thought he would dilly dally and play with all his fancy editing for awhile, but nope, he really jumps right into it. It never got boring and I think Franco was perfect for the role. I can't imagine Gosling in it. As others have said, it wouldn't work as well without someone like Franco. He just has a carefree face. It would have been a stupid movie if it was just Dicaprio intense face for an hour.

I don't know if it's my favorite of the year and it's not going to change filmmaking, but it's a very solid film and love him or hate him, you gotta admire Boyle for always trying new things. He's no Wes Anderson.

SPOILERS.
I too lost it when he spots that family and says in a hushed voice, "I need help." It was heartbreaking. The actual part where he cuts off his arm is brutal but not gratuitous. What stuck with me the most is how red the blood is. The breaks of the bone were pretty bad too but didn't bother me as much as the breaks did.

My only beef was how it showed him having a premonition and he's married and has a kid, and then it says how it came true. Yeah, most people get married and have kids (not here). I just felt like that aspect tried to hard to pull at the heartstrings. I loved all the flashbacks of him seeing his family and his little sister playing the piano. I thought all of that was very well done.

Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on November 29, 2010, 09:10:47 PM
I doubt that it was an omen that he'd get married and have kids, I imagine he fantasized about it and came so close to death that he was totally driven to seek it out if and when he survived.  It's not like he predicted some impossible event, he probably just poured all of himself into seeking that out, and who knows, that brings to question how much power that desire gave him to survive the situation of being trapped by nature.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: matt35mm on November 29, 2010, 10:12:11 PM
It's a specific hallucination from the book.  I guess that image was the last straw for him, and it does mark a significant change from someone who had been previously driven to show that he can do everything on his own and not need anybody to this image of someone from the future whose very existence depends on his getting out from under that rock.

I also wouldn't call the style of the film cheating.  I think it's part of what makes the film feel so unique, because we've never seen something like that, LIKE THAT.  It wasn't just a bunch of style to try and distract you from how boring the movie really was.  The style and the story marry to make that film.  To wish for a different style would be to wish for a totally different film.

I guess I don't believe that one can talk about presenting a story with a different style and still be talking about the same film.  I don't really like that kind of film criticism because I think it's a way for the reviewer to talk about some imaginary film instead of discussing the film as it is.  It would be a different matter if the reviewer discussed more detailed elements of the film that could have been pushed more this way or that way in order for the film to be a more realized version of what it was trying to be, but broad criticisms of the fundamental aspects of the film become relatively meaningless, not necessarily because the reviewer is wrong, but because we can't really have a conversation about broad fundamentals, because we might have very different feelings that we associate with such broad ideas, and so we won't be talking about the same thing.  So then it just becomes a really wordy way of saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," with no significant justification.

It's kind of like when people have an argument about religion--most of the time, absolutely nothing is being communicated between the people having the argument because they were talking about two completely different things in the first place without realizing it, and then they curse the other for being oblivious to what was so obvious to them, as though something just being obvious to you has any real validity in a debate/argument/analysis.

It's not easy to really evaluate a film and make intelligent and meaningful criticisms of it through clear arguments.  (That's why I don't do it.)  Really, all that we do here or anybody ever does on forums is say that they liked something or didn't like something.  Their reasons for feeling the way they do aren't really illuminated by using more words or specifying which parts of the movie they liked, and adding why they felt that way tends not to really illuminate anything because it will probably be just another thing that they feel that you might not feel.  Everybody's review of the film so far on here is just a variation of "I loved it/liked it/thought it was okay."  That's pretty much what happens on movie forums, because it's rare that someone will say something genuinely insightful in a post that they spent 10 minutes on, and no one's gonna spend days crafting a hefty essay to put on a movie forum.

Oops.  I kinda just rambled about a bunch of stuff at once there.  I hope something in there made some sense to somebody.  I'm tired.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 30, 2010, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: matt35mm on November 29, 2010, 10:12:11 PMTheir reasons for feeling the way they do aren't really illuminated by using more words or specifying which parts of the movie they liked, and adding why they felt that way tends not to really illuminate anything because it will probably be just another thing that they feel that you might not feel.
WHAT???!!! using more words and being specific doesn't mean anything?? saying why something means something probably won't mean anything to anyone else because they might disagree????? this is, like. completely senseless. you're pooing onto the screen, and my eyes are being forced to eat that poo.

