“127 HOURS” (James Franco)
“Well, there’s 127 hours of my life that I’ll never get back.”
That was my comment to Alan Smithee and his ‘partner’ when ‘127 Hours’ mercifully reached its conclusion.
James Franco one of the favorites for Best Actor? Are you joking? Where’s the acting challenge? He stands in front of a rock for an hour babbling to himself as he stares at his mini-camcorder. And he doesn’t say anything all that interesting. The one moment I went ‘Hey, that was cool – I liked that!’ lasted for less than a fraction of a second. A flash of lightning reveals a blow-up doll in the likeness of Scooby-Doo and I got excited that something humorous or interesting might take place... but it didn’t.
I had little interest in seeing this film, but I decided I had to see James Franco's performance so I would know whether ot not it was Oscar worthy.
Franco plays Aron Ralston, a true life arrogant airhead without much of a personality and obviously no friends or acquaintances that care about him (other than the mother he ignores)
The opening sequence was one of the most annoying ever; loud headache inducing ‘music’ invades your ears while the screen fills with annoying scenes of bright flashing lights & super-fast motion cars driving at night with their headlights glaring in your face. Then we see Aron, a grown man riding his bike like a child; a dumb, ignorant child at that – and of course, the musical noize continues to grate on one’s nerves. The musical selections/score never improves so I certainly hope that whoever had the job of picking the music for this never gets hired again – at least not for any project I might want to see.
Aron is so in love with himself he comes across as pathetic – he is constantly taking pictures of himself as he bikes and hikes his merry way thru a lonesome, useless life.
As everyone knows, the title comes from how long Aron was trapped in a crevice with his arm wedged between a solid wall of rock and a large boulder. Most of the film consists of extreme close-ups of arrogant Aron talking into his camcorder.
Once in a while, a girl appears – the one that got away – but we were never introduced to her so she means nothing to the viewer.
The extreme close-ups used here didn’t bother me as much as they did in ‘Blue Valentine’ because Aron isn’t conversing with anyone else – what bothered me was that he was just as bland and boring as the couple in ‘B. V.’
A comparison can be made between this & ‘Into The Wild’ (another true story from a couple of years ago starring Emile Hirsch) in that they are both about idiots who put themselves in dangerous situations. The difference being (& the reason I liked ‘Into The Wild’ and hated this) Sean Penn told the whole story – we were shown why Chris McCandless left home and the interesting people he encountered along his way ‘into the wild’ – All we find out about Aron Ralston is he’s an immature loser who has one undeniable talent – He knows what kind of batteries last the longest because his camcorder doesn’t go dead until hour 120-something!
Emile wasn’t even nominated for Best Actor despite putting himself thru torture to achieve a realistic look as to how his character appeared by the end of his journey – All Franco had to do was stop using Chapstick for a few weeks. Every person in our party noticed that after 5+ days of being trapped in a canyon, Aron’s beard didn’t grow at all – His lips got chapped, but the beard refused to cooperate with reality.
As Alan Smithee’s learned ‘partner in life’ commented; “The movie glorified cockiness and stupidity – how is that a good message to send?”
Besides commenting on why I decided to make him sound gay, I’m sure Mr. Smithee will entertain us with his comments on this ‘disaster’ flick.
THIS time I’m not alone in my opinion that this so-called Oscar caliber film sucked donkey balls. So those of you that are going to challenge me for disliking this movie, be prepared - for I have backing this time and you can’t say it’s just because Reid dislikes everything the American sheep likes.
I get chastised for seeing garbage I know will be crap and how I should be seeing ‘quality’ films like ‘Black Swan’, ‘Inception’ & ‘127 Hours’. Well, I gave those 3 Oscar contenders a D-, D & D+ which pretty much assures that all 3 will be in my Bottom 10 for 2010; right down there with ‘The Bounty Hunter’, “The A-Team’ & ‘You Again’.
