12 Years a Slave *****

Short Take: The fact-based story of Solomon Northrup, a free black man living in upstate New York in 1841, who was duped by a business proposition and sold into slavery.

REEL TAKE: Based on the writings of Solomon Northrup, 12 Years a Slave tells Northrup’s own story as a freeman, his abduction and sale into slavery, and his agonizingly long journey back to freedom. British director Steve McQueen, who previously directed the emotionally heavy hitting dramas Hunger and Shame, turns in his most impressive work to date, spanning the depths of humanity, creating a guttural, raw and deeply disturbing experience.

In 1841 Northrup was living the American dream – a loving wife, two kids, a nice home and the respect the townspeople of Saratoga Springs, NY. When he is duped into believing he’s been hired to perform with a circus (he’s a violinist), he soon finds himself shackled and being shipped to the auction block in New Orleans. So begins his journey to hell and back.

Hollywood has produced plenty of films that depicted slavery and films that have depicted romantic notions of the grand Old South, but never before has Hollywood made a film depicting slavery and the culture that perpetuated slavery like this. For that, Hollywood should be ashamed. This British-American production, produced in part by Brad Pitt’s production company Plan B, breaks new ground and brilliantly so.

Chiwetel Ejiofor delivers a heart wrenchingly beautiful and stalwart performance. He imbues Solomon with a grace and honesty that evokes incredible strength and vulnerability. His first master, Mr. Ford, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, is a kind and learned man. He possesses refined manners and a gentle soul. He admires and respects Solomon, but while he is clearly not comfortable with slavery, he does nothing to defy or challenge the social and business conventions of the day. When Solomon finds himself at odds with Ford’s overseer, one of the most repulsive and morally reprehensible characters ever beheld on screen (played altogether too well by Paul Dano), Solomon is sold to another planter, Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender).

Unfortuantely for Solomon, Epps makes Ford’s overseer look like a dance in the park. A more boozy, bible toting, moralizing, proselytizing, womanizing, unholy mess of a mad man there never has been. Fassbender embodies the role so believably, one cannot help but wonder how he protected his own being from the flames of such a character. He is mesmerizing, fascinating and horribly tragic.

McQueen’s experience as a visual artist prior to becoming a filmmaker serves 12 Years most beautifully. Like Terrence Malick, McQueen has a poet eye with the camera, and he uses it here to speak volumes in ways that words cannot. He lingers in certain moments and images and it profoundly effective.

12 Years is not an easy film, nor is it a short film, but it is exactly as it should be and exactly as it was intended. Though I have not delved more deeply into the story or the performances from the rest of the supporting actors (including Brad Pitt, Sarah Paulson and Lupita Nyong’o), not a note is missed. 12 Years a Slave should be mandatory viewing for all American citizens. Unfortunately the audiences that will gravitate to it are not the ones who need to see this film. For those who venture to it, they will be rewarded with a masterfully told story that will remain with them for a long time to come.

Rated R for violence/cruelty, some nudity and brief sexuality.

Review by Michelle Keenan

About Time ****

Short Take: A charming British romantic comedy [from the King of British romantic comedies] about a young man with the ability to time travel within the confines of his own life.

REEL TAKE: Romantic comedy is a much maligned genre and with good reason. In contemporary cinema, if Richard Curtis isn’t at the helm or the typewriter, it generally isn’t good. With Notting Hill and the film adaptation of Bridget Jones among his writing credits, Love Actually and Pirate Radio among writing and directing credits, we are quite simply spoiled. And now Curtis treats us to About Time, the story of a romantically challenged young man who learns on his 21st birthday that the men in his family have the gift of time travel.

Yes it’s a little outlandish, but they keep it pretty simple with the caveat that their ability for time travel is confined to their own lives. Like so many stories involving time travel, you have to just take it at face value; if you can’t do that, stop reading now, About Time isn’t for you.

Domnhall Gleeson (son of Brendan Gleeson) is Tim, a likeable, gangly young man who yearns not just for female companionship but love. Like Hugh Grant in Notting Hill and Love Actually, Gleeson is also the narrative voice, and as with Hugh Grant, it’s part of what draws us to him and to the story.

When Tim’s father, played by the always great Bill Nighy, tells him about his gift for time travel, Tim decides he will use that gift for the purposes of love. So when he meets the girl of his dreams, he very easily can correct any misstep on the path of love by going back in time to the point of error and – fix it. That girl is Mary, played by Rachel McAdams.

