Movie Review: "127 Hours"

In 2003, hiker Aron Ralston found himself literally trapped between a rock and a hard place.

While hiking in a Utah canyon, a boulder dislodged and pinned Ralston in the gap by his arm. For five days, Ralston fought hunger, thirst and pain before finally using a dull pocket knife to amputate the appendage and escape to safety.

It's a harrowing and intense story, even without any visuals. And much of the early press for Danny Boyle's "127 Hours," which is based on these events, has focused on how audiences have reacted to the climactic amputation sequence, with a few reports of fainting at early screenings. The stories have caused some people I know to say they couldn't bring themselves to see the film.

That's a shame. While a suspense-riddled and intense survival tale, most audience members aren't likely to leave "127 Hours" feeling sick or upset. I suspect exhilaration is a more common experience. Rather than create a dark and graphic "dare you to look" story, Boyle weaves a tale that is just as much a celebration of life and the human spirit as his "Slumdog Millionaire." It's a true-life adventure, wrapped up in a meditation of what keeps pushing humans on when all hope is lost.

James Franco, who seems to flip between drama and comedy, has found a role that will define the rest of his career. As Ralston, he captures the spirit of a man with an insatiable thirst for life and adventure, and a dangerous sense of independence. Ralston's a self-described "hard hero" who helps with survival and rescue missions, but he neglects to tell anyone where he's going on this excursion and doesn't bring along a cell phone or any means of contact.

Aside from a flirtatious meeting with two female hikers early in the film, Franco is the only face on the screen for the majority of the run time. And, trapped in a narrow canyon with his arm pinned to a boulder for the majority of 90-minutes, he brings to life the frustration, fear, determination and intelligence that fueled Ralston during his five-day ordeal. At times he collapses in tears as he realizes his plight; at other times, the comedic sensibilities that served Franco so well in "Pineapple Express" come into play, such as when Ralston airs his feelings on a mock interview show he captures on his video camera. It's a fantastic performance that shows a range to Franco that I was unaware existed prior to this.

Boyle, a director who has helmed everything from junkie dramas ("Trainspotting") to zombie movies ("28 Days Later") to children's films ("Millions"), has his work cut out for him here; it's not easy to helm a movie that takes place in two feet of space featuring a lead character who can't move. Boyle utilizes every trick in the book - pulsing soundtracks, split-screens, switching film stocks - to keep the story moving, from its adrenaline-charged opening sequences to the riveting hallucinations Ralston endures in the canyon. In doing so, he expands the story from a simple tale of survival to a meditation of meaning, our need to depend on others and the triumph of the human spirit. With Franco commanding the screen and Boyle masterfully manipulating everything behind the camera, "127 Hours" is a constantly riveting and powerful experience.

I know some won't be able to stop thinking about the amputation sequence and, yes, it is intense, as Boyle uses sound effects to suggest more than he actually shows. But my hunch is that the scene is so intense not because it's graphic - audiences primed by the "Saw" films have been shown much worse - but because it really happened. Boyle drags us into that moment to share, as much as he can, what Ralston endured in that canyon.

But by sticking with that moment, viewers are rewarded with a life-affirming and triumphant final act that makes all the discomfort and pain worth it. The film's final moments are among the most joyous and victorious I've seen in years and a parting shot of the real Aron Ralston only underscores the story's heroic nature.

Lately, it seems that every "great" film has to feature a tragic ending. While that sometimes is the ending that fits, the truth is I miss being elated as the credits roll. With "127 Hours," Boyle and Franco take us to some dark and dangerous places, but reward us with an ending that reminds us of the heroism of which we're all capable.

This is one of 2010's best films.

Originally posted at advisorsource.com and in the November 21 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--Part I"

After 10 years, six films and billions of dollars in box office receipts, it's finally time to say goodbye to Harry Potter.

But don't worry honorary Hogwarts students: It's going to be a long farewell.

JK Rowling bid adieu to the beloved wizard in one massive tome, released in 2007. Warner Brothers, astutely realizing that there is still plenty of money to milk from muggle moviegoers, made the decision to split the grand finale into two films, with the conclusion due in theaters July 2011.

Yet what might seem to be another Hollywood money grab is actually the best thing to happen to the franchise, allowing Rowling's characters to finally breathe and grow up without rushing to hit every plot point and wrapping up the story in two hours. The love and care put into this first part of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" almost makes me wish all the other films had been split up this way - at least beginning with "Goblet of Fire," when the stories became darker and more complex.