So I guess the old saying is true – Crap is in the eye of the beholder (& ‘Critics don’t know crap’ also applies)
Oh, and A. Smithee’s ‘partner’ is the very lovely and upbeat Dr. P. – One of the most cheerful people I know. But this dreadful tale even brought her down. I just said it stunk, while she said it ‘F-ing’ stunk!
9 comments:
Maybe this film's makers could not make Aron Ralston sympathetic or interesting. I could not tell how much they tried. Their results were trying.
My favorite part of this movie was not the balloon but my bladder. Usually I need not urinate amid a film. This film made me root for my bladder to necessitate an intermission. Thank you, Diet Coke!
The sheer insouciance of this flake lost him my sympathy. Terry is correct that nothing remotely interesting leavened the leadenness.
Director Boyle should have thrown the bomb instead of making this bomb. Have Aron fall into visions: the ants climbing about have heads that resemble one of Nixon's faces; Ralston dreams he is a Martian sandwiched in between the Incredible Hulk and Bill Bixby; our trapped protagonist lapses into Carlos Casteneda's favorite drip paintings; the crow who flies overhead on a regular schedule becomes a jet bomber as the soundtrack shifts to Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock;" or Aron wonders aloud why the Starbuck's lining the canyon do not open at sunrise.
At least this clunker was almost uniformly boring. It generated no false hopes. One knew within the first half hour that the theater had stolen $10.50.
See? I told ya. & Alan Smithee is a hack; yet his ideas/visions are actually stimulating - Although the Casteneda's drips are way over my head - I thought he was the voice of Homer Simpson . . . D'OH!
& we certainly would have to use CSNY's version of 'Woodstock', not the songwriters - As those bastions of pop culture, Flo & Eddie once pontificated, "Sometimes there's a fine line between Joni & Yoko."
You got it all wrong man. There's more to one angle when looking at this true story. And it's doesn't have to be a highly educated one. You didn't even mention the arm cutting scene. That's a whole other thing though... The movie is not as good as the book I will say that. But Aron isn't a friendless, cocky loser. He's a kid compared to people your age. We are all a little bit wilder and foolish in young age. He was a thrill seeker. There's millions of people like that. I used to be one a little bit too. If you don't relate to mountain climbing or parachuting, fine. Don't call him a friendless loser though. He simply liked to do his excursions alone because he was fast and most people slowed him down. He got careless once. It was a freak accident. The odds of a boulder trapping your arm are very low.
The guy was simply an explorer. Still is. He's still climbing. You were ready to dislike the movie before you even sat down anyway. You thought why would I want to sit there and watch a guy trapped against a canyon wall for two hours ? Missed the whole point. Your mind was closed off before entering the theater.
See... when I read the book, I put myself in his shoes. Why he got there isn't the point. It's how you get out. It's not going to be easy or pretty. What would you do ? That didn't cross your mind once ? What would you do if you got stuck in a canyon ? That's what Beaufoy is asling you. You'd do what Aron did. Not take it too seriously at first, then you'd start to get thirstier and more hungry, then a slight panic comes over you and the thought of death seems imminent.
Obviously if you think you are going to perish, you'd start to think back at the good times in life and also think about what could have been. These are all very authentic psychological things a person goes through when they think they are going to persih. That was authentically depicted.
But the thing is, more than 60% of people would have accepted death as their fate and choose to die. Not Aron. There's a story to tell, had he died there wasn't. You don't see how this is a story ?
As for the arm cutting scene, in the book it mentions how the doctors were surprised he lived, but Aron having known anatomy and physiology more than the average person, knew how to amputate the arm without passing out and dying with severing the tendons first before cutting into the nerves ( most painful ) so he would be conscious enough to make the final break and apply the tourniqute. That's just something you poo-poo'd as ho hum. The dude cut his arm off and didn 't pass out, he willed himself to live.
See you missed the point entirely. Whereas Chris McCandless was so naive and clueless that starving cost him his life. At least Aron Ralston could have just given up and died. But he didn't. He knew his mistake and also knew in order to live, he had to cut his arm off, and then make it back out all those miles with a bloody stump and still be somewhat coherent. How you don't find that somewhat impressive is baffling to me. You aren't even looking at the whole picture on what you would do if that was you. What would be going through your mind as each day passes as you think you are going to die unless...
