Beames on Film is one year old!

Yesterday was the first birthday of this film blog, which I began a year and one day ago in order to have somewhere other than Facebook to shout my opinions at people over the internet. I just wanted to post a quick "thank you" to everyone who has read - or better still reads - my ramblings on cinema and hope that you stick with me over the next year, which I hope will include even more reviews and several visits to film festivals.

Here is some self-congratulatory stuff about how it's all been going.

2010 was quite eventful for me and saw me interview some big name Hollywood types (including Ricky Gervais, Darren Aronofsky and Oliver Stone) and write well over one hundred reviews, as well as lots of other stuff here and there - including one piece for the Sunday Telegraph. I have also become a regular contributor on one of the UK's best read daily film blogs Obsessed with Film and even once appeared as an "expert" on BBC Radio Sussex.

I did a lot more stuff than I ever expect to do in that first twelve months, but I can't yet rest on my laurels and I need to work to ensure that 2011 will be as big if not bigger for me (and by extension this blog). In mid-February I will be writing from the Berlin Film Festival, whilst I also hope to visit many others including a second trip to Venice later in the year (who knows, maybe even Cannes).

It's been fun, but also a lot of hard work - most of it (99.9% of it) unpaid. Thanks for supporting and encouraging me on my ramshackle journey to become a full-time film journalist. There aren't many comments left on the site, but Google Analytics ensures me you're out there. So sincerely: thank you. This coming year could prove make or break, so fingers crossed. I hope you are all still reading come January 2012!

To "sex up" this post a little with something tangentially relevant, here is my favourite scene about writing from one of my all-time favourite movies:

'Black Swan': My interviews with Aronofsky, Cassel and Kunis...

Hooray! The brilliant 'Black Swan' is out today in the UK. It was my favourite film of last year after I saw it at the Venice Film Festival and a few months later I was sent to a fancy London hotel for a press junket where I interviewed the director, Darren Aronofsky, as well as two of his stars: Vincent Cassel and Mila Kunis. My review of this masterpiece is up on Obsessed with Film along with those three interviews. Here are the links below:

'Black Swan' review
Darren Aronofsky
Vincent Cassel
Mila Kunis

The film is destined to be nominated for a shed load of Oscars and I fancy Natalie Portman to win Best Actress - something I predicted as soon as I left the première screening on the Lido in September. I noted down all my Oscar predictions earlier in the week.

'Black Swan' is out now and playing at Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse. It has been rated '15' by the BBFC.

Oscar prediction time 2011...

First things first: regular visitors might have noticed that I was unusually quiet last week. This was down to a mixture of the birth of my new baby brother James, a period of horrible flu-ness and general work at the cinema. I have now completed reviews that I started last week before illness temporarily shelved them and they can now be found below this post or on the "reviews" page. Yesterday I also posted a review of the 'Certified Copy' Blu-ray over on Obsessed with Film. So now that I'm back up and running, I thought I'd comment on the award season as it comes into full swing.

As I'm sure most film fans are aware, from all the Ricky Gervais furore and Colin Firth's mighty, flag-flying Best Actor triumph, the Golden Globes (that's the budget Oscars to you and me) were held yesterday in LA. The full results (at least for the film half of it) can be found on the Splendor Cinema blog so I won't bother to re-post them here. Today also saw the nominations for the BAFTAs announced, which you can read here. What I want to instead is look forward to the real deal: the Academy Awards, which are taking place at the end of next month (February 27th). The nominees are announced a week today (Tuesday 25th), so now seems like as good a time as any for rampant speculation.



Best Picture
For the main prize I'd have to say that obvious favoured candidates, 'Black Swan', 'The Social Network', 'The Fighter' and 'The King's Speech', will be joined by fancied outsiders 'Toy Story 3', 'Inception', 'The Kids Are All Right', as well as the now annual nomination for the Coen Brothers with 'True Grit' a likely contender. The final two films in the field of ten are harder to call. I'd guess that Clint Eastwood's 'Hereafter' could miss out after getting "mixed reviews" and failing to perform at the box office. Instead maybe Danny Boyle's '127 Hours' could sneak in, perhaps alongside Gareth Edwards' roundly-praised 'Monsters' (as this year's 'District 9')?

