12 Years A Slave

12 Years A Slave is the true story of Solomon Northup, a free African-American man from New York. One day he comes across a friend who stops him and tells him he was just telling two gentlemen about him, as they are searching for a musician and he can play the violin well. After a discussion with them, he agrees to go to Washington, D.C. with them and play for their circus for a short time. At the end of his engagement with them, they all go out for a dinner and he has too much to drink. In the morning he wakes up chained in a room. From there he is transported to New Orleans where he is sold into slavery. He spends the next 12 years between three plantations before he is finally able to gain his freedom again.

The film can be tough to watch. It's good that it doesn't shy away from the violence visited upon the slaves, it's something that needs to be seen and dealt with. It doesn't get overly graphic though, which is also a good thing otherwise it could become unbearable to watch and/or diminish the film as possibly being sensationalized or over-the-top. It keeps a rather even-hand.

The grounding in Solomon makes the film easier to watch as his story is compelling. He learns quickly that speaking out will do no good, it will only bring worse treatment on himself. He struggles to keep himself from lashing out or speaking out, but he knows he has to in order to survive. There's a longing in him to say something that he must suppress. There are moments of hesitation as he has to consider what he's about to say and how much to say. He knows that revealing that he's educated and can read and write would be dangerous for him - for instance, he has to resist the instinct to read a grocery list he's given.

There's great joy when he is finally rescued and reunited with his family. Though it is tempered by the post-script that tells us that, though they were tried, the men who kidnapped him were not convicted as he was not able to testify against white men in Washington, D.C. The film remains grounded in this way. The film doesn't tread into sentimentality - it'd be easy to imagine this film with rousing speeches on the rights of man and denouncing slavery, slow-motion hugs as he sees his family, and a good 'they lived happily ever after' feeling and 'The End'. It doesn't do this because it acknowledges that it's just not that simple.

The film also doesn't turn the characters to stereotypes or cliches. Even Epps, the master Solomon spends the most time with, though he is a horrible person, is conflicted by feelings for his slave Patsey. His mistreatment of his slaves, in part at least, likely comes from him taking out that internal conflict on them. He's jealous. He's a bit trapped in his life. It certainly doesn't make him sympathetic, he's not, but it at least makes him a character with some depth where he could just be a mustache-twirling bad guy. Patsey attempts to keep her humanity by continuously crying and mourning the children that were taken away from her; Solomon tries to keep his humanity by trying to maintain a sort of professional attitude and doing the best he can at his work. Solomon's first master, Ford, who is much nicer to his slaves than Epps, is relatively kind to Solomon but refuses to listen to Solomon when he tries to explain that he is a free man who was abducted, because Ford is in debt to the slave trader he bought Solomon from and so cannot afford to set him free. It all creates realistic characters.

The film knows that it doesn't need to convince anyone that a wrong is being done, not only to Solomon but all of the slaves, so it doesn't grandstand or moralize. It keeps its feet firmly on the ground. And, really, any sentiment or grandstanding or moralizing would most likely undercut the impact of the film - it's more powerful because it feels more real. It's just concerned with telling the story.

The film is well-made, story is told well. The acting is, for the most part, very good. Hans Zimmer's score is, at times, perhaps a bit much or just doesn't quite fit the film as well as it could. It's clearly one of those 'important' films, but it's not pretentious or cloying. It doesn't try too hard to be something or make you feel something. It lets the story speak for itself. It's honest. It's an excellent film.

4 1/2 out of 5

Oz The Great And Powerful

Oz The Great and Powerful has a really good idea – how did the Wizard, of The Wizard of Oz, get to Oz? Who is the Wizard? And it starts well. But...well...

It starts, as the classic The Wizard of Oz, does – in sepia-toned Kansas. A nice visual touch, along with the sepia-tone, is using the Academy aspect ratio in this section (this is the more square picture films were shot in up until the early 1950s, like The Wizard of Oz). So, clearly, they're trying to connect it to the 1939 film. In this part we're introduced to a sideshow magician who dreams of being something greater. Cool. They establish the character. They set the table. It starts well.

They perhaps hit the notes here a little too hard, as though they don't trust that you can put the pieces together yourself on where this is going without hitting you with a “I want to be a great man” sledgehammer. In the 1939 film they show you Dorothy's motivation – she feels out of place and picked on, “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” suggests her desire to leave, she runs away but quickly comes back. Here, they tell you, then tell you again, and tell you again just in case you missed it.

