127 Hours (2010)

Allow me to begin this review with some of the best advice I can give you: do NOT go rock-climbing and/or mountaineering without telling anyone. That is a BAD idea. Aron Ralston did that nearly 8 years ago, and you all know what happened to him. If you don't, and you're still considering going out to those canyons alone and without telling anyone, do yourself a favor, watch “127 Hours.” Directed by “Slumdog Millionaire”s Danny Boyle and based on Ralston's memoirs, “127 Hours” chronicles the hours leading up to the incident as well as the aftermath and subsequent rescue.

We meet Aron (James Franco) early in the morning as he gets ready to go out for a day of biking, rock climbing and mountaineering. We see him doing everything he should do for a day of strenuous activity out in the sun: packing food and lots of fluids. The one thing that he seemingly can't get his hands on is his pocket knife, something that will obviously prove to be very unfortunate. On his trip he met two young women (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn) who were also hiking through Blue John Canyon. He guides them to an underground pool where they spend a good part of the day just hanging out and having fun. It's clear from the beginning that Aron loves adventure, and it would appear from the reactions and attitudes of the two women he befriends, that love of adventure is contagious.

 

After he bids his friends adieu, Aron goes off by himself to continue on his hike. It is here where, while  trying to jump down 20 feet to the canyon floor, Aron dislodges an 800 pound chock stone and falls. The stone also falls and pins Aron's right arm against the side of the canyon at the wrist. At first, Aron tries to pull his arm out, then he tries to move the stone. Obviously none of these work. After a couple days of waiting for rescue, he runs out of water and we see him slowly deteriorate into hallucinations. The hallucinations include a darkly humorous talk-show type interchange between Aron and himself. He knows his mistake was not only putting too much pressure on that chock stone but more importantly not telling anybody where he was going.

The amputation scene is graphic and pretty intense. I would be remiss not to mention the various reports of people fainting and throwing up during screenings of this movie. It was NOT that bad. The editing made it so that you will squirm and jump at the most painful moments. I actually thought that was a brilliant movie. Boyle was able to reflect pain not only through the visuals which audiences have become desensitized to, but through sound. It's a very creative move, that works quite well

Before the amputation Aron begins to hallucinate seeing his entire family. Aplogizing to him he sees a young child that he's never seen before. He realizes that it's his unborn son. This more than anything else gives him the will to cut off his arm with a dull blade. Once detached from the canyon, Aron makes his way out. After meandering through the rest of the canyons he happens upon a Dutch family. The mother and son run ahead and direct the rescue party to where Aron was. The music by Boyle buddy A.R Rahmann is used to great effect at the most emotional of scenes and, I'm not gonna lie the rescue scene brought a tear or two due mostly to the score.

James Franco most certainly carries this movie. Of course, it's just him for the majority of it, and it's definitely a tribute to Franco and Boyle that this movie doesn't fail just on that account. The story is most certainly of the cautionary variety. The little I've read of “Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” Ralston's memoirs, it's clear that Ralston had a history of rash and dangerous decisions. I wouldn't go so far as to say he deserved what happened to him, nobody deserves to have an 800 pound boulder fuse  their arm to a canyon, but it was the epitome of stupid to go out alone without telling anyone where he was. That being said, Aron Ralston never gave up. His will to live and survive was incredible. I hope I have a fraction of his bravery and determination. This story shows that when someone finds something to live for, they will do ANYTHING to survive.

This is a very good movie. It's not for everyone; many will find it boring and slow. Give it a chance and see it for yourself.

7.5/10

The King's Speech (2010)

In a little over a week, the current British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II will have reigned over the United Kingdom for 59 years. For many of us, she's the only British monarch we've ever known. Within the next decade or two we will most likely see a new king take the British throne. In Tom Hooper's critically acclaimed, “The King's Speech,” we take a look at the struggles of Elizabeth's father, King George VI. Born Albert Frederick Arthur George, “Bertie,” as he was called by his wife and those closest to him, had a very severe stuttering problem. In an age of radio, and at a time when his country was about to be thrust into another world conflict, this speech impediment posed a rather large problem for a man who was never meant to be king.

