Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: The widely praised and Oscar-hyped 12 Years a Slave is starting to open across the country, giving a wider audience the chance to see it. Receiving raves as both an incredible story of an individual and a powerful, realistic portrait of slavery, it falls short, at least on the former. The film benefits from some outstanding performances, particularly from Michael Fassbender, as well as from unapologetically startling, horrifying, disquieting scenes. But the whole is significantly less than the sum of its pieces, unfortunately.
As I noted in last week's review, I've got a big change in genre for this week's film review - and then it's back to blockbuster territory for next week with the Hunger Games sequel. After that, it's a little less clear what comes next; I'll have to look more closely at upcoming films. And it's likely to be only film reviews for a little while: the NFL season still has over a month until the playoffs, the NBA is well underway (missed my chance for a preview), and tennis season doesn't start back up until January. I first heard about 12 Years a Slave early in the fall, as it became an early Oscar favorite at the Toronto (?) film festival. It sounded like an interesting premise, so I wanted to see it; finally, it arrived in a theater near me last week. 12 Years a Slave was directed by Steve McQueen and stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender and Benedict Cumberbatch.
Leading with a few disturbing scenes of slavery, the film then flashes back to introduce Solomon Northup (Ejiofor) - a free man from New York. Northup is a successful man with a loving wife and children, but he is approached by men who seek him for his violin-playing talents and he leaves to work with them. All seems almost too good to be true, and it is. One morning, Northup wakes to find himself chained in a dark room. He soon discovers that he is being trafficked to the South as a slave. As Northup does not act like other slaves - he wasn't born one - he finds himself passed among plantation owners. For twelve years, Northup is forced into a horrible, nearly impossible balancing act - to keep himself physically alive, as well as to keep his hope alive so that he can someday return to his family and life as a free man.
12 Years a Slave enjoys the benefits of a great cast of actors. As I say that, though, I must follow with a tempered review of Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance, which has been lauded by basically every major critic. In individual scenes, I will agree: Ejiofor communicates effectively with little direct dialogue, using body language well. But in creating a compelling character throughout the course of the movie, he isn't nearly as successful - and I put 90% of the blame on the script and director (we'll get to that). Michael Fassbender, on the other hand, is phenomenal. Playing Northup's horrible master Epps, Fassbender makes him truly frightening and repulsive - yet utterly believable as a man whose behavior has become habit as much or more than choice, and one is who not a simplistic, pure evil, but rather a real man gone rotten beyond repair. He commands every scene he's in, and conveys the despair of slavery more effectively than any single act of brutality.
Lupita Nyong'o, a virtual newcomer to acting, also does a stellar job as the slave Patsey. Epps' favorite, Patsey is the most sorrowful victim of the film. Nyong'o is silent and still for much of the time, virtually a hollowed out automaton created by Epps' and his wife's abuse. But occasionally what's left of her soul breaks out when she is alone with Northup - so uncontrolled and desperate that even Northup is incapable of understanding her. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Northup's first master, Ford, a much gentler man. Cumberbatch fits the role well, a serious, dignified and slightly conflicted man, but here again is a problem with the script (more in a moment). Among other notable roles, starting with the best, are Sarah Paulson (as Mrs. Epps, about as bad as her husband), Paul Giamatti (a brief role as an utterly remorseless, cruel slave trader), and Paul Dano (a mean but cowardly overseer).
12 Years a Slave is quite a story, but a difficult one to balance. There are two equally powerful and important elements to get right: Northup's experience of hell as an individual, and the institution of slavery as seen through this unique lens. With this kind of story, Hollywood tends to have two styles, with plenty of films landing somewhere between: you have the sentimentalized versions with exaggerated characters, dialogue and set-up emotional scenes; and you have the deadly serious (and usually depressing) realistic versions with little dialogue, story arc or emotional triumph. For the story of 12 Years a Slave, the problem is that Northup's part lends itself to the former version, while the slavery part lends itself to the latter.
