FILM REVIEWS: Dallas Buyers Club

If there was ever any doubt about Matthew McConaughey’s uncanny ability to all but carry a film, Dallas Buyers Club has snuffed it out. The former schlocky B-rom-com star has already turned in a career-defining performance this year with his portrayal of a slick and smooth-talking outlaw in Mud, but nobody was expecting this incredible turn from an actor who has only recently started getting critical recognition. But now McConaughey has two shots at the Best Actor award this year, and as far as I’m concerned, he can run against himself, because he deserves it twice over.

Dallas Buyers Club is the true story of Ron Woodroof (McConaughey), a gleefully homophobic, drug-addicted Texan in 1985 who contracts AIDS after banging two random women at a rodeo. This opening sequence is particularly symbolic, as it splices images of a man riding a bull with... well... Woodroof doing some riding of his own. And the interesting thing is, although the man on the bull gets knocked off, trampled, and gored, the activity he just engaged in is far less dangerous than what Woodroof did.

After contracting the virus, Woodroof is given 30 days to live. Being a red-blooded, meat-eating ‘Murican, he flips off the doctor and proceeds to live not one, not two, but SEVEN YEARS LONGER. Oh, uh... spoiler alert. Anyway, in order to keep himself alive, he travels to Mexico to obtain a non-FDA-approved drug that helps his immune system cope with the virus and doesn’t corrode healthy cells (like the medicine being taken by hospital patients). The medical aspect of this film is given a lot of screen time, and if you can’t follow technical mumbo-jumbo about drugs and the legal system behind them, don’t bother with this. However, it’s not impossible to follow, and those who pay close attention will notice some interesting-- and disheartening-- parallels between Woodroof’s drugs and marijuana use today. And for the record, people should be able to decide what they put in their bodies. This isn’t North fucking Korea.

Woodroof is helped along, however, by two characters who I could have really done without. Jennifer Garner plays a nurse at the hospital, whose character arc could be drawn with a ruler. She’s flat, boring, and uninteresting, and Garner isn’t a very good actress either. She brings nothing to the table, and comes off as snivelly and obnoxious (basically rehashing her role from Juno). Meanwhile, Jared Leto plays a transvestite with AIDS, who is so stereotypical I could scream. I haven’t had much experience with the gay community, but I seriously doubt that people like this exist and are this annoying. Also, we’re supposed to feel sympathy for Leto’s character, but I didn’t-- not because he was a flamer, but because he was a fucking drug addict. These two characters work fine with McConaughey, but when they have screen time all to themselves, MAN OH MAN, you’d better watch out.

But McConaughey more than compensates for the rest of the cast’s shortcomings with an utterly enthralling performance that somehow makes his reprehensible character lovable and (dare I say it) totally badass. There’s undeniable charm to a person who not only does the right thing, but does it with a complete disregard for authority, a twinkle in his eye, and a spring in his step. Sure, Woodroof may have acted firstly out of self-interest, but as his business venture evolves into a full-blown charity for AIDS patients, the redemption of his character is powerful and poetic. If you thought that the hardest thing is being a gay guy with AIDS in Texas, well, look no further than being a STRAIGHT guy with AIDS in Texas.

This story is a truly powerful thing, as it works not only as a story about morals and choices, but as a modern parable about redemption. Woodroof’s complete 360-degree transformation is spectacular, and the more he changes mentally, the more he does physically as well. McConaughey actually fasted to play this role, and it shows. He fills in his character with a sallow, wrinkled, and pale appearance that expertly mirrors the trademarks of the HIV virus. He puts in tremendous effort for this movie, and it totally pays off. I haven’t seen a performance this good all year, not even from Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips. And when you’ve got a performance worthy of rivalling Tom Hanks, well... you’re in the big leagues.

Final Score for Dallas Buyers Club: 8/10 stars. This movie is great, but it could have been a lot better if it had more fleshed-out minor characters and some less in-your-face imagery. I’m not asking for censorship, but seeing a transvestite shoot heroin into his ass fifty times doesn’t really contribute much to the plot. I’d be fine if there was some point to it, but good God, I don’t want to watch that shit. Still, the movie is definitely worth seeing, and every homophobic asshat out there should definitely sit down and give it a view. I’d love it if this subject transformed America as much as it did Woodroof.

FILM REVIEWS: Ender's Game

To all those who say that the adventure/sci-fi genre is dead... I point you to Ender’s Game. Although it’s light-years (no pun intended) behind the best Star Wars and Star Trek films, and doesn’t have any of the great performances of Gravity, Blade Runner, or Alien, this old-school summer-action-style adventure is still a lot of fun. There’s nothing here that will challenge your mind, nothing that will make you think, and not much in the way of a memorable plot... but in comparison to some of the shit we’ve been getting this year, this is a welcome and pleasant surprise.

