'12 Years': The Best Movie of 2013?

For the second year in a row, one of the year's best films is about slavery. But unlike Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, which was an uplifting tale of the demise of our national shame, or Django Unchained, which was a thrilling, fictional action romp, 12 Years a Slave takes a dark look at American slavery and for a (relative) change of pace tells it from the perspective of the oppressed. It also carries the distinct point of being based on a true story; it's adapted from Solomon Northup's autobiography of the same name, released back in 1853. Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) was a free black man raising a family and making a living as a renowned violinist in New York. But when he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south, he couldn't dare try and convince anybody in authority as to his identity in a place where simply knowing how to read would be a death sentence for a black man. And so for twelve years, Northup (under the given name of Platt) was forced to pick cotton, build guest houses, punish his fellow slaves, and witness or suffer some of the worst atrocities visited upon man in the whole of our nation's history, all before his eventual (and statistically unlikely) escape all those years later.

We're going to have to learn to pronounce his name, now.

Directed by Shame's Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave is arguably the toughest movie to watch in 2013. McQueen does not shy away from difficult topics, and when a whole race of humans were subject to the kinds of dangers that slaves were subject to in the two decades leading up to Lincoln's presidency, there is no shortage of material for the director to mine. Starting with kidnapping and slavery, we see murder, rape, lashings, lynchings, inhuman punishments, families broken up, and people worked to death. That McQueen and his crew can capture the sheer force of that inhumanity and not flinch at the emotional devastation it brings is more than remarkable; when fellow slaves refuse to get involved in an attempt on Northup's life that literally leaves him hanging from a tree for most of a day, you really get a sense of how that depressingly real world worked on a daily basis. Hans Zimmer's score highlights this all nicely, adapting to the events of this dreary world and excelling where it needs to without threatening to overshadow the scene itself.

Wait... is that Garret Dillahunt? I LOVE him!

McQueen also has the help of an all-star cast to supplement his directing talents. Ejiofor has long been recognized as a talented actor, but not necessarily one that has achieved mainstream success. Arguably his biggest role before now came in the British thriller Pretty Little Things, and that was over a decade ago. Here, he makes the argument that we really should have been paying attention to films like Kinky Boots, Serenity, Children of Men and Redbelt in the years before this. When we're tasked with witnessing Northup's trials over his dozen years of enslavement, you need an actor who can carry that load and look impossibly more tired and worn down from one scene to the next. You can't just ROOT for a character like Solomon; his journey demands that he literally be in the gracious thoughts of the audience, to be PRAYED for, even by nonbelievers. As an actor, Ejiofor manages to elicit that quantity of sympathy with his performance, putting forth a masterful showing that so far outpaces anything else seen this year.

Solomon dearly wishes he knew how to quit him.

And Ejiofor isn't alone, though the extensive cast has a "mixed bag" status. There are some truly epic, award-worthy performances here, especially from the likes of Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano and Sarah Paulson. While each of their characters have similar character traits (evil, quick to anger, sadistic folk), their skills prevent them from becoming overly repetitive, also thanks to the fact that they have their own unique motivations and desires. Other actors would be lucky to have such depth to work with; both Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt put in excellent efforts, but neither is given incredibly much to do, with Pitt narrowly winning out in sheer importance to the story. It never hurts to have such exemplary talents in your cast; sometimes you just wish more had been done with them. That is especially true when noteworthy actors (like The Wire's Michael K. Williams and Academy Award nominee Quvenzhane Wallis) are loaded into "blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos.

Somehow I don't think he's in the mood for "pat-a-cake"

But even the best films possess a few flaws, and 12 Years a Slave is no exception. McQueen and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt put together some gorgeous shots (Bobbitt's work also excels in The Place Beyond the Pines), but occasionally become lost in them, focusing a bit too long on the beauty of the shot, slightly undermining the nature of the setting. Another quibble (because these are indeed quibbles) is one that other reviewers seem to love, the performance of Kenyan newcomer Lupita Nyong'o. Don't get me wrong, I DID like Nyong'o's performance (even if it's not as groundbreaking as people are saying); it's just that the character itself seems to be a fictional catch-all for black women slaves, a design created explicitly to suffer the tragedies of the era that Solomon Northup was not necessarily in danger of suffering. Again, Nyong'o is fine, but her character seems fabricated merely as a side note to deflect attention briefly away from Northup's story. Personally, I preferred Pariah's Adepero Oduye as a mother separated from her children a more compelling overall character, despite substantially less screentime.