The film tries, consciously or not, to split the difference, mostly to Northup's detriment. The original plan seemed to be to go for the "serious" path: if you've read anything about this film before, I'm referring to the scenes of violence. And no doubt about it, those scenes are effective: from the near hanging that drags on mercilessly, to the whippings, to the slave trade and on and on. And the Epps crew is a perfect setting for displaying the cruelty of slavery realistically (at least seems to); no huge, fancy plantation, this is a nowhere land led by nobodies; no towering, tyrannical owner, this is a pathetic human being whose sole power comes from the law being on his side.
However, the trouble for Northup starts early. Precious little time is spent on Northup's pre-slavery life; I suppose this was meant to show how rapidly things could change, but what it really does is deny Northup a crucial base on which his character can build. The whole process of transportation and trading is a shocking, brutal and effective one, but the Ford section gets things all out of whack. There is no process of assimilation; we simply find Northup immediately getting in Ford's good graces (Cumberbatch gets to play the thinly veiled "gentle slave owner"), and then he abruptly blows up on the overseer (Dano) and that's it for the Ford part. Only when Northup arrives at the Epps does his situation seem to sink in; but then, Northup's defiance as a free man also shows up at random times. There's just precious little consistency (or at least smoothness in transition) in either Northup's character development or the film's path between hope for Northup and despair in slavery. By the time we get to the ending, it's both predictable and ineffective.
***
Now, I know a lot of that just sounded pretty damning. And I still rated the film an "A-". What gives? Most scenes in the film (although there are some duds toward the end) are powerful and effective, keeping you riveted. Most of the performances are superb (Fassbender, Nyong'o, etc.) or at least interesting (Cumberbatch, Giamatti, etc.). But when you put them all together... there's just not enough synergy to make this a truly great film. Most of the slavery aspects are superb and moving, when no one (not named Fassbender) is speaking - but there are enough Hollywood-ized scenes and dialogue that it doesn't all fit together (Brad Pitt's small part is the coup de grace here). And Northup is sadly generic, saddled not just with the contrasts mentioned above, but also with the lack of an effective starting point to work from.
Maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind when I saw 12 Years a Slave. But I'm doubtful; when that happens, my opinion of a film tends to shift over the course of the week (on average) between when I see the film and when I review it. If anything, my opinion of this film has solidified. I can't speak for what the critics saw in this (or, possibly, blinded themselves from) to deem it an instant classic. What I can say is, yes, there are great performances (Ejiofor's overrated one - due to script and directing - aside) and powerful scenes. Those are good enough to get it to "A-". But, thanks to an inconsistent script and a director who couldn't keep it all together, it is not a cinematic great taken as a whole.
Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: Thor gets his second shot to be the main man, and while the series further separates itself from the other franchises, it also remains perhaps the weakest link overall. Thor 2 is certainly a lot of fun with its big battles, and Chris Hemsworth is a likable lead while Hiddleston is making Loki one of the great comic book villains. But plot holes, convenient timing and deus ex machina reach pretty ridiculous levels here, and the parts on Earth (I'm looking at you, Jane/Natalie Portman) leave much to be desired.
The fall movie season rolls right along. Looking ahead on IMDB, there seems to be a good mix of genres coming out, from blockbuster to Oscar-bait, that I may see in the theater. And 12 Years a Slave was released in my local theater this weekend - just in time for the gap between Thor and Hunger Games (talk about contrasts!). Marvel's film studio seems to be an unstoppable machine now, propelled to the forefront by The Avengers and led by a Batman-level star (Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr.). Hey, I'm not complaining - I love superhero films, and the Avengers universe has yet to deliver a bad one. So while the first Thor wasn't great, I still wanted to see the second. Thor 2: The Dark World was directed by Alan Taylor and stars Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, and Natalie Portman.
Set just a few years after the first Thor, the film begins with Thor (Hemsworth) and his Asgardian (pseudo-gods from another "realm") team of warriors mopping up some chaos in the other realms. Back on Earth, Jane (Portman) is interrupted from trying to develop a normal life by the discovery of a bizarre physics-based phenomenon. Snooping around, Jane stumbles into an ancient, forgotten substance from another realm. The Asgardians notice this, and Thor shoots down to Earth to check on his mortal object of affection.