Quote from: matt35mm on November 29, 2010, 10:12:11 PMEverybody's review of the film so far on here is just a variation of "I loved it/liked it/thought it was okay."  That's pretty much what happens on movie forums, because it's rare that someone will say something genuinely insightful in a post that they spent 10 minutes on, and no one's gonna spend days crafting a hefty essay to put on a movie forum.
why the fuck is xixax rallying around the idea of not explaining why you love or hate a movie, and even going as far as suggesting it's not worth doing? ON A DISCUSSION BOARD?? i feel like i'm arguing the theory of gravity right now. these are bad times. is this really how the majority of xixaxers think at present? being as vague as possible when talking about movies is good? vagueness must be DEFENDED??? if so we're doomed. why is no one else jumping on how absurd this is?

it's also kind of funny how long and essay-like your post is, explaining why people shouldn't explain things.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Stefen on November 30, 2010, 07:46:16 PM
haha, dude, chill out. Stop getting so mad that people don't like what you like as much as you liked it. What are you? An only child?

Besides, who wants to write a 20 page essay on a film they didn't like? Who the hell even wants to write one about something they did?

I encourage long posts about films because it's exciting, but some people just don't have the energy to write out a long post for something that didn't really affect them. It's easy for you to write the War & Peace of xixax reviews for this movie because it affected you so strongly, but others may not have liked it as much and don't really feel like writing a long review.

I know if something has a lasting appeal to me, I'll talk about it at length and it's easier to discuss but other films that I see that are 'meh' to me, I don't even mention I saw them most of the time.

Different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 07:47:08 PM
Theoretically, it makes sense for people to say why they like something in a post, but still, I believe people watch movies for a whole host of reasons. It's a democratic art form and my opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. This is also a cyber world and people who love movies a lot do to go film websites of some kind. When they are visiting sites for strict news reasons, they don't generally comment, but lots of people come here for news on movies and they generally feel more free to comment without feeling there is a standard to adhere to. I just accept it and am thankful whenever genuine enthusiasm for a movie shows up.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 30, 2010, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Stefen on November 30, 2010, 07:46:16 PM
haha, dude, chill out. Stop getting so mad that people don't like what you like as much as you liked it.
i'm disappointed you'd link those ideas together. my argument never had anything to do with how i feel about 127 hours. if it did i'd argue about 127 hours.

Quote from: Stefen on November 30, 2010, 07:46:16 PMBesides, who wants to write a 20 page essay on a film they didn't like? Who the hell even wants to write one about something they did?
i specifically said at the top of the page i wasn't expecting an 'essay'. just an explanation. something can be explained in a few words. i'm not talking about length. i'm describing content. this is getting confused.

Quote from: Stefen on November 30, 2010, 07:46:16 PMI encourage long posts about films because it's exciting, but some people just don't have the energy to write out a long post for something that didn't really affect them. It's easy for you to write the War & Peace of xixax reviews for this movie because it affected you so strongly, but others may not have liked it as much and don't really feel like writing a long review.
again i don't care about how long a review is. just that it goes one step beyond 'critics are wrong.' i'd also argue it's easier to write a lengthy review about something you hate (see: the 90-minute phantom menace review), but that's another tangent.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: children with angels on November 30, 2010, 08:23:02 PM
Yeah, seriously: all Pic asked for was a modicum of expansion on an opinion. Surely that can be reasonably hoped for, and would have been entirely satisfied if even a short response had shown up before all this debate kicked off over its lack. Squints can't be blamed (we've all got other shit to do), but neither can Pic (he requested a very reasonable thing). Expressing reasons behind judgments, even if only brief, can only help the quality of discussion on the board.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on November 30, 2010, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: children with angels on November 30, 2010, 08:23:02 PM
Yeah, seriously: all Pic asked for was a modicum of expansion on an opinion. Surely that can be reasonably hoped for, and would have been entirely satisfied if even a short response had shown up before all this debate kicked off over its lack. Squints can't be blamed (we've all got other shit to do), but neither can Pic (he requested a very reasonable thing). Expressing reasons behind judgments, even if only brief, can only help the quality of discussion on the board.
thank you

squints' lack of explanation isn't great, but i'm more bugged by people suggesting that my need to know what he's talking about is somehow wrong. or some form of me lashing out at him! it's, like.. :shock:
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: picolas on November 30, 2010, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: children with angels on November 30, 2010, 08:23:02 PM
Yeah, seriously: all Pic asked for was a modicum of expansion on an opinion. Surely that can be reasonably hoped for, and would have been entirely satisfied if even a short response had shown up before all this debate kicked off over its lack. Squints can't be blamed (we've all got other shit to do), but neither can Pic (he requested a very reasonable thing). Expressing reasons behind judgments, even if only brief, can only help the quality of discussion on the board.
thank you

squints' lack of explanation isn't great, but i'm more bugged by people suggesting that my need to know what he's talking about is somehow wrong. or some form of me lashing out at him! it's, like.. :shock:

