11 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/22/14 4:04pm)
Few films have ever matched the absolute irrational realism that Joel and Ethan Coen’s film “Fargo” reached in 1996. The off-kilter Academy Award-winning film so delicately treaded the line between absurd comedy and honest human interaction to create one of the greatest films of all time. So, to take this world and humor the Coens so adeptly put together and transfer it to television was an exciting prospect.
Not only does the TV version deliver, it absolutely matches the charm and grit of the original film, partially thanks to the Coens’ involvement in the development of the television series.
Similarly to the film, the television version starts with the familiar note and warning: “This is a true story.” Then, we see the familiar snowfall that introduces the mood of isolation and desolation. A car crashes through the snowfall to set off the deconstruction of this seemingly pleasant scene.
Stylistically and thematically, the television series doesn’t mimic the film, but rather utilizes the style. That is probably the series’ biggest success in terms of its adaptation. So often adaptations to television either try too hard to mimic the source material or do too much to differentiate it. “Fargo” found the golden ratio. However, other factors play into its absolute success.
The series follows Lester Nygaard (Martin Freeman), a down-on-his-luck, bumbling insurance salesman whose life takes an odd turn when he meets a mysterious drifter, Lorne Malvo (Billy Bob Thorton), who comes through town.
Martin Freeman, in the role equivalent to William H. Macy’s in the film, is a delight to watch. He balances comedy so well with the complexity of his completely awkward yet endearing character.
Throughout the episode, he has to deal with his overbearing and condescending wife, successful younger brother and an old classmate who used to bully him in high school. What makes the episode so compelling is the arc Lester goes through. The development kicks off with what is looking to be a fantastic season of television.
Billy Bob Thorton is equally as good, and the character is sure to be a hit with the audiences. His role in the grand scheme of things is going to be an interesting one, but the writers seem to have a clear vision and are definitely leading toward it.
Allison Tolman portrays Molly Solverson, a young and eager deputy in the small town. The set-up of her storyline and character showed us that she is going to be a major character and possibly be taking the role made famous by Frances McDormand.
It is hard to talk about the episode without ruining what ends up being a game-changing plot development, but what can be talked about is the writers’ ability to balance the dark humor with an incredible forward momentum that will carry the series through its conclusion.
There is something so charming about it. Maybe it’s the simplicity, the characters or maybe even the Minnesota nice accents, but what is certain is that this is an adaptation done right. By the end of the first episode, you will be grasping for more and that is what good television should do. “Fargo” will have you laughing, crying and everything in between, but more importantly, it will keep you entertained to the very end.
(04/19/14 11:42am)
HBO’s new comedy series “Silicon Valley” had two things in its favor: its concept and Mike Judge. In this age where being on the bleeding edge is necessary to be successful, a look at a group of young programmers trying to make it big in Silicon Valley is something that begs attention. Its creator, Mike Judge, is best known for bringing us the genius that is “Office Space” and the long-running FOX series “King of the Hill.”
However, a concept and name do not make a show. “Silicon Valley” is yet another case of this. It is clear this show has a lot of potential and that is what must be focused on here. The pilot of any show tends to be one of the worst representations of a show, especially for comedies. Comedies usually take a few episodes to hit their strides, but “Silicon Valley” has the disadvantage of airing only eight episodes in its first season. Only time will tell whether the creative team is able to pull the series together before the season’s end.
The first 10 minutes of the series were not terribly inspired. The first scene of the series was Kid Rock performing in front of a less-than-enthusiastic crowd. The scene seemed a bit gimmicky, but it was not a disastrous opening scene.
What surprised me is the absolute lack of wit in the script from the scene following it. The characters are introduced with expositional dialogue to remind the viewer of how hard it is to be successful in the industry, while also pointing out the perks of reaching that success. It felt unnecessary and weighed down the episode.
To make matters worse, the same expositional dialogue returned in a later scene. The amount of time the writers took to set up the world that seems so familiar to us was taxing. But when the actual plot began to move forward, the show began to display its promise.
Following being bullied by two programmers at the company he works for over a website that he created, Richard Hendricks is called by Gavin Belson, who is looking to acquire the website, which contains an algorithm that will revolutionize the industry. Then, Peter Gregory (Christopher Evan Welch) offers Richard an investment in the company and his mentorship.