Ender’s Game is the film adaptation of the best-selling novel by Orson Scott Card, a project that has been anticipated and hinted at for years. Having read the book, I knew the plot twists and spoilers beforehand, making the movie not too original for me. However, if you HAVEN’T read the book, this movie is a fun (if predictable) thrill ride that will entertain you immensely if you’re willing to sit back and turn off your brain for a couple hours. And to address the detractors of Mr. Card: Yes, the author of the original novel is a flaming asshole who thinks that homosexuality is an abomination. But there’s a thing called “Separating the art from the man.” Roman Polanski, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman have all done objectionable things off-camera, but that doesn’t make their movies any less enjoyable. Boycotts are lame. Get over it.

Ender’s Game stars that little asswipe from Hugo as Ender Wiggin, a cadet for the Generic Future-Space Military Academy Thingamajig. Simply put, the character is awesome, but the actor sucks. Assa Buttholefield has never delivered a good performance, and this is just another fine example of that. He’s bland, cold, and there’s nothing about him that makes you think that he has a soul of any kind. His emotional scenes feel blank, and the plot makes him out to be some kind of robot. The character is NOT. He is conflicted about the morality of his actions, and that results in a twist ending and spectacular climax that the movie failed to adapt from the book. It’s a disappointment, yes, but the rest of the movie is good enough to hold him up.

Harrison Ford plays the Generic Army Colonel/General Badass Old Guy who enlists Ender (what the fuck kind of a name is Ender anyway?) to travel to space for battle school. This is the best part of the movie, as all of the visuals in these scenes looked exactly as I had imagined them when I read the book as a kid. There’s a general sense of sweeping grandeur, awe, and fantasticalness that contributes greatly to the movie’s storytelling. Rarely do visuals actually play a role in this, but they definitely do in Ender’s Game. And Ford is awesome as always in this, helped along by Ben Kingsley (who is also guilty of being in that enormous fuckfest that is Hugo), who delivers one of his better performances from recent memory. Of course, I can’t watch him onscreen anymore without thinking “This guy was in Species... heh heh.” But that’s just me.

When the final plot twist rolls around, you’re pretty much hooked, because even if the central performance isn’t too strong, the dialogue is taken (sometimes word-for-word) from the book, making it a lot better than anything the writers of this thing could probably have come up with. The battle scenes between Ender and the Formics (originally called “Buggers” in the book; the name was changed because it was considered offensive) are beautifully shot, technically brilliant, and awe-inspiring. But here is where the movie fails: Although it looks great, the acting is passable, and the dialogue is good, it still doesn’t quite transfer the magic of the book to the screen. It has action without depth, dialogue without a point, and characters without hearts. It’s a fun yet joyless experience that, sadly, doesn’t live up to its source material.

Final Score for Ender’s Game: 6/10 stars. A fun movie no matter how you slice it, but the more you think about it after leaving the theater, the less you like it. And if you have some reservations about Card’s beliefs, I wouldn’t recommend it, because frankly, it’s not worth it. He won’t be getting any of the box office, but if this movie is successful enough, the producers will undoubtedly pick it up as a franchise and begin working on the sequels-- Three of them. It’s a fun summer blockbuster that, for some reason, came out in November. Nothing more, nothing less. Purists will hate it, casual fans will love it, and they’re both right and wrong, because all it is is terribly mediocre.

HORROR WEEK: The Blair Witch Project

If running around in the woods for an hour and a half is scary to you, you’re scared pretty easily. The Blair Witch Project, the movie that started the found-footage horror genre, may be inventive, but there’s something that’s inherently not frightening about a pile of rocks sitting in the woods. While movies like Paranormal Activity were able to bend the audience’s perception of reality enough to be truly frightening, it’s very difficult to watch The Blair Witch Project and shake the feeling that it’s just a movie about three idiots with a $400 camera who went camping. And yes... it’s as bad as it sounds.

Starring three nameless actors, The Blair Witch Project is the film that supposedly revolutionized the horror genre with low-budget effects and a documentary format. I have a lot of respect for movies that start trends, but the thing is, the trend that this movie started sucks. Found-footage has been done to the death, and nowadays films of its ilk have enormous budgets and insane special effects, making it impossible for this generic original to compete. I admire it for not resorting to jump scares, and attempting to keep up the suspense consistently for 90 minutes, but the result isn’t scary-- it’s terribly boring.

Not much can be said about a movie like this, because there isn’t much to it. It’s just an overload of shaky cam, bad dialogue, and classic horror movie decision-making. “Hey, I have a map. Let’s throw it in the river! What a hilarious prank!” People don’t act like this in real life, so why should they in movies? I don’t ask that all movies directly parallel reality, but people should still act like people, and they should still make decisions based on logic and rationale. And sorry if I can’t imagine a situation where this happens, but I don’t see someone charging out into the woods, dragging along a couple of unqualified morons, to film a documentary on something as nonsensical as the “Blair Witch.”