Being born the second son of King George V(Michael Gambon), Albert was never meant to be king. His older brother Edward (Guy Pearce), was a much better speaker. However, less than a year after his father's death, King Edward abdicated the throne to marry the American Wallis Simpson, thus making Albert, King George VI. It didn't seem as though Albert's speech impediment was a national secret. As a royal prince, he had had to make public appearances and speeches, and the movie shows one or two of them. They are painful to watch and listen to. Speech impediments are often some of the most pitiable ailments to me. 

 The story of course focuses on the relationship between Albert(Colin Firth) and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue(Geoffrey Rush).  Grudgingly brought to Logue's office by his wife, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Helena Bonham Carter), Albert does not believe that Logue holds any real answers. After listening to a recording of himself reciting Hamlet while listening to loud music, he realizes that perhaps Logue's methods can indeed help. Logue decidedly treats Albert just like any other person, even going so far as to calling him by his nickname. As it often happens, Albert's speech impediment while curable also has a psychological foundation which needs to be dealt with. While trying to get at those deeper issues, Lionel comes up with some humorous and apparently effective techniques with which to combat the stuttering. One interesting method concerns the use of many different expletives as a way to focus the speaker. The many uses of the f-word although in a therapeutic context, is the only thing that led to the 'R' rating.

The movie follows Logue's work with Albert up to and through the coronation, and the climax comes when Albert is required to give a radio message to his subjects concerning England's entrance into the second World War. One of the most fascinating features of British government, the King holds no real power and and yet serves as the one uniting figure for the entire kingdom. To have that kind of pressure  while on the brink of war with Germany, there's no question that the speech is very important.

All of his life, Albert lived in the shadow of his older brother. It was not only the speech impediment that got in the way of finding his voice. A king needs to be able to rouse his people to action. History tells us that of course Albert found his voice, and indeed he roused his people to action. England faced nearly daily bombings from Germany during WWII, and their survival and general morale remained intact due, I'm sure in no small way by the leadership of King George VI.

It's true that I'm a sucker for the British monarchy. Recently a string of incredibly well made films about female British monarchs have come out in “Elizabeth”(1998), “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”(2007), “The Young Victoria”(2009), and “The Queen”(2006). All of those movies were excellent in my opinion. This movie both extends this tradition and serves as a uniquely excellent addition to it.

It's actually kind of difficult to write a review about a movie like this without reverting too much to the actual history behind it. The fact is, I'm sure the real story behind this movie is just as impelling as the movie itself.

I think it's very safe to say that this movie is quite possibly the best of 2010. The acting is superb, the story is excellent. There is not much wrong with this movie other than the fact that many will probably find it boring. “The King's Speech,” is about the power of words and of finding ones voice. Colin Firth should win an Oscar for his performance, and the movie should win an Oscar for Best picture. I will be very disappointed if either of them fail to do so. 

10/10

An Education (2009)

Why do we go to school? Is it to learn everything we can? Is it so that we can be a more effective member of society? Is it so that we can simply have a better life for ourself? This question and others are asked and answered in Lone Sherfig's “An Education.” Based on Lynn Barber's memoir's “An Education” follows Jenny (Carey Mulligan), a teenage girl in her last year before college who wants to know what it's all about. When she doesn't get any real answers from her teachers, she seeks it outside of school in the form of David (Peter Sarsgaard), a thirty something charmer.

Jenny is a very smart young girl in 1960s London. One of her biggest dreams is to visit Paris, maybe even live there for a while. She loves art, good music and “being cool” as most young people do. Jenny is on track to be accepted to Oxford, which would very much please her parents, especially her father(Alfred Molina). Then comes David, a mysterious man that innocuously enough offers to give, not Jenny, a ride home, but because it's raining he offers her a ride for her cello. This is the first we see of how very calculated and self aware David is. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Jenny thinks she knows what she's doing, and maybe she does. When David lies to her parents so that she can hang out with him and his friends over night, she goes along with it. She's knows it's wrong, but, afterall they're only going to see a violin performance. She desperately wants to act and indeed be older than she is. This is very dangers for a girl who believes herself to be much more experienced in life than she is. David IS older than she is, and he offers Jenny exactly that experience that she so naively wishes for. However, that experience soon becomes more than she's comfortable with. She's soon left to deal with the consequences of her decisions.

