Jamie Daily

12 Years a Slave (2013) Review | Jamie Daily

12 Years a Slave (2013)
86th Academy Awards 2014
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 9 awards, of which it won 3.
Nominated for Best Actor (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Best Supporting Actor (Michael Fassbender), Best Costume Design (Patricia Norris), Best Director (Steve McQueen), Best Film Editing (Joe Walker), and Best Production Design (Adam Stockhausen, Alice Baker).
Won Best Picture (Brad Pitt, Anthony Katagas, Dede Gardener, Jeremy Kleiner, Steve McQueen), Best Supporting Actress (Lupita Nyong'o), and Best Adapted Screenplay (John Ridley).
Watched April 23, 2014.

 

12 Years a Slave is based off of the memoirs and book of Solomon Northup, a free black man who lived in the north in the 1800s and was kidnapped and sold into slavery.  This is no Quentin Tarantino's Django.  This is raw, and somehow artistically balanced to give a small taste of what Solomon went through during 12 years in slavery in southern plantations.

 

Solomon (Chiwetel Ejiofor) fights for his freedom from the beginning, but the crippling terror and the ruthless inhumanity of the slavers beat him down into survival mode.  His fight becomes smaller and his caution greater.  His first owner is kind, as plantation owners go, but a run in with a power corrupt plantation hand lands him with the only owner who will take him.  Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) is matched in evilness only by his wife.  He has a lust for the slave Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), which has her physically and verbally abused repeatedly by the married couple.  Shortly after Solomon comes to the plantation, Patsey begs him to kill her.  After this they form a painful relationship that is more out of mutual understanding than of affection.  Solomon is a good man.

 

His ability to read and write must be hidden, but his intelligence and education helps get him out of many tight spots.  He still endures punishments we can barely fathom.  He spends a full day hanging from a noose with only his toes touching the ground.  He dares to hope and trust in few men, because those he takes a chance on are looking out for themselves and no one else.  

 

((SPOILERS)) The one let down for me in casting was actually Brad Pitt who plays Bass, a Canadian who comes to work on the plantain to make some money.  He doesn't agree with slavery, but Solomon calls him out to act on his beliefs.  For me, Pitt is so well known and so trustworthy that his appearance was a sure sign that Solomon's salvation would come through him.  I wish they had chosen a lesser known actor to maintain suspense and realism.  ((End spoilers))

 

The film itself is artistic in nature.  Although most of the story line is linear, the director chooses a few painfully long sequences in order to communicate Solomon's emotions.  He symbolically expresses an event or emotion when typical hollywood editing and story telling don't seem to do an adequate job.  Solomon's experience with the noose is long and drawn out.  Almost long enough for the viewer to go to the bathroom in the middle and not miss anything.  I cannot decide if I think this is a strong choice or a weak choice.  The style reminded me a lot of Beasts of the Southern Wild.  I almost wished for a little more story and less pause, but I can understand the choices of the director.  

 

There a very few times that I can appreciate nudity in a film, but this is one of them.  The slaves are stripped of identity, dignity, respect, and humanity.  They bathe in the open, men and women together, watched by slavers.  They stand nude as plantation owners shop and decide who to purchase.  They are stripped naked and lashed to poles where they are whipped for things like wanting soap.  Although this symbolism is more obvious than others in the film, it showed a very raw side of the slavery culture.  Fed by their own justifications, the plantation owners were sick with the twisted logic of the south that believed that slaves were property and nothing more.

 

If you can take it, you should watch 12 Years a Slave.  In fact, even if you don't think you can take it, you should watch it.  It has its flaws as a film, but its underlying message and its strong elements in acting and artistry are what won it the Oscar for best film this year.

 

 

Gravity (2013) Review | Jamie Daily

Gravity (2013)
86th Academy Awards 2014
5/5 Stars
Nominated for 10 awards, of which it won 7.
Nominated for Best Picture (Alfonso Cuarón, David Heyman), Best Actress (Sandra Bullock), and Best Production Design (Andy Nicholson, Rosie Goodwin, Joanne Woollard).
Won Best Cinematography (Emmanuel Lubezki), Best Director (Alfonso Cuarón), Best Film Editing (Alfonso Cuarón, Mark Sanger), Best Original Score (Steven Price), Best Sound Editing (Gienn Freemantle), Best Sound Mixing (Chris Munro, Christopher Benstead, Niv Adiri, Skip Lievsay), and Best Visual Effects (Chris Lawrence, David Shirk, Neil Corbould, Tim Webber).
Watched April 7, 2014.