Um, is that Beasts of the Southern Wild's Dwight Henry?

As the closing credits roll, you'll probably never want to see 12 Years a Slave ever again. It's has all the makings of a modern classic, but its subject matter ensures that - while arguably one of the year's best - you're not going to walk away feeling all happy and gleeful and wanting to take your friend to see it as well. It even caps the whole thing off by reminding you that Northup's experience was a unique one; of thousands of free blacks kidnapped and sold into slavery, few were ever heard from again, let alone rescued. 12 Years is a story that took far too long to make its way to the big screen, and the result under the direction of McQueen is quite easily among the year's best. So do yourself a favor and see it once. Even if you never want to see another movie anytime soon, I think you'll agree the risk is worth the reward.

Cops and Robbers

September brings a whole new season, and with it many changes. Around the country, leaves change color and fall from the trees, the sun sets earlier and earlier, and Hollywood starts churning out the movies they think will actually have a chance of making an impression on critics and moviegoers. Yes, hidden amid the glut of Summer blockbusters and early-year critical fodder have been several intriguing films, including The Place Beyond the Pines, Mud, Fruitvale Station and The Way, Way Back. But with the soon-to-be-released likes of 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street... I could go on, but you get the picture. The coming months are so jam-packed with Oscar bait that even movies that would have been sure things a year or so ago will almost certainly find themselves on the outside looking in. Autumn (and winter afterward) brings with it the Big Boys, and the first officially serious candidate to rear its head is Denis Villeneuve's ensemble title Prisoners.

Jackman trying out as the "older, weathered" Bruce Wayne, perhaps?

In his follow-up to the Academy Award-nominated Canadian Incendies, Villeneuve takes his all-star cast and pits them against an unenviable foe when the daughters of friends Keller Dover (a poorly-monikered Hugh Jackman) and Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) are kidnapped in broad daylight near their suburban homes. The police and Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) apprehend prime suspect Alex Jones (Paul Dano), only to discover no evidence linking the mentally-underdeveloped man-child with the crime. Days pass without any clues, and with the families driven mad by the tragedy, Keller decides that the only way he will see his daughter alive is if he takes matters into his own hands.

Oh, wait, he just has that face all the time.

It's the above-mentioned veteran actors - plus talented performers like Viola Davis, Maria Bello, and Melissa Leo - who give Prisoners it's most compelling strength, with Jackman front and center as a distraught father who desperate choices in an attempt to rescue his daughter. Since Jackman so often appears in relatively simple action films like The Wolverine and Real Steel, it's always wonderful to be surprised by the acting muscles he doesn't often flex, even if they belong to such a dark and despondent plot. Jackman owns his material, and while I am ragging on him in the photo comments about his stone-carved angry face, he does so much with vocal inflection and his actions that it makes up for any other weaknesses in his performance. Gyllenhaal also stands out, though a lack of character development means that those easily-recognizable demons from his past (which manifest themselves in neck tattoos and conspicuous eye twitches) are never explained. The film splits its time between those two actors, and not once do they fail to keep you hooked.

A little help from the rest of the cast.

Now if only the rest of the cast had been treated as reverently as the two leads. After the first act, I assumed Dano would be my favorite actor in this. Besides the fact that he has some great films on his resume (Little Miss Sunshine, Ruby Sparks and Looper just to start), Dano is a natural talent who is really going into new territory with this role. As the mentally-disabled prime suspect, he puts real fear in the audience in his early scenes. But sadly, despite still playing a major role in the remaining acts, he is relegated to the background. The rest of the supporting cast is also misused, most getting one or two front-and-center scenes before fading back into obscurity. It's certainly not due to talent issues; this is one of the best-collected casts in recent memory, with more than enough ability to keep things interesting. Given more to do, they might have helped improve the film's mood, as well as director Villeneuve's pacing. Instead, they are mostly wasted.