As with all Richard Curtis films the warmth of the relationships and the humanity within the story sets it apart from others. In this case Tim has a wonderful rapport with his family and his relationship with his father is one of the film’s greatest strengths. I believe Curtis gave Tim’s character the ability of time travel because we’d all love to be able to do that. But it’s also a ploy to get our young hero to the live his life so fully every day that he’d never want to be anywhere else than where he is.

About Time is not perfect, but it’s awfully wonderful. Parts of it were utterly charming. I have a feeling on a second viewing I will like it even more.

Rated R for some language and some sexual content.

Review by Michelle Keenan

Dallas Buyers Club ****1/2

Short Take: The fact-based story of a Texas electrician, rodeo rider, womanizer and all round ruffian who, when diagnosed with AIDS in 1985, sought alternatives, broke boundaries and helped thousands of people facing the same death sentence.

REEL TAKE: Dallas Buyers Club is an unapologetically ugly, honest raw, wonderful and unsentimental story of redemption. Based on the true story of Ron Woodruff, a hard drinking, indiscriminate womanizer, and man of many vices, who was diagnosed with full blown AIDS in 1985 and given about 30 days to live. Woodruff, and the band of ruffians he ran with, was massive Texas-style homophobe. His diagnosis came at time when the world was just starting to learn about AIDS, thanks largely in part to Rock Hudson’s own diagnosis and outing as a gay man.

Ostracized and forsaken by his so-called friends, Woodruff begins to look for answers, alternatives, anything but death. As he begins reading everything he can about the disease, he realizes the drug the local hospital and big pharmaceuticals are peddling will do more harm than good. When he finds a doctor in Mexico whose protocol actually provides help and hope, he opens the Dallas Buyers Club; $350 a month for all the vitamins and meds you’ll need. And so begins a Woodruff’s road to redemption, purpose and success.

Matthew McConaughey gives the most stunning performance of his career as Woodruff. He lost a huge amount of weight for the role. This can be a gimmicky tactic for actors, and it doesn’t always work. McConaughey is a bag of bones and he looks like hell, but he also seems to really love and understand his character. He, like the movie, makes no apologies for Woodruff’s life or lifestyle. The weight of his performance and his distinct lack of pretense negates any sense of gimmick.

The same goes for Jared Leto, who plays Ray, a beautiful, sweet, drug addled transvestite who befriends Ray in the hospital. Leto’s drastic weight loss seems to have really helped him bring a real femininity and vulnerability to his role. They play wonderfully off of one another. Leto and McConaughey give truly transformative performances and both should be nominated for Oscars come award season.

Jean-Marc Valle, whose only other film that I’ve seen is The Young Victoria, will surely be in high demand in the director’s chair after the critical success of Dallas Buyers Club. I hope he too will be nominated for an Oscar, though of that I am not quite assured.

There has been some criticism of the film for making an AIDS movie set in the 80s and not taking the Reagan administration to task (I read somewhere, “…an AIDS movie the Tea Party can watch.”). While I understand that perspective I find it irrelevant. Woodruff’s enemy was the big pharmaceuticals and the FDA and that’s about as political as this story needs to be. Dallas Buyers Club is Woodruff’s story and it’s remarkable.

Rated R for pervasive language, some strong sexual content, nudity and drug use.

Review by Michelle Keenan

Great Expectations *****

Short Take: Exquisite adaptation of the Dickens classic has glorious cinematography, superb period re-creation, an excellent screenplay adaptation, and fabulous performances from Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter.

Reel Take: Brit director Mike Newell has made an interesting variety of films over the course of his 33 year career. His first film 1980’s The Awakening is a somber, beautifully realized version of Bram Stoker’s Jewel of Seven Stars that starred Charlton Heston & Susannah York. Later on would come such well known movies as Enchanted April, Four Weddings and a Funeral, and Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire.

The majority of his films are literary adaptations which makes him an ideal choice to direct Great Expectations which, while not the longest of Dickens’ works, is certainly one of the most complex regarding plot twists and character development. Newell rises to the challenge and gives us a beautifully photographed and perfectly paced cinematic adaptation which tops the famous 1946 David Lean version.