 

What was undoubtedly this year's overall "winner" at awards night, Gravity is a huge accomplishment in all areas of filmmaking.  To get ten nominations is impressive enough, but to walk away at the end of the night with seven wins is a testament to the skills behind this piece.  If that isn't enough, the movie even lives up to the hype.  From story and casting to visuals and sound, the film is a feast for your senses.

 

Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a medical engineer on her first space mission.  While out on a routine space walk making repairs, their shuttle is hit by debris and Ryan finds herself detached from the shuttle and spinning helplessly into space.  Luckily, her colleague Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) who is vastly more experienced, was attached to thruster jets when disaster hit and he is able to tether Ryan to himself and begin a horrifying orbit around the earth towards a space station.  Every breath is terrifying as Ryan's space suite constantly reminds her how little oxygen she has left.  She has to learn to overcome her fears and must refuse anything but survival as a possibility.  

 

We know very little about the characters, but the back story that is revealed about them gives all we need to know.  The story is not simple and predictable, although it has the possibility to be that.  While Clooney's performance is simple and to the point, his character is exceedingly impressive and calm.  Bullock commands attention, adding to the crescendo of sound and visuals that make Gravity hard to look away from.  Her nomination was extremely well deserved.  

 

The film does not make a grand statement.  It revolves around the ideas of "you never know who might be listening" and that space is not able to be conquered--that life in space is impossible.  Almost right away Ryan says, "I hate space," which sets up her character for what she is about to experience.  You might laugh, you might cry, and you will definitely be sitting at the edge of your seat.  I can only imagine what the film was like in the theatre in 3D, but even on my HD 47inch it was to die for.  

 

Director, writer, and editor Alfonso Cuarón paired with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki are unstoppable.  I cannot rave enough about the imagery and the lighting.  To be fair, there was no weak link.  All of the puzzle pieces fit.

 

Clearly I would highly recommend this film.  It is one of the best films out of Hollywood in a long time.

 

Lincoln (2012) Review | Jamie Daily

Lincoln (2012)
85th Academy Awards
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 12 awards, of which it won 2.
Nominated for Best Picture (Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy), Best Director (Steven Spielberg), Best Supporting Actor (Tommy Lee Jones), Best Supporting Actress (Sally Field), Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony Kushner), Best Original Score (John Williams), Best Sound Mixing (Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom, Ronald Judkins), Best Cinematography (Janusz Kaminski), Best Costume Design (Joanna Johnston), and Best Film Editing (Michael Kahn).
Won Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis) and Best Production Design (Rick Carter, Jim Erickosn).
Watched February 27, 2014.

  

I have heard a lot of good things about Lincoln, and perhaps these things, along with Daniel Day-Lewis' win at the Oscars made me expect too much.  As much as I tend to enjoy the pristine nature of a good Spielberg film, the stage like dialogue, production design, and cinematography left something to be desired.

 

President Abraham Lincoln is perhaps one of the most well remembered Presidents.  This film focuses on a small period of time around his reelection, just months before his assassination.  He is gunning for the 13th Amendment, which would abolish slavery, much to the chagrin of his cabinet.  Even some within the Republican party were hesitant.  Everyone wanted peace from the Civil War.  They wanted their sons to stop dying in battle and for the South to come back to the nation.  The Democrats were vehemently opposed to the Amendment.

 

We all know what happens in the end, which takes away some of the mystery and suspense, although the filmmakers tried their best to keep the audience on the edges of their seats.  The representatives vote and threaten each other.  Lincoln is slow and yet eloquent.  He speaks strongly when needed but prefers a calm state and story telling.  In tense situations he commands the attention of a room by telling a story that might relate to the situation at hand.  

 

The acting, particularly from Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field, is top notch.  They deliver difficult lines and portray a wounded spirit very well.  My favorite scene involving Mary Todd Lincoln (Field) is when she defends her remodel of the white house to some extremists, showing a bit of the gumption that Lincoln must have fallen in love with in the beginning.  The loss of one of her sons has all but done her in, but in this moment there is fire in her eyes, much like in the President's when he expresses how disgusting slavery is.  