Thomas Middleditch as Richard is a surprisingly competent lead. Not to take away from his ability, but he had to contend with a less-than-developed character. Instead of falling into the endless pit of awkward but extremely talented geeks, Middleditch pulls the character out into something endearing.
The premise is incredibly interesting and has a lot of potential for an extremely fast-moving forward show, but what is lacking is a clear comedic approach. There is some dry humor mixed with the ridiculous, with some witty one-liners. This inconsistent writing is difficult to pin down and does not allow the viewer to find a way to watch the show.
One of the better scenes of the episode comes in a doctor’s office where Richard is being examined after suffering a panic attack following the bidding war between Gavin and Peter. The doctor offers Richard the use of an app to monitor his vitals and then asks for an investment, reminding us that everyone wants to be an innovator.
The show knows its world. However, it does not really know how to populate that world. The characters are not anything to marvel at. There is no comedic performance that exudes greatness. The writing is not particularly smart or innovative, but with its strong concept, “Silicon Valley” still has the potential to be great.
(04/01/14 9:44pm)
It was hard to avoid hearing about Darren Aronofsky’s epic based on the biblical story of Noah and the Ark, aptly titled “Noah.” The film has been shrouded in controversy ever since the film was announced, due to tension between Aronofsky and Paramount studios over the final cut of the film and allegations from the Christian community that the film was attempting to give a “Hollywood take” of a biblical story.
Despite the controversy, the film has proved itself to be Aronofsky at his absolute best. Between the strong sweeping visuals and thought-provoking structure, the director has created one of the most impressive biblical epics to ever hit the silver screen.
Where many other films at this scale fail, “Noah” succeeds. The film stays with you after you leave the theater, not because of the visuals or the loud noises, but because of the questions it raises. It riles up the pain that someone feels when being called to do the right thing, although it may be difficult to stomach.
Aronofsky has taken a story with gaps in its telling and stretched it into an epic, while also fitting into a drama on the human scale. Some of that is thanks to the phenomenal cast headed by Russell Crowe as Noah and Jennifer Connelly as his wife Naameh, who are reunited after staring together in “A Beautiful Mind.” Both do such magnificent and heartbreaking work here.
Credit must also be given to Emma Watson, Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman, Ray Winstone and Anthony Hopkins, who all turn in great performances — particularly Watson and Lerman who prove again that they are growing into two fine actors.
However, a film that is this ambitious and so tediously conceived always comes with its flaws.
Despite the gorgeous direction and effects, there is the consistent big-budget film problem of weak dialogue. There aren’t any eye-rolling lines, but it is purely functional opposed to something profound.
There is also the issue of some unnecessary action sequences that were worrisome to many before the film’s release. There is one scene early in the film where Noah fights and kills a group of men who killed an animal. He uses this to explain justice to his son. However, the extended action scene was extraneous for the purpose of the incident.
Then there were the small issues, like when the family used incense to put the animals to sleep, including an elephant, but weren’t affected by the incense themselves.
Past that, Aronofsky was able to fit in the overarching religious themes of sin and forgiveness, but also left room for lessons that could be taken from the non-religious. The entire arc of the film has to do with doing what is right, despite it hurting those you love and your own morality. This film makes you think and reevaluate what it means to be human, and that in the end in all bad, there is good.
The director does this all with gorgeous visuals and magnificent cinematography. Between that and the smart editing, the film is an achievement for filmmaking.
“Noah” is nowhere near a perfect film, but for an experimental filmmaker like Darren Aronofsky, it rarely is. He has done the seemingly impossible by creating a biblical film that will satisfy the believers and those looking for a great night at the movies. Aronosfky did what he does best in telling a story that works as both an epic and a character study. Although it may hurt, this film will make you think and that is the absolute best we can hope for from this age of film.
(03/04/14 2:22pm)
“Game of Thrones” had the Red Wedding, “Breaking Bad” had Ozymandia and now “House of Cards” has Chapter 14. Netflix’s Emmy award-winning drama returned with all of the episodes of its second season released on Valentine’s Day. Sex, corruption, crime and a charming southern congressman all returned stronger than ever.
The series, which stars Kevin Spacey as Vice President Francis Underwood, follows the under dealings in Washington politics. However, in this Washington, anything goes. For the writers, who based the series off the BBC miniseries of the same name, anything goes as well.