Of course Newell has the advantage of newer technology and more time to devote to the story but where this version really soars is in the casting and the performances. For my money, what turns great literature into classic literature are the supporting players. Who could imagine Othello without Iago and Roderigo or Dracula without Van Helsing and Renfield? No one was better at creating a multiple array of distinctive characters than Dickens which is why, in a film adaptation, the casting is so important.

The two key characters, as far as the plot is concerned, are Miss Havisham and the convict/benefactor Magwitch and they are given superlative performances by Helena Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes can always be counted on to give a fine performance but Bonham Carter’s performances tend to be all over the road. In Miss Havisham she has found a character that she was born to play and she gives her most fully realized performance in quite some time. Robbie Coltrane is extremely effective as the solicitor Jaggers who not only moves the plot forward but acts as a go-between for all the others.

It’s hard to imagine anyone who doesn’t know the storyline but then the average person today doesn’t read Dickens outside of school. For those who don’t, here is a brief and simple summary. An orphan boy named Pip, living in the countryside with his aunt, is “rented” by a wealthy eccentric as a playmate for her ward, Estella, with whom he falls in love. They are together only briefly. Once Pip grows up he receives an unexpected windfall and is sent to London to “become a fine gentleman.” However things are not what they seem and circumstances arise that alter his life and his “great expectations.”

This movie was made to take part in the 200th anniversary of Dickens’ birth last year but it is only just now getting here. It is a fitting tribute in every way and is also a must see for any fan of Dickens or classic English literature. You may want to see it more than once as it’s that full of rich details but you better hurry. Since Dickens is no longer the draw he once was for the general public and because it’s only at one theater (Carolina Cinemas), I wouldn’t count on it to be in town for long.

Rated PG-13 for some violence including disturbing images.

Review by Chip Kaufmann

Thor: The Dark World ***

Short Take: Uninspired sequel to the 2010 original is one long video game which lacks a remotely interesting or original screenplay and a prime example of Directing 101.

Reel Take: If it were up to me personally, I would rate Thor: The Dark World much lower but that wouldn’t be fair. The film lacks an interesting storyline and the assured and creative direction of Kenneth Branagh that were the great strengths of the first film. That did not stop the younger audience that I saw the film with from eating it up. In a sense the movie is critic proof as the box office numbers will attest to but I enjoyed it far less than the first installment.

The primary reason for this is that the film is about 20% story and 80% action. The entire first hour was an extended “Helm’s Deep” sequence form The Lord of the Rings with a brief timeout for a visit to London so that we can bring Thor’s mortal girlfriend, Jane Porter, into the proceedings. The second half adds more character interaction and finally gives Loki something to do but that was not enough for me. I will admit to being surprised by the twist at the end but that’s only because of Anthony Hopkins. However it was quickly forgotten along with the rest of the movie.

Now that the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise has been created allowing the various Marvel characters to interact with each other in anyway the screenwriters see fit, it’s possible to come up with all sorts of combinations. I hope that future installments will avoid the paint-by-numbers approach Thor: The Dark World takes but then it’s hard to deny the appeal of making an awful lot of money for very little work. Not that the army of special effects people these movies require weren’t busy but they seem to have done 95% of the work.

What little plot the three credited screenwriters came up with is basically a ripoff of Lord of the Rings. The Dark Elves, after being defeated eons ago (battle scenes), have come back to threaten the stability of the universe. They attack Asgard (more battle scenes) but don’t destroy it completely. Thor must join forces with Loki to vanquish them along with Jane Porter who is infected with the “Aether”, the core essence of universal evil. This leads to a final confrontation (even more battle scenes) and that surprise twist I mentioned earlier.

The actors seem at a loss this time around. Chris Hemsworth is all posture as Thor because he isn’t given anything to do except brood or fight. Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, who is the most interesting character, has very little to say which is totally out-of-character as we’ve come to expect his dark witticisms. Natalie Portman’s Jane Porter makes Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane in the old Superman films look like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice while Sir Anthony Hopkins’ voice is still as imposing as ever just as his paycheck must have been.

Thor: The Dark World has already made millions and will continue to do so especially overseas where the Marvel movies are even more popular. The fanbase is there and continues to grow larger which means more Marvel Cinematic Universe films are in the offing (4 are already in post-production). If they’re as forgettable as this one, I hope I don’t have to see them but then, to look on the bright side, I won’t remember them.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of Sci-Fi action and violence and for suggestive material.

Review by Chip Kaufmann