 

He and his political party dance the line between peace and the freedom of slaves.  They believe that if they declare peace with the south before the Amendment is brought to a vote, there will be no sense of urgency and it will not be passed.  They employ questionable and typical techniques to "buy" votes and stall envoys.  

 

Some of the story is much too slow, or maybe unnecessary.  I understand why they included the story line of Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the son who wants to go to war, but it is so underused that it is more of a distraction from the main story than anything else.  It shows the fear of his parents and unearths more of their grief.  The emotions in these scenes are palpable, but the execution of the filmmaking is very staged.  There is a constant tug of war between filmmaker and actor in this film that I found very distracting.  

 

Despite some negative attributes, the film is well done and deserving of its nominations as well as wins.  I would definitely watch it again, although I might not own it.  If you are a history buff you will probably really enjoy it.  I can recommend Lincoln as a good film, but you should expect it to be somewhat slow, dark, and quiet.

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
4/5 Stars
Nominated for 3 awards.
Nominated for Best Production Design (Dan Hennah, Ra Vincent, Simon Bright), Best Makeup (Peter Swords King, Rick Findlater, Tami Lane), and Best Visual Effects (David Clayton, Eric Saindon, Joe Letteri, R. Christopher White).
Watched November 13, 2013.

 

Over ten years ago, The Lord of the Rings films swept over the world and created fanatics and returning obsessors of the famed and well written (although overly detailed) works by J.R.R. Tolkien.  Now, director and producer Peter Jackson is back at it, this time dividing The Hobbit into three parts.

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first installment.  The next, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is out this month and I have high hopes that it will redeem the first film's slightly disappointing results.  

 

One of the great contrasts in story between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is at their core, their morality and grand stories are very different.  The Lord of the Rings largely explored good versus evil and how the worst evil can poison even the best of us.  The Hobbit explores lust and the unexplainable want of the wealthy to retain and maintain what they consider theirs, even if they never actually used it.  These moral explanations are overly simplified at best, but at their very core, that is what they are.  Perhaps The Hobbit's morality is less obvious or creates less of an impact.  This, combined with the more adventurous, lighthearted story as well as the long-winded three-part film idea, leaves critics disappointed.  In The Lord of the Rings, the good versus evil was obvious, the quest was epic, the seriousness and adult story telling nature created a complex world that will captivate for generations.  Although The Hobbit is first and foremost a children's book, this reality is lost on many viewers and critics alike.

 

The story is set some sixty years before The Lord of the Rings but stars a good friend of ours, Bilbo Baggins, this time portrayed by Martin Freeman.  He is visited by a strange wizard whom he does not remember and refuses quite sensibly to indulge the old man's proposal of an adventure.  Galdalf (Ian McKellen), of course, thinks Bilbo will be perfect for the job, and it is because of this that a large unexpected party shows up on the hobbit's doorstep soon afterward, expecting food and speaking of dragons and treasure.

 

The party of dwarves were once one of the richest clans.  They had dug so deep and so far that they had discovered the heart of the mountain.  However, the dragon Smaug ran them from their home, and now just this small group of 12 is willing to fight their way back home.  They have come to Gandalf for help, who has come to Bilbo, for they are in want of a burglar.  

 

The film dwells quite a long time in setting up the story, and the dinner scene itself takes up almost a full third of the film.  It is funny and there are two musical numbers.  Gandalf's performance is a bit more waspish and fun loving than the desperate man we have grown accustomed to previously.  Bilbo refuses to be their burglar but a bit of sleep and a quiet house in the early morning light seems to change his mind and he runs after the group.

 

The rest of the film is almost just setting up the story, with a few adventures in-between.  Bilbo is an outsider of the group, and King Thorin (Richard Armitage), who is remarkably good looking for a dwarf, is the most unwilling to accept him.  There are orcs, goblins, giants, and trolls that interupt their journey.  They even make a pit stop in Rivendel where Gandalf has a show stopping (not in a good way) discussion with Saruman and some other key players where they discuss the dark signs of the land and whether or not they should support the dwarves' vain adventures.