I'm not hedging my bets. Those previous ten are my picks. But if those aren't the chosen ones, then who knows? Maybe the Tilda Swinton vanity project 'I Am Love' could emerge as the token foreign language contender for the award? Or maybe even Alejandro González Iñárritu's 'Biutiful'? I'd also not discount 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' as a possibility. Or the brilliant 'Blue Valentine', with the Weinsteins always keen to push their films for awards glory.

As for the winner, it'd be foolish not to expect the triumphant winner of the Golden Globe 'The Social Network' to win. However, the Globe hasn't often predicted the correct Oscar winner in recent years and last year saw 'Avatar' the strong Oscar favourite all the way through award season until a last minute surge for 'The Hurt Locker'. If it doesn't win for some reason, then I'd like to see 'Black Swan' do it instead.



Best Director
David Fincher won the globe and I believe he'll win the Oscar for 'The Social Network'. The director nominations will be drawn from the five most serious contenders for the main prize. In this case that would make the four "losers" Darren Aronofsky ('Black Swan'), David O. Russell ('The Fighter'), Tom Hooper ('The King's Speech') and Lisa Cholodenko ('The Kids Are All Right').



Best Actor
This category will be won by Colin Firth, last year's most popular loser after his performance in 'A Single Man' is generally liked and has been roundly heralded for his performance as a stuttering George VI in 'The King's Speech'. The makeweights in this field will likely be Jesse Eisenberg for 'The Social Network', James Franco for '127 Hours', Mark Wahlberg for 'The Fighter' and Ryan Gosling for 'Blue Valentine'. Personally, I'd like to see the Golden Globe "Best Performance in a Musical or Comedy" winner Paul Giamatti win the Oscar for 'Barney's Version', but that won't happen. He won't even be nominated. Out of the likely nominees, my pick would be James Franco. I disliked '127 Hours' but he was class in it. He is co-hosting the event with Anne Hathway, so it would be fun to see him win.



Best Actress
How long before this award is renamed "Best Female Actor"? I haven't heard the term actress self-applied in years, so it seems like only a matter of time. This is one of the hardest fields to call in the whole competition. It seems certain that Jennifer Lawrence ('Winter's Bone'), Natalie Portman ('Black Swan') and Michelle Williams ('Blue Valentine') will be nominated, with Portman the probable winner (and my personal favourite). However I'm not so confident about the other two names. Halle Berry ('Frankie and Alice') and Nicole Kidman ('Rabbit Hole') are among the favourites having been nominated at the Globes, but I think Julianne Moore and Annette Bening will both be nominated for 'The Kids Are All Right' - recalling Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick who were both nominated last year for 'Up in the Air'.



Best Supporting Actor
Another hard field to call. In fact, the "supporting" categories are always hard to predict because they can throw up literally any name and are especially prone to votes based on nostalgia or sympathy (Heath Ledger last year, or Pete Postlethwaite at this year's BAFTAs). On that basis Michael Douglas seems a likely nomination for 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' due to his recent battle with throat cancer. Besides, he won an Oscar for the same role in 1987, playing Gordon Gekko in the original 'Wall Street', so it's not that far fetched an honour. Christian Bale will likely win the category for his role in 'The Fighter'. A certainty for at least a nomination is Geoffrey Rush for 'The King's Speech'. The remaining two names could be Andrew Garfield for 'The Social Network' and Mark Ruffalo for 'The Kids Are All Right'. If I had my way Ruffalo would win that one, though I haven't yet seen Bale in 'The Fighter'.



Best Supporting Actress
Golden Globe winner (and a Best Actress nominee last year for 'Frozen River') Melissa Leo will be nominated for her role in 'The Fighter'. As will Amy Adams, who has twice been nominated for this award in the past, for roles in 'Junebug' and 'Doubt'. Mila Kunis seems like a safe bet for 'Black Swan', as does Helena Bonham Carter, who will likely complete a trilogy of acting nominations for 'The King's Speech'. The final nomination is hard to predict. Jacki Weaver was nominated for the Golden Globe for 'Animal Kingdom', whilst the BAFTAs have 'Lesley Manville' up for 'Another Year' and Barbara Hershey for 'Black Swan' (and Miranda Richardson for 'Made in Dagenham', but I'm not going to entertain that as a serious Oscar choice). I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and suggest that Mia Wasikowska could be an outside contender for 'The Kids Are All Right' - a film I've nominated in most of the categories, but which could be left out altogether. Certainly the film's initial Oscar buzz has died down since its release. I think Amy Adams will win the statue itself. Third time lucky.