Then the twister comes. Oz takes to his hot-air balloon in order to escape a jealous husband (Oz is a bit of a rake) only to get up caught up in the cyclone. And they started losing me here. The cyclone becomes an action scene with things flying at the camera (in the laziest, least inventive use of 3D – and if you see it in 2D, as I did, then it's just horribly out of place and annoying). No visions of his friends or people he's wronged by being a fraud. No, that'd be character – we need action! He's almost stabbed by flying posts! A hole is ripped in the carriage and he falls! But he's saved by the updraft of the cyclone! More flying stuff! Heaven forbid we're actually made to feel and sense something deeply.

When he gets to Oz, the film switches to color and the picture widens out to widescreen. It looks bright and beautiful. But it feels sort of hollow, as again they toss stuff at the camera for 3D, we don't get to so much take it in and be awed as we are cheaply distracted by 'woah, look at this! And this! Look out here comes this!' And, really, the whole rest of the film goes like this – action scenes and superficial spectacle with little focus on character and story. The story, for what it's worth, is essentially the same as the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland from a few years ago, which was produced by the same people as this movie – the people of this land need to be saved from a cruel ruler, and they can only be saved by this one person which leads to a big climatic battle.

As he makes his way through the Land of Oz, he is accompanied by a talking monkey and a china doll girl. The monkey is his assistant from his magic act and the china doll girl is a girl who was unable to walk and went to his act, believing him to be a real magician, to ask to heal her (in the way the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion were the men from the farm in The Wizard of Oz, except here done digitally, not with makeup). Yet, all they really provide is attitude and wisecracks. There's nothing deeper to their presence – I mean, his assistant wants to help and feels bound to, like the monkey is because Oz saved him, and when Oz finds the china doll girl her legs are broken off, so he fixes them so she can walk again, like he wanted to do with the girl at his show, but there doesn't seem to be any recognition of this by Oz.

They don't help him grow. The monkey knows he's not a real wizard, but aside from the first few scenes after Oz tells him, he doesn't really seem to have a problem with it – imagine if he felt conflicted about helping a man he knows is a fraud, imagine if he struggled with not telling people, it'd create conflict and drama and tension. The china doll girl doesn't know and so she joins him and helps and everything is fine – imagine, again, if Oz saw in her the little girl who he couldn't help, it'd create a deeper character as he tries to be a better man; imagine if she believed in him and found out he wasn't a real wizard, again it'd create drama and tension. But, alas, they keep everything superficial and light.

It's an entertaining and fun movie, no doubt. And, obviously, there's nothing wrong with being an entertaining and fun movie. But it stands in a pretty tall shadow. And they clearly took some measures to try and embrace it. Unfortunately, not much. I feel as though, knowing this, they'd take greater steps to live up to it by creating a great story and developing great characters. Those are the things that make the 1939 The Wizard of Oz one of the greatest and most-loved movies of all time – it's well-made with characters we care about and have genuine interest in plus it looks beautiful with great costumes and make-up (for the time) and sets and effects (for the time). Here they seem satisfied hitting the effects and beautiful-looking notes. And it really is beautiful looking; it's a gorgeous film. On my own personal note I would've liked greater use of actual sets (as opposed to what you know was likely just a bit of yellow road with a couple trees on a giant green set – it seems to be a lot harder, at least for me, to be wowed and blown-away by a CG-landscape as opposed to a real set) and practical make-up and effects.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did. It looked like it would be good. But, the best I can say is it's a beautiful-looking, superficial fun movie.

2 out of 5

Zero Dark Thirty

So, Zero Dark Thirty is the movie about the search for Osama bin Laden. Kathryn Bigelow had already been working on a film, they were ready to begin filming, when the news broke that Osama bin Laden had been found and killed, so she and screenwriter Mark Boal changed their focus and basically started over. It covers the 10 years from the attacks on September 11, 2001 to the raid that killed bin Laden.

I felt as though the first hour and a half went a bit slow. It's very procedural. While the work that goes on behind the scenes of something like this operation is very interesting, it just seemed to be presented without any sort of personality. It has a sort of journalistic detachment, where the filmmakers set out to simply present this story without interjecting themselves. And, that's fine, to a point – they're not trying to drum up drama unnecessarily, they're not trying to force a particular point-of-view or opinion on events. It's just that, for this first hour and a half, they don't make a lot of progress in their search. So it's 90 minutes of watching men get tortured and asked questions with no real answers and nothing really to break it up. For me, it made those 90 minutes drag.