Although many events have been taken from the original series, the writers have been unflinching in their portrayal. At times, you forget these characters are supposed to have souls. It’s guilty pleasure television at its best.
However, the series has a serious singular problem and that is the lack of a problem. Every conflict is solved efficiently and often without a hitch.
What the series is doing right is giving other characters storylines that give them depth. Robin Wright’s Claire Underwood has especially been given more attention.
Too often in the first season of the series was Claire pushed off to the sidelines and delegated to storylines that were tied up quickly. However, she is now front and center and equals with Spacey.
Wright, who won a Golden Globe earlier this year for her work on the series, handles the added weight with grace. She was able to take Claire’s cold façade and allow viewers to see the humanity in her, especially in “Chapter 17,” which will surely make her a threat for the Emmys this year.
Also given the opportunity to display his talents was Michael Kelly. His portrayal of Francis’s Chief of Staff was threatening, cold and calculated, but similarly to Claire, he was humanized and Kelly rose to the occasion.
Other supporting characters that have been stealing the spotlight are Jacqueline Sharp (played by Molly Parker), Remy Danton (Mahershala Ali) and Raymond Tusk (Gerald McRaney). Hopefully, for the good of the series, the writers will make these characters worthy opponents to Washington’s power couple.
What “House of Cards” does so well is it doesn’t patronize its audience.
Beau Willimon knows how to move the storyline along at a pace that some regular television viewers may not be used to. But for the sake of the storytelling, it works.
As the season progresses, the story becomes more twisted, the Underwoods become more menacing and the show becomes juicier.
However, there is a legitimately solid footing that the directors create and the writers are able to build on.
“House of Cards” is an often ridiculous, unrealistic and even pretentious show. However, that is what we need in television today.
Too often are shows guilty pleasures or critical darlings. Why can’t we have both? “Breaking Bad” and now “House of Cards” have done it. The minds behind “House of Cards” were able to apply the event television format to a well-written character-driven series.
Despite its ridiculousness, the series offers up a thrilling and engaging look at the government of our nightmares.
(02/20/14 3:51pm)
The story covered in “The Monuments Men” is an important one. Films that give credit to deserving, unsung heroes are such a noble and gratifying effort from filmmakers. However, in the completely capable hands of George Clooney and Grant Heslov, the film falters.
The pair, who have delivered stellar films like “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “The Ides of March,” have been unflinching in their portrayals of news anchors and politicians, but in a film about the brutality of World War II they flinched.
During the later years of World War II, a group of men who have come to be known as “The Monuments Men” worked to find, protect and preserve artwork and monuments that would be in the path of destruction of the Germans.
Despite the phenomenal story and a cast of A-Listers that included Clooney, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Bob Balaban, Hugh Bonneville, Jean Dujardin and Cate Blanchett, the film fails in almost every other aspect.
Academy-Award nominated screenwriter Grant Heslov offered up a poorly organized and terribly written screenplay. His reliance on forced sentimentality and humor cause the entire film to become weighed down. Even worse, there is too much reliance on hitting plot points, rather than leaving room for the story to unfold organically.
It almost seems as if there was no effort to even make the film bearable. The characters were incredibly thin on development and emotion, and the entire film is scene after boring scene, all split up by dissolves and patriotic music.
The characters of the film were used to further the plot, rather than offer a view at the brutality of the war. They gave us no reason to care about them, except the nobility of their mission, which is not enough. Whenever a character is killed, you would expect for it to be an emotional blow. But we never get the time to mourn them, or even have the opportunity to mourn them.
However, in this cast of fine actors, John Goodman may have given the best performance of them all. Without the proper character development to create a full character, he draws on heavy emotions and proves again that he is an actor not to be reckoned with.
Alexandre Desplat, who provided the score for the film and is currently nominated for his work in “Philomena,” essentially ripped off every score for any given war film or patriotic work of historical fiction. Again, there was too much sentimentality when there should have actually been an underscore of the action.
Although his screenplay was poorly written, it was also poorly realized. Clooney’s direction further muddied the plot. Every decision made was overly convenient — there was no struggle and no stakes.