The Rest
'Toy Story 3' will win the animated film award without too much trouble. 'Inception' will pick up some of the boring effects and technical gongs, whilst 'The King's Speech' will win some sort of costume award for being a stiff, British period drama (then again 'Black Swan' could very well beat them to that one with its ballet costumes). The Best Adapted Screenplay award will go to Aaron Sorkin for 'The Social Network', whilst Best Original Screenplay may go to 'The Kids Are All Right' writers Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg. The Best Score award is a two way battle between Hans Zimmer for 'Inception' and Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross for 'The Social Network'. I have a feeling Zimmer will win this one even though Reznor scooped the Globe. The foreign language winner is impossible to predict on any year. Last time around 'A Prophet' and 'The White Ribbon' picked up every prize en route to the Oscars only for Argentine film 'The Secret in Their Eyes' to come from nowhere and win it. I honestly couldn't even guess. 'Biutiful' maybe? Who cares.

So, those are my picks for the 2011 Academy Award nominations. I'll no doubt write a follow-up to this when the real nominations come in on the 25th.

'Blue Valentine' review:

Stills and posters don't do 'Blue Valentine' justice. It looks too smug and indie, even a little high on itself with its brooding, handsome leads locked in a po-faced embrace. It seems self-consciously "cool" and "stylish", flaunting various garlands on the poster stating that it played in Cannes as well as the hippest international film festivals: Toronto and Sundance. It comes from the shamelessly Oscar-nomination-savvy Weinstein Company and the knowingly trendy soundtrack is composed by indie darlings Grizzly Bear. It was also subject of a high-profile age rating controversy in the US which was over almost as soon as it began, leading the more cynical to speculate that the whole thing might have been a publicity stunt to raise the film's profile (certainly nothing in the film warrants the original 'NC-17' rating from the MPAA). Worse still, I've heard people say things like "it's this year's '(500) Days of Summer'" - which is the worst thing anyone could ever tell me about a movie (except maybe "it's like a Michael Bay directed episode of '24'").

Forget all that though. 'Blue Valentine' is sensational and the performances of Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling searing. It is an emotionally raw, sexually frank and honest movie about relationships, with rounded, multifaceted adult characters and a nonjudgmental attitude. There is something in this movie for anyone who has ever been through romance. But it doesn't stop there. A lady sitting next to me wept during one scene in which Gosling's character, who works as a removal man, helps a lonely old person move into a nursing home by organising the frail gent's photos and war memorabilia around the small, impersonal room. In another scene Michelle Williams' character talks to her ailing grandmother about the decline of her parents' marriage. Another harrowing scene sees her confront the physical process of having an abortion. It's a film that will resonate strongly with people who've been through any of these experiences - not just a painful break-up.



It's not all doom and gloom however. The shade wouldn't have any impact if not for the bright light that shines on half the movie, which flicks back and forth between the happy beginning of the relationship and the fraught end of the couple's married life - prompting those unfair comparisons with the superficial, winking atrocity that is '(500) Days of Summer'. This narrative structure isn't employed for its kookiness however, as the film plays these moments against each other for contrast and often for a change of pace and emotional gear. The salad days of the relationship are probably harder for the film to get right than the sadder stuff. It's relatively easy to do bleak and receive acclaim, whilst genuine romantic warmth is hard to convey and all too often it can read as cheesy, grating and cloying. But when Gosling flirts with Williams, when he sings to her and plays the ukulele, it is properly lovely and wholly sincere.

Director and writer Derek Cianfrance strikes this balance so wonderfully that 'Blue Valentine' avoids becoming a blandly anti-romantic "isn't love bullshit" movie and is instead something much more complex and truthful. "Honest" is perhaps the best adjective to describe the film, in its depiction of sexuality and love. And as with the very best films, in 'Blue Valentine' it is always possible to take any character's point of view and empathise with it. There isn't really too much moral grandstanding here. Nobody is ever obviously in the wrong. Yet at the same time you can understand why they might appear to be in the wrong to the other party. I'd also wager that anyone who watches it will encounter a situation or even an entire conversation that has literally happened to them at some point - for me it was the argument during which Gosling attacks the notion of "potential" (as invariably measured by economic success).