And please don't use the analogy, " well I wouldn't be climbing by myself in a mountain crevice. " That's isn't what it's about. That's just a metaphor. The premise is about the human spirit. What would you do if left alone in a situation that you most likely might die from. Are you going to just accept it or will you think of every angle you can ? Even if the only possible way out is to cut a limb off.
That's what this story is all about. Sorry that somehow escaped you. Does your crapping on this film turn me away from your reviews ? Not in the slightest. But it does confuse me a lot when you see or don't see certain things that came across as obvious.
Good night all...
dbm,
Terry can defend himself if he wants to. However, "... But it does confuse me a lot when you see or don't see certain things that came across as obvious ..." in your comment on Terry's review.
"You got it all wrong man. There's more to one angle when looking at this true story."
Your first two sentences do not logically contradict one another, but they do not quite correspond. If there are at least two angles, perhaps Terry has an angle that is valid rather than "wrong."
"But Aron isn't a friendless, cocky loser. ... He simply liked to do his excursions alone because he was fast and most people slowed him down. He got careless once." A person who saw the movie with Terry and me that had climbed and hiked quite a bit in her youth. She was livid at Aron's carelessness. Does the book disclose that Aron had never been so reckless before? The movie did not tell the audience that.
"The guy was simply an explorer" Sorry, dbm, but you had already denied yourself that premise, too. If there is more than one way in which to view or to comprehend the movie or the story, then you cannot dictate that Aron was "simply" anything. Aron may have been an explorer or an adventurer, but he may have been as well what Terry saw him as.
If you derived different inferences or characterizations from the book, how are viewers of the movie to guess these unless the film's makers supply that information.
"You were ready to dislike the movie before you even sat down anyway. You thought why would I want to sit there and watch a guy trapped against a canyon wall for two hours ? Missed the whole point. Your mind was closed off before entering the theater." I know I am getting repetitious, but you do not get to announce that there are multiple valid perspectives then dismiss Terry's point for its differences from your preferred point(s).
"Why he got there isn't the point."
But it's A point. It's Terry's point. It was a point repeatedly stated by the climber/hiker in our party after the film.
"Obviously if you think you are going to perish, you'd start to think back at the good times in life and also think about what could have been. These are all very authentic psychological things a person goes through when they think they are going to persih. That was authentically depicted." How do you know that, dbm? I have no idea what I'd think or do. Have you researched this matter?
"But the thing is, more than 60% of people would have accepted death as their fate and choose to die." I had not seen that statistic. Whence did you derive it?
"As for the arm cutting scene, in the book it mentions how the doctors were surprised he lived, but Aron having known anatomy and physiology more than the average person, knew how to amputate the arm without passing out and dying with severing the tendons first before cutting into the nerves ( most painful ) so he would be conscious enough to make the final break and apply the tourniqute. That's just something you poo-poo'd ?" Silly Terry! He overlooked the "obvious" things that neither he nor I knew because the film's makers did not convey them. I don't find these facts interesting in any case. If you think that's a story, that is fine with me. If you believe that most people not currently watching a surgery channel would find that a fascinating story, that is fine with me as well. But don't say that what the audience need not know is "obvious," because esoteric knowledge is by definition not obvious.
"See you missed the point entirely." I guess I need not repeat that your own initial sentences deny you this position.
I could respond to the rest of your response, but to what end?
Sorry for the lack of editing in my previous posting
I used too many characters, so I did not get to the central issue in responses to "127 Hours." If Terry and I must be told why the film is not really as boring as it seems, that telling is as self-defeating as explaining why a joke is far funnier than it seemed.
Example? Lieutenant Steven Hauk in "Good Morning, Vietnam" knew in his heart that he was funny even though the audience knew he was not.
Another example? Mark Twain allegedly said that Wagnerian opera was much better than it sounded.
Allen... I cannot come here with a retort to try to challenge you educationally, but I can psychologicaly. I ' get ' that you and Mr. Reid feel some sort of reveling with one another that you both don't get why the film was well recieved and that you feel it's overrated. I get that.