The entire film was unrealistic with mistakes amuck. Despite being shot at with several machine guns, a man is only hit once. Small touches that are the sign of a great director are absent, even the qualities of a competent director are missing.
With such a powerful and talented team, you would expect that “The Monuments Men” would be a phenomenal film. There is such a rich story and so much room for cinematic excellence, but it was painful to watch so much potential go to waste.
In all, nothing worked. Everything from the cinematography to the script to the music felt ingenuous, and combining all of these elements left the viewer unsatisfied and disappointed.
(02/05/14 12:55am)
By Karl Delossantos
Staff Writer
Being an awards geek, I love predicting, watching and commenting on awards shows, and it is often a problem. However, I have a love-hate relationship with the Grammys.
The producers who schedule the performances often pair mismatched artists together. To make matters worse, despite having over 80 categories, they only present a mere 10 of them. This year was more of the same, but there were a few bright spots in an overall lackluster night.
The show started off with none other than the king and queen of music. A silhouette is sitting on the stage as “Drunk in Love” started to play. Then Beyoncé started to belt out her signature song from her new album. To be honest, the woman is flawless. She emits so much power, while giving a performance that reminds us why she is known as “Queen B.”
However, once Jay-Z joined the song, the energy began to fade. Not to take away from the Grammy award-winning rapper, but it looks like his best days of performing are behind him.
LL Cool J took the stage to give an opening monologue. The rapper-turned-actor has hosted these kudos for the past three years, and despite some small laughs, he was not able to overcome the heavily-scripted, forced humor of the writing.
The rightful winner of “Song of the Year,” Lorde, took the stage to sing her No.1 hit, “Royals.” She performed a stripped-down version of the song that brought her international flair complete with her trademark “twitch.”
After forgettable performances by the likes Katy Perry, Hunter Hayes and John Legend, we came to the queen of country herself: Taylor Swift. Her choice to perform the lesser known and slower “All Too Well” off her nominated album was a risky but smart move, for she performed the song with great emotion and passion.
As Bruno Mars made his introduction for Pink, there was anxiety. Her performance was being advertised as one that will go down in history. Then she descended from the ceiling riding on two silks and began an aerial performance to her song “Try.” It would have made history had she not done it at the Grammys just four years prior.
When fun. front man Nate Ruess joined the song to perform the nominated “Just Give Me a Reason,” the energy completely changed. He has such a powerful voice, as does Pink. However, in this performance, he absolutely out-sang her.
Shortly after, Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons began to sing a stripped-down version of their hit song “Radioactive,” then the stage exploded as the familiar tune of “M.A.A.D. City” began to blare out. The entire band bursted with life when Kendrick Lamar began spitting out the title track of his Grammy-nominated album.
The absolutely charming and slightly unknown Kacey Musgraves performed her song “Follow Your Arrow,” which leads me to believe that she may soon dethrone Taylor Swift as the queen of country music (she beat Swift out in the “Best Country Album” and “Best Country Song” categories).
Daft Punk, Pharrell Williams, Stevie Wonder and Nile Rogers took the stage to perform a medley of “Le Freak” from Nile Rogers, “Another Star” from Stevie Wonder and of course Daft Punk’s “Record of the Year” winning hit “Get Lucky.” To watch these legends on the stage was wonderful and entertaining, proving that great music is timeless.
The French electronic duo also dominated the rest of the night, winning four awards, including “Album and Record of the Year.” Macklemore & Ryan Lewis were also big winners, taking in four awards including “Best New Artist” in addition to sweeping the rap categories, which should have gone to Compton native Kendrick Lamar.
Macklemore, along with Madonna, Mary Lambert and Queen Latifah, officiated a mass wedding with gay and straight couples set to their nominated song “Same Love.” While I appreciated the gesture, I found the event a bit gimmicky and frankly over the top, even by Grammys’ standards.
Despite the odd matches of performances, boring award choices and controversies, the Grammys were, as LL Cool J said it, “... a true celebration of the power of music to free us, to move us, to inspire us, to totally surprise us … music unleashes us.”
(01/29/14 4:24am)
“Inside Llewyn Davis” is one of the finest films of the year. That is a plain and simple fact. I can write about how honest the characters are, how well constructed the mood is or how mind-blowing the performances are, but that would be extraneous.