Yes, but what if an explanation is all generics and is relative to how someone feels and cannot be argued or defended? Someone could write 5 sentences beyond, "I didn't like it" and still be saying the sum of those four words. There are some movies I can't explain why I reacted a certain way. I'm not trying to crucify Picolas, but I feel a little lack of understanding is ongoing in all the responses. Squints may have more to say on the subject. I have no idea, but I have carried negative and positive feelings around about a film that were wholly based on what my gut was telling me. I can't write those feelings.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: squints on December 01, 2010, 03:15:07 AM
I've changed my mind. I didn't like this movie at all.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Stefen on December 01, 2010, 03:16:27 AM
lol.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on December 01, 2010, 02:44:33 PM
Why do our discussions of films often delineate into the concept of discussing films rather than just discussing what we liked and didn't like and what worked for us and what didn't?
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: polkablues on December 01, 2010, 02:48:27 PM
We're hardcore meta.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: children with angels on December 01, 2010, 07:51:36 PM
Quote from: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on December 01, 2010, 02:44:33 PM
Why do our discussions of films often delineate into the concept of discussing films rather than just discussing what we liked and didn't like and what worked for us and what didn't?

Well, this time it happened because someone didn't discuss what they liked and didn't like or what what worked and didn't work.

Triple hardcore meta.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: MacGuffin on December 01, 2010, 08:06:02 PM
I'm hardcore mecha...


(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Feb%2Fymv%2Fus%2Fimg%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fa_i___artificial_intelligence%2Fhaley_joel_osment%2Fai2.jpg&hash=3601284a382c7fb8c24a8a4e58d0644535afe220)
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on December 01, 2010, 08:32:19 PM
Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 11:27:23 PMYes, but what if an explanation is all generics and is relative to how someone feels and cannot be argued or defended?
Quote from: picolas on November 30, 2010, 08:07:01 PMlet's say it was a 100% physiological reaction that can never be explained or understood by anyone other than squints. it just. felt. okay. well, fine. but why would you post that?

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 11:27:23 PMSomeone could write 5 sentences beyond, "I didn't like it" and still be saying the sum of those four words.
Quote from: picolas on November 30, 2010, 08:07:01 PMi'm not talking about length. i'm describing content.

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 11:27:23 PMI feel a little lack of understanding is ongoing in all the responses.
i know the feeling.

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 11:27:23 PMSquints may have more to say on the subject. I have no idea
Hence, my question to him: do you have more to say on this subject?

Quote from: Gold Trumpet on November 30, 2010, 11:27:23 PMI have carried negative and positive feelings around about a film that were wholly based on what my gut was telling me. I can't write those feelings.
so.. you didn't post them? i do that all the time. i'm familiar with not being able to articulate exactly how i feel. that's why i avoid writing about those kinds of movies on here. because i know it won't be interesting or valuable to anyone else if all i can say is "this was okay." it's not exactly a mortal sin to write that, but it is very closely related to sloth. why would it ever be wrong to ask someone to explain their opinion further? squints initiated the conversation with potentially everyone on xixax by posting a message. i asked if he could elaborate. maybe i could've responded if i understood why he felt that way, and a discussion could've happened. all i'm trying to do is facilitate discussion on a discussion board. why is that so weird?
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Pozer on December 01, 2010, 09:11:39 PM
really 127 hours later and still on this
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: pete on December 01, 2010, 10:33:43 PM
if you actually wanted a discussion on the film, you probably wouldn't've called squint out like that.  you don't get someone to chat with you by demanding him to explain himself.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: picolas on December 02, 2010, 07:27:33 AM
i was definetly peeved by the vagueness of the post, but there's nothing unreasonable about asking someone to make their volunteered opinion make more sense. i couldn't know if i wanted to discuss anything specifically with squints cause there was nothing specific to discuss. and by facilitate discussion, i don't just mean potentially between me and squints, but anyone on this board. there's no room for give and take if you're that vague. expect to defend what you're saying if you're going to put it out on a discussion board. if someone like me is DEMANDING an explanation there's no need to hide in a corner and never explain anything. i hope. was it that scary? i just asked for justification so someone could glean some value from the post other than critics are wrong.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: modage on January 17, 2011, 09:27:03 PM
Simon Beaufoy Talks Alternate Ending To '127 Hours' That Was Cut (Poor Lizzy Caplan)
Source: The Playlist

When we first saw Danny Boyle's survival tale "127 Hours" at TIFF, we called it "Lean, efficient, despairing, thrilling and ultimately life affirming" as well as one of the best films of the year.  By now you know the film is the true story of Aron Ralston (James Franco) who was stuck in a Utah canyon for days after his arm became trapped under a boulder.  Little did we know at the time that the film's leanness was partially the result of a major trim to the third act of the film.  The film's writer Simon Beaufoy recently spoke with the NYTimes about this last minute alteration. "We had a much more resolved ending, so they [the audience] had an emotional connection. There's a long scene with his mother in the hospital, there's a long scene with the ex-girlfriend where she told him a few hard truths, there was a scene at his sister's wedding, which he referenced in the movie. So we had this very unusual movie, and we resolved it in this very Hollywood way."