Director David Yates expects that audiences have avidly followed the other films in the series and picks right up after the events of "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," without so much as a pre-credit recap. Hogwart's headmaster Dumbledore has been murdered by Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the Ministry of Magic has been infiltrated and overthrown by Voldemort's Death Eaters, and wizards everywhere are going underground, fearing for their lives. Harry, along with friends Ron and Hermione, set out into the big, dark world to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes - artifacts that hold pieces of Voldemort's soul and can allow him to be defeated once and for all.

If the preceding paragraph makes no sense to you, you're probably better to hit the video store and catch up on the series before buying a ticket for this final ride. "The Deathly Hallows" is less interested with garnering new fans as it is with satisfying those who have grown up with Harry and the gang over the past decade.

As the characters have matured, so has the series, both in print and on film. What started as a whimsical children's tale has grown into a surprisingly complex, dark and imaginative fantasy that rivals the works of Tolkien and Lewis in popularity. Just as with the book, this final chapter is a dark and harrowing adventure, without even the comfort of Hogwarts to reassure the heroes or provide familiarity.

Freed of the stricture of the school-year formula that dominated the previous installments, Yates turns this into the most grown-up film in the franchise so far. The film careens from an opening chase sequence through the city to a mysterious encounter in a small village before spending time in the forest for an extended period. This portion, which tended to drag in the book, actually provides a great opportunity for Yates to let the characters breathe a bit and show some depth that had been lacking in the preceding films.

It's a bit shocking to realize that much of the franchise's core audience has, in fact, grown up right alongside Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Plucked from obscurity 10 years ago to headline a major franchise, it's fascinating to have had the opportunity to watch them grow into adulthood and turn into fine young actors, all of whom have the chance to shine here. Radcliffe has turned Harry from a naive and awestruck young boy to a tortured hero, but still manages to keep a sense of adventure about him. Watson has found a way to blend wit and emotion with the character of Hermione; a heart-breaking moment at the beginning of the film when the character must erase her parents' memories to keep them safe is her strongest moment in the series yet. Grint's Ron Weasley remains the humorous heart of the franchise.

Free of Hogwarts, Yates creates the most beautiful and haunting "Potter" film yet, with stops in the forests, on the Moors and in small hamlets providing bewitching backdrops to the action. He respects Rowling's work and remains faithful, but isn't afraid to deviate when necessary. One such deviation, which finds Harry and Hermione finding some joy in a dance, is one of the most powerful and perfectly crafted quiet moments of the series.

Potter fans will find a lot to love here, as Yates makes sure to incorporate all the humor and excitement of Rowling's stories. In its 2.5-hour running time, he manages to bring back most of the major characters for at least one appearance, allowing some of Britain's top actors - Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Jason Isaacs and Helena Bonham Carter - a chance to shine.

Those who have no interest in the saga will likely not find anything to sway them here. But that's to be expected - after 10 years, this franchise has found its fan base. And as the movie's final moments unspool, promising just one more adventure left for Harry and his friends in eight short months, I suspect those fans will feel a twinge of sadness at having to say goodbye so soon.

But at least Harry knows how to go out in style.

Originally published at advisorsource.com and in the November 21 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "2012"

I had pretty much given up on seeing "2012," the latest end-of-the-world spectacle from Roland Emmerich. I missed it upon its initial screenings and, upon hearing that the special effects were the only thing that stood out about the film, had pretty much decided against seeing it on a small screen. Then, while out with my girlfriend last weekend, we found it playing at a big revival house near her and figured to check it out--more to see the theater than anything else.

Let me just say this: seeing a film like "2012" in a place dedicated to classics like "Casablanca," "The Wizard of Oz" and, yes, "The Blues Brothers," may be cinematic sacrilege.

"2012" made a lot of news upon release for playing upon the whole hype of the world ending in 2012 as the Mayans supposedly predicted--although it bears noting that the Mayans never predicted the end of the world; they simply ended their calendar in 2012 (if I designed a calendar in the 1400s, I probably would have stopped after 600 years as well). I have a feeling that most of the "news" was hype drummed up by 20th Century Fox's PR machine and not any actual fears or scientific beliefs--everything presented in this film is so utterly ludicrous that any scientist backing it up should just surrender their diploma upon leaving the theater.

Emmerich--who has ended the world by aliens (Independence Day), lizards (Godzilla) and cold (Day After Tomorrow) in the past--has to have put the nail in the coffin of end-of-the-world disaster flicks with this film. Here the world doesn't just get destroyed...it gets baked, flooded, smashed, ground up, chewed up and spit out. It's the rare movie that has a body count of 5 billion people; thank goodness there was no blood, otherwise the PG-13 rating would have never stuck.