Joel and Ethan Coen have delivered some of the best films in the history of cinema. From “Fargo” to “No Country for Old Men,” they have created timeless pieces with honest characters, and this film is no exception.
In my honest opinion, this may be their best film yet. It’s more affecting than “A Serious Man,” as funny as “Fargo” and as enthralling as “Barton Fink.” It is this mix of these qualities that makes it their most successful, cohesive and entertaining film to date.
The film opens in a dark, smoky café called The Gaslight Café in 1961. Llewyn Davis leans into the mic and begins to sing “Hang Me, Oh Hang Me.” Audience members sit in silence until Llewyn finishes. The scene sets the melancholy tone of the film and displays Oscar Isaac’s talent as a vocalist.
It’s what the Coens do best. They know how they want their films to look and how they want people to react when watching it. Bruno Delbonnel, the Director of Photography for the film, matched the Coens’ mood with his neutral color palette and rigid camera work.
It’s a film about disappointment of an artist and of a man. Llewyn struggles through the New York folk scene, but perpetually continues on. Why? Because disappointment is inevitable and necessary for an artist to grow. Llewyn is the perfect vessel to experience the film through, mostly thanks to Isaac’s performance.
There are not many actors who would have been able to pull off Llewyn. He’s such a darkly motivated character who is searching for a meaning in life through music. He’s so defeated, but proud. He finds a way to continue on and to continue his work. He tells his sister that he doesn’t want to simply exist.
The Coens handle the subject with such grace. The film is surprisingly funny, with humor that is just as dark as the film itself. However, at the core is an honest character study. The film is so affecting. The Coens know how to make a subject relatable, while Isaac makes him charismatic. You can’t take your eyes off of him.
As Llewyn navigates the entertainment and folk scene of the time period, he scrounges for couches to sleep on and any money he can come across. One of the gigs that he does to earn money is a recording session for the song “Please, Mr. Kennedy,” which is one of the highlights of the strong soundtrack.
Justin Timberlake, Carey Mulligan, Stark Sands and Adam Driver are marvelous as various artists that Llewyn encounters. What makes them more impressive is that all the actors sang live for the film. For the filmmakers to have that much confidence must have been daunting for the actors, but they tackled the 1960s folk music like they were born in that time period.
“Inside Llewyn Davis” is an enjoyable film. Many people, audiences and critics alike have and will continue to be entertained by its humor, characters and story. However, the Coens have more to say. Anyone who has worked tirelessly toward a dream will know the feeling the Coens are trying to portray. If you’re up for being emotionally affected by a film, then “Inside Llewyn Davis” is for you.
(01/21/14 5:42pm)
David O. Russell has proved himself to be a competent director with films like “The Fighter” and “Silver Linings Playbook,” but with his latest Oscar contender, “American Hustle,” he has proved that there is a method to his madness.
The film follows Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), two people who are too smart to make an honest living. After the pair meets, they quickly become lovers and then the dream con-artist team.
They eventually fall into a routine that, although simple, becomes a lucrative scheme for them. This scheme involves Sydney’s alter ego, Lady Edith Greensly, a British aristocrat. However, their world quickly comes crashing down when motivated and hot-headed FBI agent Richard DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) catches them and cuts them a deal to help him bring down corruption in the government.
One of these corrupt government officials is Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who is the mayor of Camden. He plans to use money from a foreign entity to build up Atlantic City and help the state of New Jersey.
The trio’s plans become endangered when Irving’s passive-aggressive big-mouthed wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) begins complicating matters.
American Hustle is an incredibly well-made ’70s crime dramedy with a style that matches the film’s content. Russell knows what the film is supposed to be and allows it to take on a life of its own. It’s an experience. The ridiculous hair, the flashy clothes and the big bombastic performances add to his cause.
Russell’s direction is very careful and deliberate, with each shot having meaning and purpose. Even the editing is very intentional, for the filmmaking helps the story. Irving is very calculated. He is very skilled in the art of hustling and the film is respectful of his talent.
Although the movie has its comedic moments, most of it feels a bit forced, as does the plot. Apparently, many scenes were somewhat improvised, which muddled the story. The best example being the first 20 minutes, which seems like an unnecessary time warp. It’s not the most solid storytelling in recent years, but a mix of reliable narration and a quick-fire editing style keeps you thrilled and demands attention.