I watched this movie at 10:00 at night, in the quiet of my room, and I wasn’t remotely frightened by a moment of it. If you’re willing to allow yourself to be immersed in the ludicrous world the movie creates, then I’m sure you’ll be scared. But for the viewers who actually have taste, and don’t find close-up shots of someone’s runny nose to be scary, this is not a good movie by any standard. The most frightening moment comes when the characters stumble across a grouping of human-shaped effigies hanging from the trees. But even here, I couldn’t shake this lingering thought in the back of my mind: “Wow, the budget on this movie must have been ten bucks.” Not to say that good movies require big budgets-- far from it. But to have a certain level of quality, a certain amount of money must be invested in the final product. And here, it felt like they grabbed three people off the street and said “Do you want to be in a movie?” Then they got some interns to set up rocks in little piles, and WHAMMO! A horror classic!

No effort was put into this movie, so I’m not going to put any more into my review. Final Score for The Blair Bitch Project: 2/10 stars (official anus-of-cinema seal of approval)! The acting is bad, the characters are dumb, and there’s not one moment where you are emotionally invested in the movie whatsoever. The iconic line in this movie, “I’m so scared,” is monumentally misguided. Sure, you’re scared! Show us instead of tell us! Anyway, this movie isn’t watchable even as a timewaster. If you want to get the same effect, take a cheap camera from Best Buy, then flush it down the toilet. After a week, go down to the sewers, recover its memory chip, and watch the video it took. It’ll probably be better than this piece of shit.

HORROR WEEK: Tucker & Dale VS Evil

Most people (elitist cinema snobs) will write off Tucker & Dale as a typically stupid, loud, and gory comedy with not much to it. And to be honest, I felt like it was going to be just that. Fortunately, I was proven wrong, as this film is not just about mayhem and cheap laughs, but has a very sweet, pleasant, and (dare I say it) heartwarming pair as its central characters. It's original, funny, and genuinely a lovable film, reminiscent of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's collaborations. If Shaun of the Dead redefined the zombie genre, this definitely did it for killer hillbillies.

Tucker & Dale VS Evil is the story of two harmless and simple country folk who, through a series of horrible accidents, are blamed by a group of college kids for the murder of their friends. After seeing one of the kids fall from a rock into a lake and hit her head, Tucker and Dale bring her back to their vacation cabin (which is basically a piece of crap, but it's a mansion to them). Dale falls for her and helps her get better, but in the meantime, the kids think that they abducted her. They then attempt to get her back, resulting in a series of gory and hilarious mishaps that send them flying into woodchippers, impaling themselves on sticks, and shooting themselves in the face.

This premise isn't exactly Oscar material, but it's certainly fun to watch, and I can imagine that it would be even more fun for fans of the horror genre. Telling a classic campfire story from the perspective of the 'villains' is the next logical step in making horror films, as they seem to have run out of any other ideas. Fortunately, Tucker & Dale VS Evil resists any attempt at taking itself seriously, resulting in great spoof material and a lot of over-the-top fun. Tyler Labine is great as Dale, the hapless yet kind goofball who falls head over heels for the college girl, and Alan Tudyk is great as Tucker. Then again, any movie with a former Firefly star will win bonus points from me. HE IS A LEAF ON THE WIND, MOTHERFUCKERS!

The movie does get a tad repetitive when it comes to the college kid's dialogue, but that's probably on purpose. "It's gonna be us or them!" kind of gets old after hearing it fifteen times, but as a riff on typically bland and generic horror movie dialogue, it works great. The writers have also upped the number of kids from the usual horror movie count of five to a grand total of eleven, resulting in plenty of spare characters to kill off in various fun and disgusting ways, including but not limited to: A weed whacker to the face, an exploding hillbilly house (spoilers! Oops), and chamomile tea. Don't ask... just watch it.

As is with all horror spoofs, it has its fair share of blood and guts gratuitously spilling everywhere, which will undoubtedly dissuade those who don't know what to expect. But for those of us who can appreciate a good horror/comedy, this is some enjoyably ridiculous and awesome shit. All the performances are admirable, the story is ludicrous yet compelling, and most importantly: The characters are well-developed. Even I, a stuck-up Bay Area resident who looks down his nose at hillbillies, was rooting 110% for these two to come out of everything okay. And THAT is a real cinematic feat.

Final Score for Tucker & Dale VS Evil: 7/10 stars. It doesn't try to be revolutionary, but it doesn't really have to be. It's just an awesome, hilarious, and epic story of two lovable rednecks and the preppy college girl who loved them (fuck, spoilers again). Turn off the uppity critic inside of you, relax back with your Pabst Blue Ribbon and overalls, and have yourself a good old-fashioned hick time.