 

It's called “An Education,” it would seem, for two reasons. One, because Jenny quickly learns many lessons about what it's like to be an adult, and having to face real adult situations and make adult decisions. Society tries to guard the young against having to deal with that for a reason. Two, because the movie looks at the reasons why girls were educated in the 1960's. From the very beginning of the movie, Jenny's father pushes her to stay on top of her studies so that she can go to Oxford. He's the stereotypical stickler of a father. That is, until David proposes to Jenny. With the prospect of having found a future husband, according to her father, there really is no reason to have to go to Oxford anymore. If I wasn't sure that stuff like this actually happened (happens), I'd laugh it off as a ridiculous joke. Long story short, stay in school boys and girls.

This movie is very well acted. Carey Mulligan was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal of Jenny and I most certainly believed she earned it. However, like Jenny, I was at first taken in and rather mesmerized by this movie.  Looking at it again, I see that it takes an overly simplistic look at the whole situation. In the movie, Jenny asks her teachers why her and her classmates are in school, why are they learning. It's a fair question. Why should they care about their learning if they are never told why they should? In the movie, the answer comes down on two sides, it's either to find a suitable mate, or to allow yourself to live without a mate. This might be an oversimplification, but I feel it's a failing of the movie, as is the quick tacked on happy ending.

The movie is very good despite its shortcomings. It was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture when they opened up the field to 10 pictures, and I agree with its inclusion. It's not a perfect movie, but it definitely starts the conversation. 

7.5/10

Up in the Air (2009)

Some people say that home is where the heart it, others say it's where you hang your hat, others where you lay your head. For small children, home, is in the arms of a parent For adolescents, it's where they go when they have to stop having fun. For college students, home is a concept that is in constant fluctuation. Home is where one belongs, wherever that is.  For Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), the main character in Jason Reitman's “Up in the Air,” home is almost exclusively 39,000 feet above the ground. That is where he feels he belongs. That's where he feels at home.

Ryan is incredibly comfortable in his life. That says a lot as he works for a company that travels across the country firing people for other companies. He literally makes a living on taking people's livings away from them. He is asked more than once how he lives with himself. I think a lot of it is due to the fact that he never really has much time to think about it, he's always moving, always going to the next place, the next airport, the next downsizing company. That is, until two different women come into his life. One comes out of his life in the air, and one threatens to destroy it. Enter Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) and Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). Alex is the perfect match for Ryan. One scene shows them both emptying their various frequent flyer cards and valued membership cards and compare them. They're both impressed with each other and this leads itself into the bedroom. They both make it clear that they're not looking for anything serious, like the food and drinks on a plane these rendevous are meant to be single serving, no commitment.

Natalie seeks to destroy Ryan's lifestyle. Not directly. Natalie is a recent graduate who enters the company
with new ideas. She wants to make the whole job termination experience virtual. Instead of sending agents around the world, the company would be centered in one building and have their agents fire people over computers. This would ground Ryan indefinitely. So, the boss (Jason Bateman) decides to send Natalie with Ryan to learn the ins and outs of firing people. Ryan does not respect Natalie, of course, because Natalie has never technically fired anybody. She doesn't know what it's like to effectively ruin someones life. She simply is seeking to make the process even that much more impersonal.

Ryan brings Alex to his sister's wedding where he is more a regular guest than a brother of the bride. We see him here beginning to fall for Alex and we also see him slowly begin to realize that home is where you find the people you love. The problem is, he doesn't really have anybody like that, maybe Alex can be that for him. She can't. Once he realizes that, he quickly understands that a life lived with no home, is not really a life, it's the postponement of life. He begins to live.  We see transformation in Natalie as well. Throughout the movie she is trying to prove to everybody and herself that she can change the way things are done for the better. What she doesn't understand and what she eventually realizes is that firing people is hard. It might make it easier for the people doing the firing if it's done over webcam, but there is a lot of pain and anguish that goes into losing a job. Once she realizes that that's what she's making a living in, she quickly exits. She was not quite comfortable with who she was yet, and if you're not comfortable with who you are, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell someone else that they are no longer needed.