Despite this, the good does not only outweigh the bad — it breaks the scale. Underneath the glitz, hairspray, popped collars and ’70s power ballads is an adroit character study. It’s about the American dream and what we will do to obtain it.
“American Hustle” is camp at its best with its ridiculous music montages, big acting and sharp conversations but Russell handles it with absolute grace. It is a top-notch cast of A-listers at the top of their game, especially Cooper and Adams. Christian Bale has proven time and time again that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation and this film is no exception.
As the film unfolds, you realize it’s about two things: dissatisfaction and motivation. It’s about the American dream — which in this film is success — and what we will do to obtain it. It’s about people at the end of their ropes grasping for anything to keep from falling. Some people won’t understand it and some people will see a complicated offbeat comedy, but others will see the emotional depth involved. “American Hustle” is one of those few films that is a good time and a complete joy to watch, but also has something big to say.
(12/04/13 7:22pm)
“About Time” is in an interesting position. It is essentially the victim of its own marketing campaign. The film is heavily marketed as a romantic comedy, and while a portion of the film focuses on a relationship, it only amounts to about 30 minutes of the two-hour movie.
The rest of the film is about the life of Tim Lake, played by Domhnall Gleeson. We experience everything through his eyes from his 21st birthday to his marriage to the birth of his children.
The film begins with Tim’s father James, masterfully played by Bill Nighy, telling him that he — like all the men in their family — has the ability to travel through time.
Of course, he decides to use the power to right some of the more awkward moments in his life. Eventually he tries to use it to win the heart of the girl of his dreams. However, he quickly learns that you cannot make someone fall in love with you.
The first third of the movie is sloppy. It trudges along at an awkward pace. Although it is delightful to meet the unique cast of characters that inhabit the movie, it all feels a bit forced. The type of comedy just does not feel cohesive. It seems as though the writers could not decide what kind of movie they were making.
Despite the shaky first act of the movie, it eventually pulls together. The use of time travel is extremely tepid. The rules that his father sets seem like they are written in sand, but they are mostly used as a plot device opposed to the main plot.
Throughout the movie, Tim uses his ability to get things right and to help others in his life.
One of these events involves him saving a friend’s play at the expense of meeting Mary, played by Rachel McAdams. He then uses his ability to find a way to meet her elsewhere. One of the high points of the film is that we do not have to wait to find the success in their relationship.
The dynamic between the characters of Mary and Tim, but less so the actors, is impalpable. The characters themselves are incredibly honest and down-to-earth, and their relationship is one that you root for. This is the point of the film that it is all pulled together. The filmmakers find the cohesion lacking in the first part of the film and fully realize the use of time travel.
Tim has used his ability as a shortcut in his life, but in the film it is used as a teaching tool. He learns that you cannot always change the outcome of the future without changing something else. He tries using his ability as a super power, when in reality it is a crutch.
This sentimental film is headed with charming performances from Gleason and McAdams, and careful direction from Richard Curtis, who brought us “Notting Hill” and “Love Actually.” Bill Nighy, Lydia Wilson, Lindsay Duncan and Richard Cordery compose the rest of the eclectic and hilarious Hill family.
There is a point in “About Time” when you realize this is a movie that you did not expect. It is a beautiful and sensitive film about life. At times it feels safe and familiar, and at others, outstandingly brilliant. But overall it is assuredly entertaining. In the end you will realize that the film has a lot more to say than its other genre companions.
(11/19/13 6:10pm)
Once in a while, a film comes around that just feels important. “Psycho,” “2001: A Space Odyssey” and this year’s “Gravity” are members of the group. However, this year there is another film that could fit the bill. “12 Years a Slave” is not a technologically innovative film, but it is the raw human emotion and unflinching storytelling that makes it important.
It was once said that movies should make you feel uncomfortable, and “12 Years a Slave” painfully achieves that. This is no surprise, considering director Steve McQueen also helmed the NC-17-rated sex addiction film “Shame,” starring Michael Fassbender, who also appears in “12 Years a Slave.” McQueen is masterful at letting the plot take over the film, even if he does so here at the expense of real character development.