If I had one mild criticism it would be that male sexual gratification is never shown positively and the only scene we see of intimacy between Williams and Gosling is one of cunnilingus. Male sexual pleasure is aggressive and potentially destructive - something to be either put up with or resisted by women. This is only a mild criticism though and I certainly wouldn't advocate an additional love-making scene specifically to tick some sort of affirmative box. What we do see is well handled: tastefully filmed and extremely intimate, and always in service of the characters and their emotional journey (what a turgid, overworn phrase, but I can't think of a better one). It would also be hypocritical of me (given my attack on the Apatow comedies) not to mention that Gosling's character is the typical modern movie male (an overgrown man-child) who just wants to drink and have fun, whereas Williams is the stern, career-minded one who lays down the law with their daughter. But here it is done so well that it rings true and doesn't feel like standard 21st century Hollywood sexism that it perhaps is.

'Blue Valentine' isn't that sad little emo poem of a movie you might think it is from the poster. It's a riveting film that says as much about love and romantic relationships as any other film I've seen as it bravely and skilfully jumps between emotional extremes with great economy and even subtlety. If it doesn't resonate with you on some level then I can only surmise that you haven't ever left the house. It's one of those movies that makes two hours feel like twenty minutes and leaves you feeling satisfied by the art form you love so much, despite the fact it so often breaks your fragile little heart.

'Blue Valentine' is rated '15' by the BBFC and is out now in the UK.

'The Green Hornet' review:

Masked-vigilante movie 'The Green Hornet' has taken a mighty walloping from film critics since its release on Friday. The action-comedy, which stars Seth Rogen and is directed by Michel Gondry, had a troubled production history which saw the original director and co-star Stephen Chow leave the project citing "creative differences". Added to that has been the lukewarm to negative reaction given to the choice of casting comedy actor Rogen in the lead role as Britt Reid (AKA The Green Hornet), as well as the generally unenthusiastic response to the first trailer released last summer. You could be forgiven for not having heard of it too, with minimal publicity being afforded the film (I haven't seen a single TV ad or billboard) by Columbia Pictures, who are seemingly keen to cut their losses and move on - a sign that nobody had much confidence in this movie to begin with. Slap on the much-maligned retrofitted 3D and this movie practically has "avoid" written in big letters all over it.

With crushingly low expectations I went to see it on the opening day last week, mainly because I've admired all of Michel Gondry's previous films. Aside from 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' none are perfect, but all of his films are rough gems, with lots of interesting in-camera trickery and generally fairly interesting themes. His first two films were written by Charlie Kaufman, but even his subsequent works ('The Science of Sleep' and 'Be Kind Rewind') had a Kaufman-esque high-concept and a lovable off-beat sensibility. This spirit and his directorial ingenuity even carried through into his recently released lo-fi and very personal documentary 'The Thorn in the Heart'. Even so, I expected an absolute train wreck of a film in 'The Green Hornet'. I certainly didn't expect to see something so utterly entertaining.



Any misgivings I had about 'The Green Hornet' disappeared during the opening scene, in which crime boss Benjamin Chudnofsky - played by Christoph Waltz who won an Oscar last year for his role in Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' - confronts a flashy, young mobster played by the excellent James Franco (in an uncredited cameo) who has made the mistake of setting up on his turf. The dialogue in this opening exchange is hilarious and both actors are fantastic to watch. Franco is sleazy and cocky, whilst Waltz seems insecure and looks genuinely hurt by accusations that he doesn't know how to dress stylishly (a barb that will become a preoccupation for the remainder of the film). The German actor underplays his role and makes it funnier, but also adds some depth to his character. Chudnofsky isn't a typical mad villain who bumps off his own henchmen (although he is that too), he is also amidst a serious mid-life crisis and is quite pathetic, something Waltz does rather well.