There is a LOT going on in “Up in the Air.” A lot can be said, a lot can be written. I began writing about this movie about a year ago, and it was difficult then, just as difficult now. I still do NOT have a good grasp on this movie. All I am sure of is that was very good. The acting was superb, the writing was excellent it was just an all around great movie. I feel as though this movie needs to not be summarized or quickly analyzed, it needs to be discussed, and often and for a while. I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with anything I write for this movie so I'm giving you what I got. “Up in the Air”- Good movie.

8/10

Rabbit Hole (2010)

There are so many horrible things that cause pain for a human being. Many of them are physical, many of them are emotional. One event that always transcends those types of pain: the death of a young child. Becoming parents is in many ways creating a legacy. Having a child means being able to pass on wisdom and values. Nobody can know the effects of having that legacy tragically cut short, unless they experience it.  In John Cameron Mitchell's “Rabbit Hole” we see a fraction of those effects. Based on David Lindsay-Albaire play, “Rabbit Hole” takes an insider's look at the destructive effects of losing a young child.

The story is simple. Married couple Becca and Howie (Nichole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart) have recently lost their young son to a tragic car accident. Their dog ran out into the street and their son ran out after him and was struck by a car driven by a teenager. The teenager wasn't drunk or speeding. It was simply one of those things that you can't always guard against unless you leash both dog and child. Nobody is really to blame, although, there is a lot of blaming. Each parent blames themselves. Becca admits that she should have locked the gate on the dog cage, Howie knows that it was actually him who left the gate unlocked, and if they hadn't gotten the dog he loves, then nothing of this would have happened, etc. Isn't it funny as human beings, when a tragedy occurs, we always have to find somebody to blame, even if it has to be ourselves? We search for some kind of force, somebody or something that caused it; who can right the wrong. What happens when there is nobody to blame?

Becca and Howie try and cope with their grief in different and opposing ways. Becca, who stays at home most of the day sees her son everywhere, in the fingerprints on the door jamb, in the clothes still left in the drawer, or the dog that her son loved and eventually led him to his death. Howie, who leaves the house for work, cherishes these things that remind him of his son. He loves his dog, he loves seeing the remnants of his son, he finds comfort in them. There is no right or wrong here, there is only difference and unfortunately so. Where can you go to be understood, if you can't understand your husband or your wife?

They try to go to group therapy. Becca doesn't come back after the first meeting. Howie continues to go, but soon realizes he best finds comfort and relief in a relaxing toke and new conversation. Becca finds comfort and relief by befriending the teenager whose mere act of driving down a street, killed her son. Again, it wasn't his fault, she knows that. He apologizes, we know he's very sorry. He, even tries to blame himself like they did. She finds comfort in the connection she made at the moment another was lost. There's no right or wrong here.  Becca's mother (Diane Wiest) also lost a son, albeit at 30 years of age and by less innocent means, and wants to empathize, to show Becca that she knows what she's going through. Becca resents that. There is no right or wrong, there is no similarity. How do you continue living when you reach a seemingly unresolvable tragedy? Becca and Howie try living one day and see how it goes from there.

 

The acting drives the story. Kidman and Eckhart perform brilliantly. There is such range required in a movie like this. Alternating quiet subtlety and explosive clarity; whispering and yelling, sorrow and joy. Wiest brings a scarred wisdom that is required as a look at how loss can really hurt a person not only physically but emotionally. Even Miles Teller, the unfortunate teenage driver of the car that killed the son, gives exactly the performance required for this movie. “Rabbit Hole” is a powerful movie that doesn't give any answers as to how to deal with the death of a child, because honestly, there really aren't any answers like that. Each instance is vastly different. A child is so incredibly personal to a parent that to lose one is to lose a part of oneself, and nobody can really understand exactly how that feels. Only those who experience that loss can come close, but no one can ever truly know.

8/10