Apparently the film had even been shown to test audiences in this form when Boyle and Beaufoy had the revelation that they didn't need it.  "Everyone was happy, but the day before we were due, we were looking at it in the cutting room and we had been debating it and we said, it's a great ending, but not for the movie that we made. It felt dishonest. So we cut it. We felt that the movie really needed to – once he got rescued, it needed to punch out. I felt, emotionally, the movie was over when he says the words, 'I need help.'"  After they realized this, they re-edited the film and screened it once again for test audiences.  "It all happened very late in the day. It's a very weird thing making a true story, because you need your freedom, as filmmakers, to do what you need to do."

Good news for the film but bad news for the cast portraying Ralston's family including Lizzy Caplan ("Party Down", "Cloverfield") seen in the finished film only briefly as Aron's sister Sonja. The real-life Aron Ralston was "very precise" about getting all of the details of his story right in the film, down to the color of his bicycle and whether he had turned left or right. Beaufoy said that this worried him at first but eventually told Ralston "Listen, to honor the greater truths of your experience, we have to tell it this way." He continues, "When you make a movie, a dramatization based on the real experience of a living subject, you can't airbrush that away into to a perfect movie arc. So I think the end of the movie nods to that, it nods to that ambivalence that's still in him. In life, unlike in movies, people don't change – what's the word I'm looking for? – absolutely. They change a bit, slowly."

The finale of the film now fits so perfectly it's strange to imagine the film continuing on for an entire act.  No word whether any of this footage will turn up on the film's upcoming release on DVD/Blu-ray in the spring. The picture seems to have lost a little of its momentum throughout awards season which is a shame because it really is a solid film.  If you haven't seen "127 Hours" yet for some reason, (especially if that reason is you don't think you can handle the "arm scene"), you should really catch it while the film is still in theaters.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: I Love a Magician on February 06, 2011, 07:50:21 PM
i feel like there's a good movie in there somewhere but it's been obscured by boyle doing his boyle thing all over it. there were some things i liked about the movie but for the most part franco was the only thing that kept me interested.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 23, 2011, 04:29:07 AM
Quote from: I Love a Magician on February 06, 2011, 07:50:21 PM
i feel like there's a good movie in there somewhere but it's been obscured by boyle doing his boyle thing all over it. there were some things i liked about the movie but for the most part franco was the only thing that kept me interested.

I mostly agree with this, but I'd say that in the end, my take on the movie is positive. But I also agree when a few posts back the word 'cheating' was used, because that's what Boyle did. This movie could have been bigger and unforgettable and way more intense with a different approach. I was just writing about Somewhere on that movie's thread and in some places I could feel more the loneliness on Dorff's character in that movie than I could feel in 127 Hours. I just don't think Boyle is consistent and doesn't trust the audience to just look at a shot for more than 5 seconds without cutting. I could understand that in the earlier scenes with him exploring the wilderness, but I just don't think he was successful since Franco fell on the cave (although the fall moment was perfectly shot and edited and made me gasp). That said, Franco is great in this, and I mostly enjoyed the movie because of him, even when sometimes his character starts speaking to himself in the cave only for the audience to know exactly what he thinks (no, not the hallucination parts of it, or when he talks to the camera, but the parts where he, like, gets tired and just says 'I'm tired' or something like that out of the blue).
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: socketlevel on February 23, 2011, 09:47:51 AM
Quote from: I Love a Magician on February 06, 2011, 07:50:21 PM
i feel like there's a good movie in there somewhere but it's been obscured by boyle doing his boyle thing all over it. there were some things i liked about the movie but for the most part franco was the only thing that kept me interested.

I agree, it's the same kind of tone changes I didn't like in Slumdog. He gets really silly sometimes and it also often looks like a student film.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 02, 2011, 07:30:07 AM
The tone was sincerely off and I really wanted some more of lizzy caplan. She's a blink and you'll miss it moment. Made me a little angry. Quite a one man show though.
Title: Re: 127 Hours
Post by: Alexandro on March 20, 2011, 12:30:41 PM
this is boyle's best movie since trainspotting (still the best thing he's done). i'm glad he kept it simple and straight. loved the dreams and not for one second did it felt like cheating. those film comment guys, really. some here said they meant is not boring enough and that's spot on.

franco was really perfect for this.