 

Probably the best scene in the entire film is when Andy Serkis returns once again to embody Gollum, the once Hobbit like creature who lives in the dark and has an unhealthy obsession with his Precious.  If you aren't familiar with Gollum, he plays a very large role in The Lord of the Rings and his meeting with Bilbo signifies a great shift in the fate of Middle Earth.  The motion capture work and animation in this scene are unreal.  Serkis is exquisite and Gollum is perfectly chilling in his schizophrenic performance in their game of riddles, which should hopefully capture the hearts of fans and newcomers alike.  Although the scene slows the pace of the film almost to a stand still, one can hope that new viewers won't get lost but can appreciate what a perfect scene it is.

 

For the most part, An Unexpected Journey is an excellent film.  Is is the first part, therefore it is not resolved, the adventure is not over, and there is much more yet to come.  I would advise watching this film before watching The Lord of the Rings and not the other way around.  I did that last year and was sorely disappointed, but in doing the reverse this year I can appreciate The Hobbit much more for what it is.  The 3D and 48 frames per second makes it a bit too realistic and much less magical than one might like, but the views of New Zealand will never grow old.  Peter Jackson wanted very much for the world to seem bigger than ever, but I'm not quite sure that happened in most cases.  

 

If you can accept that An Undexpected Journey is based off of a children's book and is the first in a three part series, I think that it is much easier to see the good in it than to nit-pick at the bad.  The performances are solid, the music is stunning, the camera work is top notch, and the special effects are out of this world.  The comedy is somewhat childish, the story wanders a bit from its main goal, and it takes an awfully long time for Thorin to loosen up.

 

I would one hundred percent highly recommend this film to anyone.  It will one day soon be a part of my own home library and I will watch it multiple times in the not too distant future.  If you can take my advice and perhaps lower the expectations that The Lord of the Rings trilogy created in you, I hope that you will not be disappointed.

 

Les Miserables (2012) Review

Les Miserables (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
3/5 Stars
Nominated for 8 awards, of which it won 3.
Nominated for Best Picture (Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, Cameron Mackintosh), Best Actor (Hugh Jackman), Best Music--Song ("Suddenly": Claude-Michel Schönberg, Herbert Kretzmer), Best Production Design (Eve Stewart, Anna Lynch-Robinson), and Best Costume Design (Paco Delgado).
Won Best Supporting Actress (Anne Hathaway), Best Sound Mixing (Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson, Simon Hayes), and Best Makeup (Lisa Westcott, Julie Dartnell).
Watched October 3, 2013.

 

Photo Source: Acesshowbiz

This adaptation of Les Miserables is both deeply loved and deeply hated by many--critics and citizens alike.  The enchanting music and performances are beautiful, but the dutch angles* and static camera work is grating.  For some (book lovers, mostly) the first two parts of the film are what they should be, if a musical can be considered a good representation of the original literature.  For others, the last act is what makes the piece.

 

For myself, the first two thirds of the film were incredibly boring.  There are certain pieces that stand out, but over all it isn't something that I would be able to watch very often.

 

For those who don't know, Les Miserables is a story about a man named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who is set free from prison and hard labor after serving 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread.  Javert (Russell Crowe) is the guard who sets him free, but Valjean's papers label him a dangerous man, which make it impossible for him to get a job, something to eat, or a place to stay.  He is shown incredible kindness by a godly man who tells him to turn his life around.  Valjean creates an alias for himself and years later we find him a factory owner and the mayor of a small town.  This happy world is rocked when Javert returns, now as an inspector, although he does not at first recognize Valjean.

 

Distracted by the new inspector, Valjean doesn't take notice when one of his factory workers is thrown to the streets because she had a child out of wedlock.  Fantine (Anne Hathaway) enters a dark path and in her deepest despair performs the most heart wrenching, memorable solo number of the entire 158 minute film.  Valjean learns of Fantine and her daughter Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and vows to take care of the girl.

 

In the next act, a rebellion against the crown in stirring in France.  Cosette is a young woman and her beauty attracts another young man who has left behind his family wealth to support the revolution with his friends.  Marius, played by the freckle-faced tenor Eddie Redmayne, sees her but once and is in love.  He must choose between the girl and the revolution.  When Valjean discovers the romance, he must choose between his own freedom or Cosette's happiness.

