everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Blistering performances.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

James Franco does an experimental autobiography of American poet Hart Crane. Michael Shannon plays Emile, one of his lovers. It's black and white and supposedly Franco's student film at New York University. It is unwatchable if you're looking for a narrative driven story. I'll be cruel and say it's pretentious. It's an art student film. It is technically competent. The black and white photography looks good. Unlike most amateur films, this one has top level actors. It is simply not good as a film. I'd rather have a short film with only Franco reading poetry. There's no way to maintain enough concentration to follow the entire run.

This film tells the life of an American homosexual poet named Hart, who died of suicide by jumping off a sailing army ship."The Broken Tower" is shot in black and white. It is a tell tale sign that it is a very artsy movie that has no commercial elements at all. I tried very hard to enjoy it, trying to appreciate the slowness of the pace, and trying to enjoy the beauty of the literature reading. However, there is really very little plot in the film, and the story is told in a very scattered manner. For every 30 seconds of plot, there are five minutes of self indulgent filler scenes. I got quite tired of watching James Franco walking around or sitting around. We also see a lot of Hart's sexual liaisons, ranging from walking up the stairs with another man, to apparently non-simulated oral sex.After watching the whole film, I did not gain an insight into Hart's life, but rather it felt more like a project for James Franco to expose the exploration his sexuality.

Not a particularly great poet to begin with. I don't know why the film is in black and white, is that supposed to make it look more arty or something? I don't see why he was not happy with the advertising job. He could have still found time for his poems on the side. His poems are really heavy and monotonous and pedantic, I bet they don't necessarily mean anything most of the time. They just kind of sound like they do. But its just drunken delirium. Some nice shots under the bridge. The guy does have a nice smile. Poet was destructive. I bet Ginsberg liked this guy. Lucky guy got to travel a lot, not bad for a broke cliché of a suffering artist.

***Alert: some spoilers contained herein - but if one knows the life of Crane then these are not so revealing).*** Such is a healthy attitude for a despondent artist. It is one of the few bright spot seen shimmering from Crane in this biopic. James Franco takes Hart Crane's words - poetry and letters - and uses them as a backdrop for the evolution of a writer of promise cut down by his own wretched soul. At least that is how Crane comes off.Before I watched this flick I re-acquainted myself with Crane's verse; then I kept his book at hand during the film - which helped me keep interested in the movie. Franco manages to take the best of Crane - his poetry - and make it as bland as boiled chicken. There is one scene with Crane reading his work - rather than infuse the passion seen elsewhere in the film emanating from Crane - Franco chooses to recite the poems with no heart. The crowd's reaction to the second of the poems ('For the Marriage of Faustus and Helen') is understandable given the content and how Franco drones as Crane. The man's poetry needs to be read and sifted through several times before it feel accessible in some small way and Francdo blew a great opportunity to get his fans - who might not otherwise read any verse - interested in poetry. Granted, the rest of the film has me wanting to delve deeper into Crane's bio and his work. But I am most likely an anomaly in this respect, as I, too, am a poet and a teacher of literature. Still, with a positive attitude toward what is shown and read of Crane someone could become entranced with his work and also want to read more of it.As for the filmmaking aspect, there are many issues there: hand-held cameras make for unsteady viewing, seemingly random pick-up shots are meant to set scenes, and a windscreen was sorely needed for the microphone used to collect audio in several shots. An interesting approach is used to show the leap from younger Crane to the (slightly) older Crane played by Franco - using the aforementioned sporadic shots. It is filmed almost entirely in black and white (which is what one might expect from this sort of film, artsy and so-forth). Colour does work its way in during a trip to the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris - but it had me screaming for the return to B&W since the cameras employed could not handle the natural interior lighting of the church, therefore showing the limitations of the production. Perhaps Franco thought this approach would show the beauty of the place and highlight the impact it had on Crane; however, the camera's constant trying to adjust its 'eye' to the setting took me out of the film.The story is unfolded through a series of "Voyages" (fitting, as the film ends with an excerpt from Crane's so-named poem and that it is on a sea-vessel that the poet chose to end his life). Title cards offer the subject in each 'Voyage' and the section reflects this accordingly: which helps one follow Crane's overall voyage.Franco manages to show the tortured artist trying to support himself and create poetry - but is ultimately unable to do both. Grants and fellowships are the godsend for any artist to contribute his verse to the world and that Crane enjoys both and is able to write is evident. Malaise works its way into his psyche and builds along the way to show the viewer what led to Crane's demise.The much-hyped oral pleasure scene seems unnecessary - yes, Crane was gay. There were better ways to make this known (as Franco shows in other parts of the movie) without having to resort to such a cheap ploy for shock value.There is a scene where Crane - frustrated by finding out his financial situation is hopeless, vents his feelings in his room; while I get the emotion, Franco falls short in expressing the way Crane would have felt. This stems, perhaps, in Franco himself never feeling denied anything he truly wanted so he is unable to display the rage a truly tormented artist would vent when going from simmering anger to a boiling cauldron of virulence in an instant.Michael Shannon appears in a minor, yet major role, but his character hardly speaks and comes, then goes, and comes then goes again so quickly that such a power of talent (he alone propelled 'The Runaways' forward and made that flick worth watching) never gets a chance to make an impact.Overall, the movie is ambitious and Franco does a righteous job of adapting the source material employed (Crane's poetry and Paul Mariani's 'The Broken Tower: The Life of Hart Crane') into a watchable slice of celluloid. The build-up of a creative genius torn apart by knowing his own abilities are wrecked by external factors is shown rather well.(Full Disclosure: the above is the exact same review I posted on iTunes for this film)