It's hard to do a great film about one man's survival

Rating: 7/10 (3 July 2012)

The story of Aron Ralston is as incredible as is foolish. Aron is a lover of canyon climbing and the outdoors. Back in 2003, on one of his trips to the Utah canyons, he got stuck when a boulder fell on his arm. He was immobile for 127 hours until he made a bold decision of cutting off his arm. He never informed anyone where he was going much less brought a phone. We cannot entirely blame Aron for this—bad things happen to people, especially when alone in the mountainous wilderness.
This film by British filmmaker Danny Boyle goes in-depth with this remarkable yet ludicrous true story. James Franco plays Aron as a happy-go-lucky, charismatic guy. Even in peril, he knows how to make the audience laugh, cry, and even move them. This performance is definitely Franco's crown jewel and his Oscar nomination was well earned. The style of story and filmmaking is perfect for Mr. Boyle. The use of choppy editing, jump cuts, overexposed lighting, time lapses, and occasional bursts of loud sound effects and music is reminiscent of his past works. It fits well for this kind of movie.
The majority of the film takes place in the canyon where Aron is trapped. To keep it going, hallucinations and flashbacks are added as Aron struggles to survive. This works for a while but after an hour it becomes dull. No doubt it is hard to do a movie about one man's survival—look no further than Tom Hanks in "Cast Away." The problem with these kinds of films is that it goes on longer than necessary and incoherent flashbacks are used as an excuse to add sympathy for the character. I am not saying "127 Hours" is a bad movie. It is a decent one. But for 94 minutes, it drags on like a three-hour film. This may have been intentional to emphasis the seemingly endless time that Aron suffers. But when I start to see subliminal cuts of Scooby Doo and Gatorade commercials, I have reached my limit.
"127 Hours" is not a movie for everyone. The big critics love it and the mindless masses find it distasteful. In my opinion, it is neither. It is good, but not great. I will forewarn that the amputation scene is one of the goriest moments I have ever seen in cinema—and I sat through "The Passion of the Christ". This is definitely not for the faint of heart.