 

The film's biggest strength is director Tom Hooper's decision to have the cast sing live.  Normally with musicals, they record the tracks before they shoot, but with singing live the actors have a much better opportunity to connect emotionally with their characters and their performance.  There is no debate that Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is the best point in the entire film and it is undoubtedly what won her the Oscar.  

  

The film captures the darkness of the circumstances, but its biggest flaw is probably the conversion of stage to film--it stays too true to Broadway.  The continuous musical ballads draw out the emotions of characters that we as an audience can see in a split second simply from the actor's face.  We spend five minutes exploring a single emotion.  On stage this can work brilliantly, especially if you're sitting in the nosebleed section.  Film is different.  The slightest flicker of emotion can be detected by your audience--we don't need to marinate in it.  

 

My second favourite performance is when Redmayne sang "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." He expresses perfectly the emotion--the devastation he felt at the loss of his comrades.  The film also did well in showing the sorrow that the soldiers must have felt at killing such young men.  

 

There are so many facets to this film, it is hard to discuss them all.  For me, the first two parts of the film were slow and tedious.  They did not hold my attention very well.  If it wasn't a musical I probably would have enjoyed it, but when there is little to no dialogue, it gets old fast.  Part three, which many critics disliked, was my favourite.  By then I was used to the singing and although certain love stories were a little silly, the character interaction was much more engaging.  The revolution was interesting and its toll was disheartening.  

 

If you are a fan of musicals, you will probably love this film.  If you hate musicals, you will hate this film.  There isn't really an in-between with this Les Miserables.  I will probably see it again, simply because it is so well loved, but I hope it isn't any time soon.

 

*Dutch Angle (or dutch tilt) is defined as "a type of camera shot where the camera is tilted off to one side so that the shot is composed with vertical lines at an angle to the side of the frame" (Wikipedia).

Anna Karenina (2012) Review

Anna Karenina (2012)
85th Academy Awards 2013
2/5 Stars
Nominated for 4 awards, of which it won 1.
Nominated for Best Original Score (Dario Marianelli), Best Production Design (Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer), and Best Cinematography (Seamus McGarvey).
Won Best Costume Design (Jacqueline Durran).
Watched June 6, 2013.

Photo Source: Peter Viney's Blog 

The story of Anna Karenina is perhaps one of my least favourite so far among the 2013 nominations, which is of course no fault of the screenwriter as it is based on Leo Tolstoy's classic novel.  Those who love the story, as well as Tolstoy, don't worry.  Although my feelings toward Anna and her plot line are less than favorable, I did quite enjoy the stories surrounding her, as well as the interesting style of this latest film.  While the artistic direction may be a bit distracting from the story, I found it quite enchanting and it made me wish that it had been bestowed upon a different story, because then I would have liked to watch it again.

 

This may all be a very complicated way of saying that I have a love-hate relationship with director Joe Wright's interpretation of Anna Karenina.  It is the story of a woman (Kiera Knightley) in the Russian high society  who does not love her husband (Jude Law).  Instead of remaining faithful so that she may be with her beloved son, she runs off with Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson)--whose mustache is very silly if I do say so myself--and therefore suffers the social backlash.

 

It is this story that I found very annoying.  I didn't care for Anna and therefore understood none of her decisions.  Her husband, although a bit weak when it comes to home life, was an admirable character.  Vronsky was young and had no idea what he was getting Anna into, and her poor abandoned son doesn't get much screen time.  I appreciated the story in that it shows an example of why it is morally wrong to cheat on your husband, although Anna mainly suffered the surface repercussions--none of her friends would hang out with her any more.  If the book goes more in depth about this, then perhaps there was not enough time to explore the depth of it more than that in the film.

 

Despite my dislike for the story, again, I quite appreciated the production design and the costumes.  In fact, my love for period pieces is what kept me going through the over two hour film and I wished that the beautiful consuming and innovative sets could have been bestowed on a different plot line.  I liked the side stories, although they seemed somewhat out of place, despite showing a complete turnaround from Anna.  

 

I will very readily say that I won't be seeking out this Anna Karenina adaptation again any time soon, and unless you 1. like the story or 2. have incredible patience, I would advise against watching it just to see the aesthetics.