The last hour, though, picks up and is really quite excellent. It's in this portion where they finally start to close in on bin Laden and then, finally, make the decision to do the raid and get him. Here the film was interesting as well as entertaining. And the raid section was absolutely outstanding filmmaking. It's tense and fascinating. That last half hour makes the film.

When it comes to the depiction of torture, I think this is where the detached, journalistic route they take works in its favor. I didn't feel as though they took a stance on torture, rather just acknowledged that it happened in the interest of being honest. What are they supposed to do? Pretend it didn't happen? Have a character grandstand and moralize and lecture about how torture is wrong? The film would become suspect then. You'd be aware that it's trying to make a point, not just tell a story in an honest manner. Likewise, when Barack Obama says he'll stop the use of torture, the characters acknowledge it'll change how they do things, but they don't lament it as the only way, or best way, for them to work or get info. I'll say this – in the film, they do not get any real or useful information from any one while torturing them. Just seemed to be something I noticed. I think, ultimately, whether it condones torture or not, or overplays its importance, is something that will depend on the person viewing it because I think they chose to not really take a stance.

The detached nature also works because the film never devolves into sentimental ploys. It doesn't prey on emotions. There's no patriotic chest-thumping. It never goes cheap. And I like that. There's no agenda but to tell the story. Though, of course, this is a dramatization, not the actual true story, so the detachment lends the story an air of creditability it, maybe, shouldn't have. And it also leads to the problems I mentioned above. So it has positives and negatives.

It's a very well-made film, though there are some issues with the way the story is presented. It's very interesting, but not necessarily always gripping or entertaining. It's definitely worth seeing, it's that type of film. The last 30 minutes are so well-done that it makes the film worth it.

3 1/2 out of 5

Jack Reacher

Gonna keep this quick and short. I was pleasantly surprised by Jack Reacher. The trailers and commercials made it look as though it were just some action movie – all car chase and butt-kicking. It was nice to see that there was actually more to it than that. It's not great cinema by any means, but it's a solid, entertaining flick.

A sniper sets up and shoots five people. The cops pull a fingerprint off a quarter in the parking meter where the gunman parked and arrest the suspect. While being interrogated, he tells the police to get Jack Reacher. No one can find Jack Reacher, he's gone way off the grid. But he sees a report on the news that they're looking for him in connection with this shooter, so he goes to them. Jack had investigated the alleged shooter in the Army for going on a shooting spree, which he got off for because the men he shot happened to be under investigation for major crimes. Jack doesn't want this guy to go free again. However, he becomes suspicious of the events when he sees how neat the evidence is and this man, having been trained for this, would know better and not leave that evidence. So he starts to dig deeper.

I've read that, in the books, the Jack Reacher character is supposed to be something like 6'6'' and 250 pounds, or something along those lines. Basically to be this intimidating figure, I guess. As we all know, Tom Cruise, who plays the character in the movie, does not fit that description. But, you know, I had no problem believing Tom Cruise in this role. So he doesn't tower over everyone. Big deal. He's somewhat unassuming rather than intimidating. For me, that works. Tom Cruise looks as though he can take care of himself, so this isn't a stretch to believe.

It's not a revolutionary story or anything – it's basically a pulp, genre story. But it's capably told. The action scenes are exciting – I dug the car chase. There's a good mix of drama and humor. There's not much to say or get into about it. It's a pretty good piece of entertainment.

3 out of 5

Les Miserables

To be honest, I feel conflicted about Les Miserables. Not that I have a vested interest in the musical, or even Victor Hugo's novel. I don't – I've not read the novel nor seen the musical or even heard most of the music. It's just that, as personal preference, this sort of story is not a type of which I'm particularly fond. And there were issues with the style which bothered me to the point of distraction.

As for the story, my problem is that it starts as one story then becomes a different one. At the beginning it's about Jean Valjean and Javert. Jean Valjean, released on parole, decides to start a new life, under a new identity, and skip out on his parole. Even though he becomes a respected, well-to-do, man, he must always be alert because he can still be found out and sent back to prison. Everywhere he goes, eventually Javert shows up and recognizes Jean Valjean, forcing him to run again. I really liked this portion of the movie.

