Riveting but morally questionable.

Rating: Null/10 (26 January 2011)

Another reviewer insisted that 127 Hours does not try to be epic or monumental. I totally disagree. This is exactly how the movie plays out, regardless whether it was Boyle's intention or not - or whether he will ever admit to this.
The only thing we know for a fact is that Boyle wanted this story turned into a film and that according to him it would never have been possible without the prestige (read: money) brought about by "Slumdog Millionaire" (And I think he's right about that).
So, I'm glad this movie got to be made, and I agree with the same reviewer that 127 Hours is a remarkable filmmaking achievement. However, there is one critical underlying issue that in retrospect in a sense makes this movie irrelevant. How? I'll talk about it soon.
Overall, it's very flashy, but it's his movie and he can stylize it anyway he thinks is necessary. Didn't much bother me, if truth be told. I think I know what he was (is and has been) aiming for with this kind of a visual treatment, but I still feel it would have worked just fine without all the glitz and epileptic cuts. Quite possibly better in fact...
While I feel 127 Hours should be an unwavering warning against selfish care-free stupidity, I fear it's not (and neither is "Into the Wild"). Rather, an invitation to infantility. Both movies tickle all the right places but I feel their lesson is either missing or simply misunderstood - maybe by the filmmakers themselves, too.
In 127 Hours, by choosing to make the situation seem fast-paced and absolutely oozing with "coolness", instead of making it much more slower, much more silent, much more lonelier, in a word more _authentic_ and just sad, the director does everyone a moral disservice at the end of the day. He makes it entertaining.
For 127 Hours, the often used saying (I'm sure you can figure it out) rings truer than ever.
Mark my words: after 127 Hours more people will be "inspired" and go canyoneering (or anything else that counts as extreme/cool enough for that matter) with an irresponsible, hedonic, *uck-if-I-care -attitude.
Every year absolutely unnecessary dollars, time, expertise, equipment and so on are wasted because of self-caused stupidity. It's a national disease on a global level we could all but eradicate today without much effort on anyone's part.
A lot of people have these unfounded sentiments that just because they pay some taxes, the society should cheerfully provide a miniature "Save Haiti!" -operation every time one of us ends up in a tight squeeze of his own making.
You'd think Ralston would be giving free talks about these kind of issues for the rest of his remaining life, and just be thankful that he is in fact alive at all, instead of trying to conquer (honestly, what does that mean?) all 20,000ft peaks in the world or whatever (again, what exactly are these people trying to prove here and why?), and lecturing to dimwits (I'm assuming) about will power (I'm guessing) for $25,000-$37,000 a pop.
That's what I call a lesson learned. This is humanity at its sorriest. But I digress.
I can understand why real-life Ralston could find the movie effective - because it is. But I'm both baffled and deeply worried if a professional mountain climber who himself went through all of this really doesn't see the dangerous fallacies this movie ultimately conveys.
James Franco's performance is nothing short of stellar, though. 127 Hours will launch him into superstardom. So, while the film _is_ both deeply engaging and touching to boot, in the end it's just a well-crafted film that lifts human stupidity and contempt for life and for loved ones on the podium.
Definitely not meant for the immature audiences _even though_ (and you damn well know it too, Boyle) they will be the ones most drawn to it and enchanted by it - for all the wrong reasons.
I call Boyle guilty as charged.