I'm still a bit unclear as to why the world is ending here. As far as I can understand, it has to do with massive solar flares that are destroying the Earth's crust, which leads to massive earthquakes and tidal waves around the planet--California sinks into the ocean, Yellowstone National Park and Hawaii are turned into massive lakes of lava, a tsunami buries Mt. Everest and, just for good measure, Washington is flooded--but not before the battleship John F. Kennedy smashes into the White House. Yes, gone are the good old days when Emmerich was content to smash a few American landmarks...the whole world is wiped off the map in this flick.

The effects are, of course, staggering--before "Avatar" hit the screen this likely would have been an Oscar contender for visual effects. I can't say they look real--California sinking into the ocean and waves covering the Himalayas tend to be unreal as rule--but they are effective. The destruction's scale in this movie is amazing.

And, to be honest, a bit disturbing. I realize the movie was released well before the earthquakes in Haiti. But in light of 100,000 people dying in real life, watching a massive earthquake played for excitement--and, sometimes, for laughs--just isn't fun. It used to be that Emmerich simply showed a building crumbling and we'd be satisfied. Now he shows bodies falling from bridges and collapsing buildings and trains slamming off the rails and into giant crevices--after 9/11, there's just something about mass death and destruction that is a little less entertaining. Were he playing the sequences for horror and emotional impact, I might have been more forgiving...but he's playing the end of the world as action-adventure and entertainment. Something about considering the death of billions to be remotely entertaining feels a bit icky.

But it soon becomes less icky and more numbing as the devastation goes on for two more hours. I'm finding a growing weariness with filmmakers who depend on special effects as moneymakers rather than tools. After awhile the entire affair feels more like a videogame and less like a film.

That's not to say the film is boring. As I said, the scale of the effects is astonishing. And there's a cheesy guilt to enjoying the increasingly preposterous plot twists--a plane twice flies between two crumbling buildings, a stretch limo outruns an Earthquake in downtown L.A., the heroes board a plane conveniently carrying luxury cars--which they then drive to safety in the Himalayas.

I find it funny that I've wasted all this time describing the action and effects and haven't even touched on the plot or characters yet. And yet, that's probably fitting. There are a lot of actors in "2012"--a lot of very good ones, actually, including John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson (who steals the show as a crazed mountainman), Danny Glover (the President), Thandie Newton (his daughter), Chiwetel Ejiofor (the science advisor who saw the whole thing coming) and Oliver Platt (as the slimy politician who has his own agenda). And there is a plot--Cusack must get his family to the government folks, who are loading secretly-constructed arks that will carry survivors to safety. There's even a bit of a moral conundrum--seats on the ark may have been sold to the highest bidder instead of open to all. But everyone is at the mercy of the effects. In a movie that pays such lip service to the idea of humanity, Emmerich seems to have no idea how to tell a human tale.

The scenes with Cusack and Peet--as a divorced couple trying to protect their kids--are mind-numbingly cheesy, with horrid "comedic" moments and dialogue that lands with a thud. When they hook up with a Russian politician who has a seat on the ark--and the aforementioned plane with luxury cars--we simply roll our eyes...we know not only that the sleazy politician will probably not get on the ark, but that the cars will probably come to some use.

The scenes with the government officials are more interesting. There's an intriguing premise about how the government would handle the end of the world--who would you save and how would you start over. The film picks up steam whenever Platt and Ejiofor are onscreen but, unfortunately, goes limp again whenever we cut back to the not-so-happy family.

Emmerich also fills the screen with needless secondary characters who are related to the primary ones--a jazz duo on the sea and a couple in Japan--who have no bearing on the plot but simply exist for supposedly tear-jerking moments in which we're supposed to get emotional because they didn't "get to say goodbye." The film is so packed and rushed that the scenes play as obligatory afterthoughts, never achieving any interest or emotional involvement. I could see the film working better as a large scale miniseries, but at nearly three hours the film manages to feel both bloated and dramatically empty.

The result is a film that is never boring but is never really engaging, entertaining or exciting either. The cacophony Emmerich subjects the audience to quickly becomes numbing and obligatory and it ends with such a pedestrian crisis (a stuck door? Really?) that I had to laugh. Emmerich has made a career out of destroying the world but really only did it once in a manner that entertained me ("Independence Day.") His best film was actually the Revolutionary War flick "The Patriot." But he keeps returning to devastated landmarks and repetitive special effects as if there just was too much world for one man to destroy.

Hopefully with "2012" he got it all out of his system.