He still can't believe he graduated from the Police Academy.

And it's the hands of Villeneuve where Prisoners gets a little sketchy. He gets some great performances out of his actors, and knows how to perfectly frame a shot. The director's technical prowess is certainly not my concern here. However, he might have been given a bit too much control over the movie's final release this past weekend. For one, the film is two-and-a-half hours long. Typically, I don't care about length; unlike many ADHD-riddled moviegoers, I can actually sit through a movie that's longer than an hour and a half and not be fidgety by time the credits roll, so long as the movie is actually good. I'm willing to sit through such a long film when the time is actually used to tell the story, as opposed to relatively short films who use so much filler you have to wonder about why they got made in the first place. Sometimes I even think that standard two-hour movies SHOULD add another twenty minutes to flesh out certain characters or elaborate on particular plot points, which would have made all the difference in the world. But Villeneuve tries to mimic the pacing of award-winning thrillers like The Usual Suspects with mixed results. Scenes are deliberately paced, there are far too many side-plots, and the red herrings become far too distracting as the story leads to a formulaic, mediocre ending. By my reckoning, an entire subplot containing a copycat kidnapper could have been cut without any major issues, perhaps to the benefit of allowing the side characters to become more significant (okay, I'm done with that rant). I'm rarely a fan of studios clamping down on a director's "artistic vision", but this was a situation where Warner Brothers perhaps should have stepped in and requested some cuts to the final product.

Obligatory pointing-of-the-gun cliche.

Perhaps Villeneuve just got a little overly-excited about directing his first American feature. He's still a talented director, but his treatment of Prisoners wasn't his best effort at expressing that ability. He's got a great cast, a solid story and the perfect mood, but the material doesn't quite gel in the way it really ought to. It's still a decent flick, and one I'd recommend for a decent DVD perusal. But awards bait this is not, likely forgotten in a few months time. It's truly a shame, as with the talent involved, it could have easily turned into one of the year's best. In a nutshell, that  is the difference between potential and the real world.

I Don't Want to Talk about Time Travel

It's odd to comprehend that the scrawny kid from 3'rd Rock from the Sun is seriously a movie star. I can still picture young Tommy Solomon, with his shoulder-length hair and carefree attitude, stealing many a scene from his older, more experienced costars. Since then, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has practically exploded onto the movie scene. He has been exploring a wide variety of film roles, starring in indie flicks like (500) Days of Summer, 50/50 and Hesher, and also major blockbusters G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and the surprisingly good Premium Rush. But the film widely considered to have catapulted him to where he stands now is 2005's Brick, the neo-noir thriller and debut of director Rian Johnson for which Gordon-Levitt's performance was vastly praised. Seven years later, the actor reunites with his Brick director for the time-traveling thriller Looper, which sees Gordon-Levitt wearing some crazy prosthetics as a unique style of hit-man who is literally confronted by his future.

He's looking a little different...

In the not-too-distant future, crime and poverty have risen to stratospheric heights, and the corrupt government ensures that things won't change anytime soon. In thirty years time travel will be invented, immediately outlawed, and therefore operated by only the largest criminal organizations. Because trackers make disposing of murder victims practically impossible, anybody the mob wants removed is instead zipped into the past, to be disposed of by specially-chosen assassins, named Loopers, who can secretly murder these people and wipe clean of any evidence. It's no easy life of luxury, however, as letting a target escape is grounds for extreme termination. Eventually, Loopers are sent their future selves to "close the loop", paid a boatload of cash and get the next thirty years to live their lives. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper who rose from the filth of the streets to make a name for himself as one of the most reliable men in the business. All that changes when he is confronted by his future self (Bruce Willis), who catches Joe off guard and manages to escape, and seems to be on an unknowable mission. Now Joe, on the run from his organization, will do anything to take down his older self, but what is Old Joe's goal? And how does a telekinetic single mother (Emily Blunt) fit into the picture?

"Eyyyyyyy!"