Rogen plays an equally unconventional hero: a spoilt, selfish, arrogant son of a millionaire who does nothing but party. We've seen that before in Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark or even in Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne, but Rogen's hero isn't charming and erudite - he is an obnoxious oaf and by and large stays that way right the way through the film. Rogen's delivery - of dialogue he penned with writing partner Evan Goldberg - is superb too, in all its underplayed, mock-macho brainlessness. The relationship between Rogen and Jay Chou, who plays his sidekick Kato, is the centre of the movie and fun to watch. The film also boasts quite an impressive supporting cast. Aside from Franco's aforementioned cameo, there are also roles for Tom Wilkinson as Rogen's father, Edward Furlong as a guy who runs a meth lab and Edward James Olmos as a newspaper man, as well as Cameron Diaz as a brainy criminologist who (for some unexplained reason) takes a temp job as Reid's secretary.



Michel Gondry has done well to put his stamp on the troubled project too. The colourful and exaggerated world his characters inhabit could hover uneasily somewhere somewhere between 'Mystery Men' and 'The Fifth Element', yet it is tonally consistent and very broad without ever jumping the shark. The director's stylised approach as ever includes sequences of animation and eye-catching, innovative in-camera set pieces which show off his preference for practical visual effects. One single-take tracking shot uses several different actors as Kato in silhouette in order to imply his great speed and agility, whilst another shot slowly pans 360 degrees around a garage full of expensive cars as Rogen, in fastforward, enters each of them with a lady he has met at a party. Great time and care seems to have been taken over the films 3D conversion too, and the result is an effect which is far better than that seen in 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'Clash of the Titans'.

As funny and winsome as I found much of 'The Green Hornet', Rogen is clearly from the Apatow stable. This manifests itself not only in the type of comedy on offer (a lot of which wouldn't be out of place in a film like 'Pineapple Express'), but perhaps most tellingly in the treatment of Cameron Diaz's love interest character. Rogen and Goldberg just don't know what to do with her and she isn't in very much of the film. The sexism of Apatow films like 'Knocked Up' (itself a Rogen vehicle) is in some ways evident here, with men again cast as lovable man-children and women as joyless shrews, patronised as "mature" or "smart" in order to get away with it. Instead the emphasis is as always on "bromance", here between Rogen and Chou. Likewise, Reid's absent (apparently long-dead) mother casts no shadow over the film or her son's character, though the death of his father is a catalyst for the film's action and Reid's transformation into a superhero. That said, there is a reason for Rogen's continued errant man-child persona: it is funny.



For a film that is so resolutely playing the superhero movie for comedy, 'The Green Hornet' is surprisingly full of exciting action. Jay Chou's martial arts work - filmed by Gondry in an interesting video game style which recalls 'Oldboy' - is fantastic, but the really brilliant thing from an action perspective is the "Black Beauty", a modified car which serves as Britt Reid's equivalent of the Batmobile. It's got so many gadgets, missiles and guns on it that, basically, if you were ten years old again you'd want a toy of it for Christmas.

There is something to be said for entering a film with diminished expectations. Maybe I wouldn't have been so positive about 'The Green Hornet' had I seen it prior to all the negativity. But even then I can't imagine slating it. It was funny, with some interesting visuals and solidly entertaining action. It has Christoph Waltz in it. I didn't even mind the 3D. I can't see it being too many people's "film of the year", but all the same: if this ends up in a few "worst of 2011" lists we'll have had an ok year at the movies.

'The Green Hornet' is out now in the UK and is rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'The Thorn in the Heart' review:

If there is one word that sums up the feature film work of Michel Gondry it is probably nostalgia. His next film is 'The Green Hornet', a modern take on a character which made his debut on the radio in the 1930s and who was made most famous by his 1960s TV incarnation (which co-starred Bruce Lee). His last film 'Be Kind Rewind' was equally backward looking, taking its inspiration from VHS cassettes and cinema of the 1980s - with Gondry recreating lo-fi versions of such films as 'Ghostbusters' and 'Driving Miss Daisy'. The Frenchman also directed 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' which looked at the importance of memories and 'The Science of Sleep' which looked at the significance of dreams (through the eyes of a childish nostalgic played by Gael Garcia Bernal), whilst his first film 'Human Nature' was in some respects the ultimate look back as it followed Rhys Ifans as a primitive man raised by apes.