It turns out some bad dudes are out to capture the substance that Jane discovered. Thor and the rest of Asgard are caught off guard by this new threat. With his father stubbornly opposed to him, Thor is forced to work with his imprisoned brother Loki in order to stop the threat to the entire universe.
Even action films need competent actors, and Thor 2 has them - even if not all their characters are all that great. Chris Hemsworth reprises his lead role as Thor. While Chris has the right features - easy confidence, sometimes sliding into arrogance or righteous fury (understandable of a pseudo-god); nice comic timing (if not always utilized fully by the script); and the brawniness of a superhero - he still has yet to really distinguish Thor as a true leader/primary character in any of his films. Much of this is due to the script strangely downplaying his role, but Hemsworth should assert himself more. Thor's brother Loki, however, upstages him with glee, as played by Tom Hiddleston. While I thought he was underwhelming in The Avengers (apart from one or two scenes), Loki completely dominates this movie. Hiddleston truly owns this role now, and he gives Loki phenomenal range and depth of character almost effortlessly. Poor Thor.
Natalie Portman's character Jane is as frustrating and useless as she was in the first film. Certainly, the scripts have been the main culprit - Jane basically serves as motivation for Thor and a connection for him both romantically and to Earth. All the "scientist" parts have been utter nonsense. Here is where Portman's failure comes in, though: if Jane were really this science dork, she would not be anywhere near as aloof and "cool" as Natalie plays her. They need to kill Jane off ASAP. Notes on other characters: Kat Dennings as Darcy continues to be a great comic foil (keep her, dump Jane)... Idris Elba's gateway guardian Heimdall was a total bad-ass in the first film, but he goes disappointingly rogue in this one... Thor's merry men (and woman) remain an interesting but underused gang of Lord of the Rings-like buddies.
The Thor universe is really quite different from the other mainstream superheroes, as it allows for many more fantasy elements. This is both a blessing and a curse. The result in Thor 2: there's a lot of fun in ways that you won't see anywhere else, but there is also plot chaos in just about every scene. Actually, Thor 2 adds in sci-fi to the mix; while its combination with fantasy elements is a little rough, it's not too bad (nothing like Cowboys and Aliens... *shiver*). But there also need to be some ground rules within whatever universe you're occupying, and Thor 2 throws them to the wind with abandon - and when it doesn't do that, the right-place-right-time effect fills in. Still - while Thor 2 is no parody - it pokes gentle fun of itself occasionally, and the general feeling I got was mostly fun. Also, it's not just good guys beating the living snot out of bad guys (aka Transformers); evil wins some impressive victories in this film, but I'll leave it at that.
***
Thor 2 doesn't diverge as much from its predecessor as this year's Iron Man did, but it takes similar, commendable chances for such a lucrative studio. Like Iron Man 3, some of these efforts worked, while others didn't - and there's still plenty of room for growth and change in the next one. On the positive side, Thor 2 has decided that this is the appropriate franchise for doing the kind of crazy, fantasy-based action that you can't pull off in any other superhero film. On the downside, they will have to be very careful to prevent future installments' plots from spiralling out of control like this one did - audiences' (or at least my) tolerance for things just working only goes so far. While the politics/culture/people of Asgard are becoming fleshed out nicely, a LOT of work needs to be done if they want to keep recurring characters from Earth. So, three recommendations going forward: 1) get rid of Jane (sadly unlikely); 2) strengthen Thor's role (can Hemsworth do it?); and 3) give Loki a big part in every Thor movie going forward (I'm not too worried about this one coming true). If you want to be entertained and can paper over gaping plot holes with the good aspects, go ahead and try this one in the theater.
Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Long Story Short: At long last, one of the greatest sci-fi classics (and one of my favorites) comes to the theater: Ender's Game. And... promptly falls on its face. The moving and entertaining story is almost completely ruined by a terrible script - even great actors like Ford, Davis and Kingsley can't salvage it. And the most important step - finding a great Ender Wiggin - ends in failure. At least Ender's Game is visually successful and engaging, but that's not nearly enough to make for a good movie.
