127 Hours Shawn: Well, I don't know if a movie can get closer to a documentary than this. Although flashbacks and flash forwards aren't included in most documentaries. However, this is a dry watch, as I figure it would have been a fairly dry experience to suffer through. I've watched the actual documentary about Aron Ralston and have to give the man a tonne of props. That was a good documentary, and interesting. This wasn't, and something about James Franco bugs me. So 127 Hours rates an Ugly for me. Jason: 127 Hours is a great story that isn't told properly. Director Danny Boyle leaves that canyon as much as possible, which pulled me from the experience. Every flashy camera trick and hallucinatory image used to capture what is going on in Ralston's mind is great to look at, but it mutes what tension there is in the film. This is a personal, emotional story that didn't engage me one bit. It's hard not to compare this to Buried, which tells a similar ...

What's this? An artsy, award-nominated bit of film de cinema on our little show about beasts, boobs and mad killers. Have we gone nuts? Mad? Ka-razy? Nope. In fact, on our first ever podcast episode, we reviewed a then little-know movie called The Hurt Locker. Surprise! It won best picture last year. Now we're tackling Danny Boyle's celebrated survival drama 127 Hours. Why? Although critically acclaimed, James Franco's star turn didn't exactly generate heat at the box office. In other words, no one saw it. But we have, and tonight we'll let you know if it deserved the acclaim or not. Then Shawn and I ask one question: can you smell what The Rock is cookin'? That's right. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson returned to hardcore action last fall with Faster. Too bad no one bothered to see it. Did the film deserve to be ignored by mainstream audiences, or is it a diamond in the rough? Stick with us! And The Basement's own Mike S, he who created ou...