Despite this, the film is chock full of fine performances and bolstered with raw, emotional performances. In the film, Chiwetel Eijofor plays Solomon Northup — a free man and accomplished violinist who is taken in as a slave for, as the title says, 12 years. We are painfully connected to him. We are feeling his emotion and his pain. But there is something missing — his role is never fully developed. While we see him emote realistically, there is never a strong backstory that differentiates him from any other person.
In the film, we watch this one man endure incredible cruelty and abuse but never witness the widespread nature of slavery. The filmmakers can’t be blamed for this oversight, seeing as this is Northup’s story, but it would have made for a stronger film.
Nevertheless, this fine film succeeds at what it set out to do: tell the story of protagonist Solomon Northup. Along the way, Northup encounters viciously cruel landowners and other slaves. This impressive ensemble includes actors Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti and Alfre Woodard, among others.
Despite the large cast, there are two clear standouts from the supporting players. Michael Fassbender, who plays perhaps the cruelest slave owner of Northup, Edwin Epps, plays the role with an icy realism that bolsters the film’s brutality.
However, it is Lupita Nyong’o who steals the entire film in a breakout role. She is absolutely heartbreaking as another slave owned by Fassbender’s character. It is her role that we feel the most empathy for. It is her role that makes us want to turn away from the screen. Don’t be surprised to see her pick up a few trophies, including an Oscar, for this performance.
If it is Nyong’o’s performance that makes us want to turn away, then it is Eijofor that makes us want to keep watching. He portrays his character with a strength that may not be readily available in the screenplay, which makes his performance all the more remarkable.
“12 Years a Slave” is going to please a lot of people, whether it be critics, regular moviegoers or those looking for a popcorn flick. It keeps you interested the entire way through, and where it falters it makes up for in performances and craft. If you’re looking for a brutal, historical look at American slavery, look no further. Its brilliance and effectiveness is in its realism, and that’s why this movie, more than others this year, is an important film.
(11/06/13 9:15pm)
“Gravity” is an achievement in modern filmmaking and is easily one of the best films of the year. That is a simple fact. It is impossible to find words that can portray how magnificent this film is.
Director Alfonso Cuarón ingeniously took so many elements and found a way to piece them together to create a visually stunning, emotionally heavy character study that is truly thrilling, haunting and breathtaking. Topped off with a career-defining performance from Sandra Bullock, “Gravity” is a game changer that will affect the landscape of film as we know it.
The story takes place in space during a shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Throughout the entire movie we see the darkness of space, but Earth is consistently on-screen. It acts as a symbol, a constant reminder of how small we are in the universe and how utterly beautiful it is. It reminds us of the wonder that space was when we were young, but this film also teaches us how terrifying it can be.
Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki carefully crafted the film to highlight the vastness and loneliness of space while juxtaposing its landscape with the emotional journey of Bullock’s character, Ryan Stone. The film opens with a nearly 20-minute uninterrupted shot that sets up the film — a catastrophe that leaves Stone and partner Matt Kowalski, played by George Clooney, stranded and fighting for survival.
Cuarón, who co-wrote the screenplay with his son, was careful to let the visuals tell the bulk of the story, but not just the physical. While we are exposed to moments of suspense and action, Cuarón equally focuses on the emotional journey of Bullock’s character.
She is unflinching in her portrayal of a first-time space traveler who is forced to fight for her life. It is her story we are watching and her emotions we are experiencing. Ultimately, Cuarón allows Bullock to do the work, and she rises to the occasion.
The film is tense to say the least. Every moment begs the question: “Will she survive?” Bullock’s physicality suggests her emotional state perfectly. One of the most effective shots of the film is a view of Bullock curled up in a fetal position floating through zero gravity. It is some of the best physical acting to grace the silver screen. Coupled with silent close-ups of Bullock’s face, it’s easy to forget about the incredible CGI effects just to watch Bullock’s performance — one of the best of the year.
“Gravity” is the kind of film that makes the audience ask: “What’s next?”
Where can the art of film go after this? “Gravity” is not groundbreaking — it is earth-shattering. It opens up a new frontier in filmmaking. It is going to allow us to make films in places we thought to be impossible. Don’t be surprised if it picks up a few Oscars, including a well-deserved second trophy for Bullock.
“Gravity” won’t only change the way we make movies. It will transform the way we watch movies too. This is a film that we should celebrate as a triumph and as the next step in the evolution of cinema.