It is entirely fitting then that Gondry has chosen to shoot a documentary about his elderly aunt Suzette, a former school teacher. The film looks back at her life, and in the process that of Gondry's own parents and childhood, by way of a great deal of Super 8 film footage (the ultimate resource of the nostalgic?) as well as some very intimate interviews. The interviews are warm and Gondry comes across as thoughtful and kind-natured whilst managing to coax some quite poignant, heartfelt reminiscences - which mostly relate to the turbulent relationship between Suzette and her son Jean-Yves. It is from these interactions that the film's title is taken as Suzette describes her son as the thorn in her heart. Yet as you might expect from a Michel Gondry film, there is also a great deal of good humour and a sense of fun over a lot of the documentary.



In his typically inventive and inspired lo-fi style, Gondry uses animation to bring some of his aunt's recollections to life. In one playful scene, which had me in stitches, Gondry re-enacts a moment that his cameras have missed staging an incident in which Jean-Yves became "trapped" in a bathroom after a small clothes horse fell against the door. Opening the door ajar, Gondry has a member of his crew replicate how Jean-Yves poked his head through the gap and whined for his elderly mother to move the small laundry-drying apparatus blocking his path. In another innovative and charming sequence, Gondry makes a class of school children run around wearing green screen cloaks which he uses to make them appear invisible. As they charge around the playground with only their heads and feet visible, there is a great feeling of experimentation and spontaneity as the director looks to excite the children about the possibilities of his medium.

But the best "stunt" of his in this low-key film happens when Suzette takes him to the site of a demolished school where only an old projection box remains standing. Gondry and his crew decide to turn the space into a cinema once again and fashion a screen out of a timber frame and some bed sheets before taking an old projector into the old projection box and screening an old film for Suzette and some of her former students, now themselves middle-aged. It is a joyful and moving moment in a film full of such moments.



The film's crowning achievement is that whilst Gondry is always on friendly terms with his subjects (whom he clearly loves dearly) he does manage to get a lot of truth out of the exercise. His aunt is depicted with great admiration and respect, yet Gondry also manages to convey how she has perhaps neglected her son - possibly on account of his homosexuality - in favour of attending to the generations of school children who came through her classroom, all of whom seem to look on her more fondly than Jean-Yves. The relationship between Jean-Yves and his deceased father is similarly troubling. Yet this is counterbalanced by more jovial scenes, such as the opening in which Suzette tells stories about her husband over a big family dinner, during which she is incapacitated by laughter.

The family as depicted by Gondry is complex: equal parts beautiful and damaged. This balance is something which Gondry seems to portray so effortlessly without it ever feeling like he is manipulating his audience or his subjects. The film may even seem to suffer from the fact that it is so relaxed and slight - it could almost look like Gondry hasn't done anything at all. Though I think 'The Thorn in the Heart' is a really wonderful and personal piece of filmmaking from a director consistently so adept at looking backwards without compromising either his judgement or his artistry.

'The Thorn in the Heart' is rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

'127 Hours' review:

In theory Danny Boyle might just be the perfect choice of director to make a mainstream film about the graphic, but nevertheless quite boring, story of Aron Ralston - a climber who got trapped in a rocky crevice in an isolated part of Utah in 2003 and only escaped by severing his right arm below the elbow. I say boring because although Ralston had to hack through his own flesh and bone with a blunt knife before he was free, he spent five days prior to that sitting in the dark, talking to his video camera and drinking his own urine. However, in Boyle's hands you know that the story will be punctuated by his trademark blend of hyperactive editing and energetic music, with even the smallest moments - such as taking a sip of water - afforded flashy, hi-octane treatment with bravura use of camera.

This ceaseless, self-consciously hip treatment is exactly what the Academy Award winning director of 'Slumdog Millionaire' has brought to the table in his film '127 Hours', which stars James Franco as Ralston and is co-written with regular partner Simon Beaufoy. It begins with a fast-paced, split screen montage of archive footage showing people in big social groups (on the stock market floor; or at a sporting event) making elaborate use of their arms. Boyle, never one for subtlety, is ramming home the point that we use our arms a lot in communication with others. By going it alone and neglecting his friends and family (he doesn't return their calls or tell them where he is canyoneering) Ralston will loose one of these important social instruments, though ironically he will emerge a better, more socially minded individual as a result. Ralston might spend most of the film trapped in one tight space, but he does at least venture on an emotional journey. As every poster for the film tells us, this a "triumphant true story": something intended to be every bit as "feelgood" and "heartwarming" as 'Slumdog'. It's a motivational tale about survival and how we, like Ralston, can turn great adversity into a positive life-changing experience.