But, then, the story becomes about Cosette, the young girl who Jean Valjean feels responsible for after discovering he had not come to the defense of her mother, Fantine, when she worked for him and then turned to selling herself – hair, teeth, and body – and finally dying. Not only does it become about her, it becomes about her and Marius, a young student involved in the uprising against the French government. Their romance and the building revolt dominate the latter half of the story. As it's own entity, I liked this portion also.

Jean Valjean and Javert are still there, but they're more or less reduced to secondary characters. So what's the story? Who are the main characters? What is the main conflict? I have no problem when a story eschews these conventions and doesn't really contain them at all, but when a story changes mid-course it feels sloppy and unfocused to me. I could deal with two storylines being told in unison, alongside each other, but this feels more like one usurping the other. Or as though the Jean Valjean/Javert story is really just the setup for the Cosette/Marius story. But it feels like an awfully long way to go for a set up. Of course, this is an issue between my tastes and the source material. How can I really hold that against the film when it's a part of not just a classic musical but also a classic piece of literature on which it's based? If these two stories were distinctly separate from each other, with one ending before the other begins, I'd not have a problem. But telling them as one bothers me.

For its part, I think the film tells this story (these stories?) well. It's very effective. Each time Javert shows up again in Jean Valjean's life you feel for him – he's become a good man, in the grand scheme of things he's more than made up for any sins he's committed, but it makes no difference in the eyes of the law. And while the Cosette/Marius romance is of the 'love at first sight/I don't know you but I love you/star-crossed lovers' type, it's not bad. It adds stakes to the revolt section (whether you – or rather, I – think it's necessary). Jean Valjean's turn to accepting Cosette's and Marius' love doesn't really add anything to me, it doesn't add anything to his character as we already see him as an honorable and caring man, which I think adds to my distaste for the change in direction of the story. It seems a way to force him into the revolt story.

In the end, I feel like Javert is the most interesting character. The others are, more or less, static, they don't really grow or change. But Javert, he spends his whole life chasing Jean Valjean, and when he finally has the chance to get Valjean, he saves Javert's life – Javert becomes struck by the conflict, then, that what is lawful (to arrest and bring in Valjean) is immoral (because Valjean could've just left Javert to die and been free once and for all, but didn't), but to act morally is to be unlawful and go against everything he stands for, so he commits suicide by jumping off a bridge.

As for the issues with the style, I felt as though an inordinate amount of the film was told in close-up, and often somewhat awkwardly framed with too much head room and with the faces too close to the edge of the frame. This would seem, to me, to be a result of them recording the actors singing the song live, on set, as opposed to pre-recorded in a studio with actors lip-synching to playback. That approach would seem to not really allow the flexibility of multiple takes, without the use of a multi-camera set up, because each take the actor might have a different tempo, different rhythm, different take on the meldoy, etc. With close-ups, when the actors are moving around, the frame will need the extra headroom and lead room in anticipation of them moving. But it doesn't really work well when you're not intercutting between wide or medium shots and just using the properly framed portions of the take. Plus, it seems the actors are looking straight into the camera a lot, which increases the awkwardness.

Also, we often end up not seeing the actors interacting with the other actors. You have, really, an excellent cast, but we don't get to see them working together as much as we, maybe, should. It's almost as though most of the movie was shot one actor at a time – that's the feeling I got. But when the frame opens up, such as with the “Master of the House” sequence, it's really fantastic. When we get to see two or more actors together on screen, it's good. It's just that nearly the whole movie is singing and nearly all the songs are shot in that close-up style. For me it got distracting when I realized most of it was just faces singing at me. That's a shame because it undermines the portions that were shot with fantastic style.

So, as you can see, I just don't know how quite to feel about this. I can't deny the story is big and grand and has power and weight to it. I can't deny that parts were shot really well. The music is excellent, though I thought perhaps the conversational nature the actors took with it occasionally didn't always serve it well (as though at times they weren't sure whether to say a line or sing it and kind of change their mind halfway through delivering it). Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, Russell Crowe as Javert, and especially Anne Hathaway as Fantine give fantastic performances – if there were no other reasons, they make the film worth seeing. I enjoyed the film, I truly did. I think it's a good film, all in all. There were just issues that I had that, at least upon this initial viewing, drove me to distraction. I suppose the best way I could put it is that I would definitely be willing to watch the film again and give it another chance because none of those issues were of the variety that make me not like it.

3 out of 5