Looper's story is brightened by multiple intricately-managed mysteries, which refuse to be rushed in this two-hour film. The balancing act appears to be Johnson's strength as a writer and director; never revealing even the tiniest details before the timing is absolutely right. Johnson also knows that not everything in the universe needs to be told in vast detail; there are several instances of seemingly important facts glossed over - for instance, that about ten percent of the population can for some reason move small items with their mind -  and the reason for that is there is a major difference between needing to know something and needing to know everything about it. We don't need to know exactly WHY or HOW people have this talent, but we DO need to know that they have it, and Johnson wisely gives us just that. The character growth of Joe is also something of a big deal, as he goes from self-absorbed sociopath to... something else. I won't go into further detail as to avoid spoilers, but Joe's path is one of the better character stories I've seen in film this year, right up there with Judge Anderson in Dredd and the leads in For a Good Time, Call... It helps to be portrayed by a wunderkind like Gordon-Levitt and an underrated performer in Willis, but it is Johnson's direction that ensures that we demand to follow Joe's journey from beginning to end.

Just saw the box office draw for The Cold Light of Day.

Unfortunately, that aforementioned lack of detail also leads to one of the few problems I had with Looper: the science. I like time travel stories, from  H.G. Wells to Doctor Who to The Terminator to any comic book reference (and there are many). But do you know what they all have in common? They have rules. Very elaborate rules. Going back in time and altering the past is usually portrayed as a big no-no in stories, most notably because it can cause a paradox that does serious damage to the future. In Marvel Comics and the recent Star Trek reboot, such things merely causes parallel time-lines that exist outside the accepted universe. Even in the Terminator and (admittedly not time time travel) Final Destination pictures, fighting to stop a tragic future is never really successful, as the universe tends to right itself and force those events to occur eventually. Nowhere in modern time travel lore does it say that you can alter the past on a whim and with no major repercussions, and the logic in the science appears tailored to the story Johnson wanted to tell rather than something the tale is built around. Looper does get around this by making sure none of its characters really understand how time travel works, and in the end it doesn't matter all that much. While a little more science wouldn't have hurt the overall story, neither does it's absence detract from the rest of the movie.

She can hold my gun anytime.

The movie's story is one of great characters, and Johnson puts together a stellar cast to patch the whole thing together. Great pains were taken to make Gordon-Levitt and Willis appear like versions of the other, and while Willis puts on one of his better Bruce Willis impersonations, Gordon-Levitt is masterful at representing Willis' younger self. Sure, the unnoticeable prosthetics he dons certainly play a part, but his ability to nuance himself into a role is all but unparalleled in the industry, making for one of the year's better genre performances. A supporting cast of the excellent Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Piper Perabo, Garret Dillahunt, and Noah Segran flesh out what is already a generous amount of narration, and Johnson shows a keen eye for talent in his selections of his actors. Blunt especially stretches far from her comfort zone, a welcome sight for an actress of such talent, but everyone here is wonderful as well. Each has an important role to play, and more than fill their requisite storytelling needs.

"Just a tip from the future: stay away from the brisket."

Looper has deep and human characters, a generous dose of humor, and one of the best-written morality plays I've seen in this or any other year. This is probably the best science fiction film I've seen in recent years, perhaps only a tick behind District 9 or Moon, even though its a movie that will likely appeal more to mainstream audiences than the hardcore sci-fi fans that will frequent it. The lack of scientific logic might seem like a serious step back from traditional sci-fi, but I'll take the bad science when I'm offered both great characters and a worthy story that keeps me hooked. The only question is where to place it in my Top 10 for the year, a place it surely deserves to be listed. For genre films, it's better than just about everything Marvel has put out (besides The Avengers, of course), and perhaps just a bit higher than Dredd. #5 for 2012 seems just about right. Gordon-Levitt keeps proving that he deserves to be a star, and with fare like this constantly appearing on his resume, I'll gladly allow it.