That is the theory anyway. Instead, for me at least, Boyle's heavy-handed and fidgety style of storytelling detracts from the humanity of the piece, as he shifts uneasily from crisp digital landscape photography, to grainy handheld shots, to cameras showing the POV of a hand or the inside of a drinking straw. Sometimes it's lo-fi and gritty and sometimes it feels like an expensive Michael Bay directed music video. It is the same restlessness and tacky excess that characterises the director's entire filmography, though with it's hallucinations and dream sequences, '127 Hours' also features the surreal touches and moments of genuine invention as seen in his best work: 'Shallow Grave' and 'Trainspotting' (and for me 'A Life Less Ordinary'). Yet these flourishes now feel overwrought and verge on self-parody. It also doesn't help that the self-indulgent form and fast-cutting of Boyle's film is consistently set to the most horrible of musical selections.

The cumulative effect of the distracting editing and the over-the-top soundtrack is that the film's most pivotal, climactic and talked about sequence - that of the amputation - is almost funny rather than horrific. I'm quite squeamish and I can't watch so-called "torture porn" films, so I was expecting to have to resist the urge to cover my eyes during the final moments only to be underwhelmed. It's no fault of the special effects and make-up department. The wound looks real (at least to someone like me lacking any frame of reference) but it is badly filmed. Perhaps the moment wasn't supported by the obvious and cheesy writing that preceded it, which had already dented my enthusiasm for the movie by that point. "You're going to be lonely" a former girlfriend flat-out tells the climber in a flashback (no need to think about what you're seeing for yourself). In another scene the same love interest lays a hand on Franco's chest and asks all-too earnestly "how do I get in here? What is the combination?" "If I told you I'd have to kill you" he replies predictably. Through those scenes I was left saying under my breath "go on: lop off the arm already and end this film."



'127 Hours' is at its most watchable and alive when Franco "does a Gollum" and videos himself playing both sides of a question and answer session. James Franco is a good choice to play this role and is rapidly establishing himself as one of the more courageous and interesting male leads around. He just about holds your attention during most of this one-man show with a performance that combines playful humour with despair and anguish. He is also a convincing physical performer as he scales the canyons before he is involuntarily indisposed. It is to the film's detriment that Boyle's busy audio-visual style prevents any moments of sincere and quiet introspection for Franco's character.

It is at least refreshing to see that Franco's Ralston doesn't start off the film with any sort of major personality defect - unless you take ignoring one answer phone message (left as he's preparing to leave the house) as shorthand that he's not nice enough to his dear old mum. He seems a likable if slightly cocky guy, described by two girls he meets before the accident as "fun". And he is fun: showing the lost pair which way to go and taking them to a a beautiful subterranean swimming pool where they all lark about for a bit. He is charismatic and he seems driven by a love of the outdoors rather than a selfish (and self-destructive) desire to be left alone. The character change he undergoes is more the organic and relatable response to a near death experience (to cherish your loved ones and take nothing for granted) than the contrivance of the needs of film structure as explained so well by Brian Cox in 'Adaptation'.



I will say that Ralston's real-life experience is genuinely incredible. No matter what was at stake, I'm not sure I could saw though my arm without anesthetic and with only a crummy little penknife and a makeshift tourniquet at my disposal. It is a testament to the guy that he managed to do that rather than passing out and dying of dehydration alone in that deserted rock face. It was never something I needed to see on film however and Boyle's loud, chaotic telling of it has failed to convince me otherwise. Maybe a smaller, more intimate and disciplined film would have worked better for me, though I can see that many will find Boyle's more excitable approach compliments its thrill-seeking central character.

One small caveat to end this review would be that in a fairly empty screening there were two or three people who applauded as the credits rolled. I also saw that many people were more effected by the amputation scene than I was, covering their eyes and so on. I haven't enjoyed any of Danny Boyle's films of the last ten years either. So if you found 'Slumdog Millionaire' to be as brilliant as many film critics (and indeed the Oscar voters) did, then maybe there is something for you in '127 Hours'. There just wasn't anything in it for me besides a winning central performance and a couple of breathtaking shots of the Utah landscape.

'127 Hours' is out now in the UK and is rated '15' by the BBFC.