At last, back to the movies! October turned out to have fewer intriguing films than I thought it would. However, the late fall/early winter blockbuster season has now arrived, to combine with (hopefully) the release of some Oscar-worthy films, too. I was hoping 12 Years a Slave would come out here, but so far, no luck. It was about a year ago that I heard Ender's Game was being made into a film; I loved the book when I read it years ago, and was excited to see Harrison Ford attached to it. Thus, it was one of my most anticipated films of the year. Ender's Game was directed by Gavin Hood, and stars Asa Butterfield, Ford, Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley.
Taking place far in the future, Andrew "Ender" Wiggin (Butterfield) is a young cadet in the military. An extremely smart student, Ender easily defeats his classmates in video game-like simulations. His strategic mind goes beyond the theoretical, though, as he defends himself from bullying classmates, too. His genius attracts the attention of Col. Graff (Ford) and Major Anderson (Davis). The military commanders invite Ender to the space station-based Battle School, where he joins the best of the best. Graff in particular is confident that Ender is the one who will someday be able to defend Earth and all of humanity against an alien race that had previously attacked - and nearly ended it all.
As Ender continues to be monitored closely by the commanders, he quickly establishes himself as a leader and unifying force at the Battle School. Before long, he conquers the School's primary team combat simulation league. The fun and games can't last forever, though: personal crises emerge, as well as the pressing danger to all human life that Graff is desperate to counter with Ender's special gifts.
Ender's Game is filled with recognizable faces, but no stand-out performances. Asa Butterfield (Hugo) plays "Ender" Wiggin, the amazingly talented yet tormented young boy. Unlike his character, Asa is no special talent at his craft - acting. He isn't terrible, but he doesn't sell Ender's tremendous emotional conflict nor display his one-in-a-billion, born leader presence. Ford plays Col. Graff in a role that is bigger than the one I remember (of course, it's probably been thirteen years or more since I read it). Ford occasionally shows his stuff, but the script is especially terrible for him and more often than not he can't overcome the handicap. He's basically used as the same gruff but well-meaning tough guy he's been for the last ten years. Viola Davis (Major Anderson) and Hailee Steinfeld (Ender's gal pal) both do alright but get little screen time and are mostly passive partners to Ford and Butterfield, respectively. The worst acting comes from some of the children; Moises Arias in particular should definitely find an alternative field of work.
It's been so long since I read Ender's Game that I really don't remember a lot of specifics, moreso just impressions. What I remember is Ender being an amazingly gifted young boy who is a magnet for his peers, not just because of his skill but also his innocence and kindness. The bonds he forms with his classmates are powerful, and when he's pulled away from all that it produces a strong negative feeling. The film adaptation really doesn't replicate this experience very well. Mostly, the script is just poor, hampering all involved - but to make matters worse, Butterfield was a bad choice for Ender, the film's lead. Now, it's not all bad: visually, Ender's Game is quite impressive. From the uniforms to the space station to the team combat game, it all looks much like I imagined it years ago, and it's fun to see. There is plenty of CGI battle toward the end; while it can seem a little video-gamey, it's surprisingly suspenseful and immersive, too. I was disappointed that the aliens were yet another race of generic bugs in desolate locations, but oh well.
***
Ender's Game is certainly going down as one of the biggest film disappointments for me in the last few years. It could be that my middle-school aged self simply liked the book more than I would if I read it again now; it might be that the characters and story just aren't as compelling as I remember. But this film adaptation strikes me as a cynical combination of A) dumbing down to the simplistic thinking of teenagers, B) awkwardly and unsuccessfully trying to cram in book elements for the fans (Valentine and Peter most significantly), and C) tossing in big name but unmotivated (and unsupported) stars to raise broader interest. Honestly, I might have forgiven that stuff to a degree if they'd found a special young actor to play the special young Ender - but they didn't. I mean, you still have the skeleton, at least, of Ender's Game, which lifts it above other poorly executed sci-fi/action/YA films. And I was happy that in such a visually-dominant medium, they got the look of most things right. But that certainly doesn't make this worth going to see in the theater; and unless you're a fan of the book, you can skip it on Netflix, too.