Strike Twice

We're finally in August, and as most of this past summer has featured one major movie a week with very little in the way of alternative fare, it's nice to finally see more than a few options on the table. This August not only adds more titles I want to see than existed the entirety of the last few months, but some of the films I've been most anticipating this year. One of those films was the second film directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Ruby Sparks. Their eventual follow-up to the surprisingly wonderful 2006 movie Little Miss Sunshine, this was a tale with a talented cast, seemingly proven directors, and a fascinating story.

In the screenplay by Zoe Kazan, Calvin (Paul Dano), a once-successful novelist is suffering from a severe case of writer's block. Ten years after writing an extremely popular work of fiction, he is frustrating his agent and publisher with his inability to get anything down on paper. Regular visits to his therapist are little help, until Calvin  literally discovers the girl of his dreams. Inspired, Calvin creates the life of Ruby Sparks, a 26-year-old with a history of romantic follies and a bubbly personality of which he cannot get enough. Calvin falls in love with Ruby, even as he knows that he cannot practically fall in love with his own creation. Then the most amazing thing happens. After a night of writing, Calvin descends into his kitchen to discover Ruby Sparks, just as he has written her. And she is very much real.

Tell me you wouldn't want to wake up to this just once.

That magical element of Ruby Sparks is what makes the film so interesting, and certainly lays the groundwork for the moral dilemmas and questions of what makes you and I real that fill the script. Upon discovering that whatever he writes about Ruby comes true, Calvin at first makes the correct decision and decides not to write anymore, determining that he loves Ruby just the way she is (Ruby in turn doesn't know she's a fictional creation). But when the "honeymoon" portion of their relationship ends and Calvin finds some of Ruby's personality quirks irksome, he is tempted to write one sentence and "fix" things (as you can tell, it doesn't always work out the way he thinks). Burdened by the fallout of his previous failed relationships, Calvin doesn't want to risk losing the supposed love of his life. In Kazan's story, we get to see both sides to the issue, and how none of the decisions made are done so lightly.

Yes, they play brothers. No, I don't buy it either.

Of course, while these moments abound in the film, so too do many dry spells and dead spots thanks to uninteresting or unnecessary characters and a lack of solid ideas. This wouldn't be a problem if the film exhibited the same sort of natural charm that helped Little Miss Sunshine succeed, but the directors strangely struggle in replicating that effort here. That certainly didn't help, especially as every moment past the film's halfway mark makes Calvin less and less sympathetic a character, and unlike his Sunshine co-stars Steve Carrell or Abigail Breslin, Dano does not seem to have the ability to exude charisma on his own. Better is co-star Kazan, who is a ball of energy that can be redirected anywhere at a moment's notice. All of their co-stars, which includes Antonio Banderas, Annette Bening, Steve Coogan, Elliott Gould and Chris Messina, are good talents, but the script restricts just how much they contribute to the story as a whole.

That's a LOT of foliage...

If there's one word with which I could describe how the film made me feel, the most obvious that comes to mind is "uncomfortable". That's mostly in relation to the romance between Calvin and Ruby, and in a way it's the reason the film's story is as solid as it is. Romance in Hollywood tends to be uncomplicated, clean and without major issues. Romance in Ruby Sparks is complicated, messy and full of unseen dangers. In other words, the relationship between Calvin and Ruby is at times uncomfortable to watch because real relationships can in fact be uncomfortable, and being with your "soul mate" is never as easy as fiction would let you believe. Unfortunately, while Kazan manages to encapsulate the ups and downs of real-life romance, it doesn't make for a particularly lovely experience, unless you happen to thrive on conflict. The reason Hollywood romances starring Channing Tatum or Ryan Gosling are so beloved is that they're pipe dreams. Plenty of people already know how complicated real life can be. That's why Sparks is only playing at about a dozen theaters around the country.

As my compatriot used to call it, a "Hot Mess".

Still, I can't help but like Ruby Sparks, even if it didn't live up to my expectations. Kazan is a breakout star, and does a great job carrying the film, whether it was on the acting or writing sides. This movie is a complex mix of fantasy and reality that, while at times seeming a bit too much, really makes you change your perspective on what makes for a "successful" relationship. It's a quality release, and one I'd recommend seeing, though perhaps a film that would be better explored on the small screen.