But it's like the quote in Clerks where Randal tells Dante " it must feel nice to point out the shortcomings of others... you are both kind of snide towards the story...
See... an educated man like Mr. Smithee cannot accept the premise, which is a true one by the by, but... that's simply what the story is telling. It happened. And it's Aron's story, regardless of how ' foolish ' you think his predicament was.
People are either getting more cold these days or jaded. I don't see how you can't empathize with Aron. Especially if you could empathize with Chris McCandless. Chris freaking shot an elk and could have lived on that for the winter, yet he let it rot and died of hunger. At least Aron said 'f' it... I'm in this terrible situation, and death is around the corner. How do I live ? The situation is what it is, how do I NOT die ?
That's a story. It's a book. And by ranking on the story, you rank on a person that overcame pretty much impossible odds ( only way out is... you know )
Are we that bitter and sullen where we can't find something good from this story ? Like I said, you don't have to be hiking in canyons to have something odd happen to you like what happened to Aron... Example; what if you were walking on a trail, or anywhere for that matter and you slipped and fell down and you foot got wedged between a log. There was no way out and you were miles from help. But after 3 days of your mind going every which way, you knew you had to cut your foot off to survive. Forget about Aron's story... What would YOU do ? How you can't allow yourself to wonder what you would have done in that situation is somewhat alarming.
It's a human element story. It's not like it's fiction. So I guess just move on out of here shaking my head in confusion...
dbm, why does it matter that Smithee & I look at this film thru your eyes? How is it that because we were bored with the way the story was told & found Ralston to be foolish for creating the life threatening situation he found himself to be in that we don't 'get' it?
In my reviews I roll out my opinion as I see it - I'm not paid, I don't have to be a cheerleader for anyone in hopes of getting free perks & whatnot - so I offer an honest opinion on the films I view & this particular movie bored me.
You keep harping on how we should admire Ralston's bravery for extracting himself from his predicament, but let's change the scenario - Say I'm a drunk that likes to drive dangerously fast when I'm loaded & I drive off an embankment, crash my car & am trapped inside a mangled mass of metal yet I somehow manage to remove an appendage & escape. Should I be thought of as a heroic survivor? According to your rules, yes, I should be. I'm an uplifting testimony to the human spirit simply because I survived after doing something incredibly stupid. Does bravery enter into because no one else was injured or killed by my moronic behavior?
And as far as pointing out the shortcomings of others - I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion - I'm just supporting my own & rebutting YOUR remark that I was WRONG for not liking 127 Hours.
& Mark Twain went into that Wagner opera expecting it to stink!
Yes, sometimes I do attend films with trepidation - I wanted to see Franco's performance - I CAN be swayed by great acting - but the storyline didn't interest me in the least. Why can't I say I couldn't relate to this film because I would never be caught dead (or by a boulder) climbing over rocky crevices - by myself OR with someone? That & skiing have always baffled me (even in my youth) Why would a human being knowingly put themselves into an uncomfortable & potentially dangerous situation?
I didn't mention the arm cutting scene because that would normally be construed as a 'spoiler' - even though in this case it probably would have been all right - but by the time the film reached that scene, I was half asleep & just wanted it to end. You make a good point though with Aron possessing the knowledge on 'how to amputate his arm correctly' - I suppose there's a lesson to be learned there for the next friendless loser that gets stuck in a canyon by a boulder crushing his arm... & yes, dbm, my friend, I CAN call him that because that is how I saw the character depicted. If the book expands that Aron was huge on Facebook & had a million friends, well, that information wasn't related onto the screen version.
I'm glad you won't abandon me for writing a scathing review of a film you obviously love but I wonder if you're second guessing the request you made recently for 'more comments from Alan Smithee' - he's tough to argue with because he's the world's only intelligent Oakland Raiders fan... talk about a freak of nature, eh?
**This comment was accidentally deleted - it should be inserted after Alan Smithee's Mark Twain remark**
Post a Comment