HORROR WEEK: Final Destination

Ah, yet another fine premise hindered by horrible execution. Final Destination, the film that spawned four subsequent installments, may be dumb, but it’s dumb fun nonetheless. Sure, it’s basically no different than thousands of other young adult movies about kids who have amazing powers (Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, etc), but Destination seems to understand why movies like those are so bad, and even play off of them a little. It’s not a spoof, but parts of it are so ludicrous and hilariously over-the-top, it’s hard not to laugh.

Final Destination stars a plethora of child actors (most of whom will be recognized by any X-Files aficionados out there) as a group of French class students. While en route to Paris for a school trip, a student named Alex has a prophetic vision that the plane they are on will crash, causing him to leap out of his seat, cause a panic, and get off the plane with a few of his classmates. Of course, as it always is in these kinds of movies, Alex is right and the plane blows up on takeoff.

This is an epic premise, and gives way to an astoundingly awesome series of events that pits Alex against the FBI, who clearly think the circumstances are a bit suspect. It’s got a little bit of that ‘question authority’ factor that I (as a teenager) enjoy so much in movies. But a lot of the acting is pretty bad, especially from the main characters. It’s not like you’re supposed to really take the movie seriously, but most of the characters overemphasize their dialogue, making the whole thing feel more like an MTV video than a serious horror movie (which it isn’t). This is pretty much the horror equivalent of a Michael Bay movie: Character development is virtually nonexistent, but for clean and unbridled craziness, this is what you want.

The deaths themselves are amazingly ludicrous, to the point of outright slapstick humor. I never thought I’d laugh out loud at a woman being impaled by a set of kitchen knives, but I definitely did here. Sadly, this was not really the filmmaker’s intent, because the movie is SUPPOSED to be truly scary. However, it’s hard to be terrified when you’re watching a guy slip on toilet water, fall into his shower, and get strangled by the shower curtain. Not to mention a girl who walks into the street, says “You can all drop dead,” and then gets hit by a bus. Shock humor is fun, and this movie utilizes it to no end. By the time the final sequence rolls around (which involves a clothesline and lightning), you’re watching a movie so gleefully ridiculous you can’t help but enjoy it.

But at its core, Final Destination is really nothing more than an empty, fluffy film that just so happens to have an intriguing premise. There’s not much else that sets it apart from the pack, no memorable scenes, bad acting, bad dialogue, and some pretty dumb sequences. It pains me to say this, because I actually had fun watching it, but it’s nothing more than nonsensical gore and asinine plot points. Its central premise relies on the characters finding messages that death itself sends them, but why does death have a plan OR pattern, and if it did, why would it share it with them? Cheating death is one thing. Cheating the audience, though... that’s the anus of cinema.

Final Score for Final Destination: 4/10 stars. Much like Kick-Ass, Pacific Rim, and Event Horizon, this is an immensely entertaining movie to watch, and the perfect bargain-buy horror movie rental for a slow weekend. Sure, it’s filled with obnoxious characters and confusing death sequences, but that’s what movies like this are made for: Hilarious in-home commentary. It’s by no means a good movie. However, for outside-the-box concepts and chaotic gore, there’s no better place to turn to.

HORROR WEEK: Resident Evil

Horror week, now only halfway complete, is beginning to show signs of slowing down, because frankly, action/horror doesn’t make any sense. You’d think that a movie about a zombie outbreak in a chemical lab that is contained by Milla Jovovich in a pair of ridiculous boots would know enough to not take itself too seriously, but sadly, self-awareness is not an attribute that Resident Evil lends itself to. It’s a Michael Bay movie, but without his warm human touch and excellent scriptwriting. In other words, it’s the bottom of the barrel.

Resident Evil stars Jovovich (the director’s wife, what a coincidence) as Alice, an operative for the Umbrella Corporation, which couldn’t sound any more evil if it tried. After one of the company’s labs releases a virus that turns its technicians into zombies, Alice and a team of racially diverse SWAT guys lead a charge into the underground headquarters to seal it off and blow shit up... or something. But it’s not like people see these things for the plot, which I think is required to give Jovovich amnesia at least once per movie. No, they see it to watch random guys get sliced into cubes by lasers in a scene that looks like it’s straight from a video game. Oh wait-- it is!

Paul W.S. Anderson, who has in the past given us such game-changing hits as Event Horizon, a film about a trans-dimensional demon spaceship, and the Resident Evil sequels, makes little to no effort here to give his characters depth. I suppose I shouldn’t be looking for character development in a movie based off of a cheesy video game, but I’d like something a little more than Michelle Rodriguez playing the tough Latina chick for the 9,000th time in a row. None of the characters are even remotely original; they’re just straight off the chopping block of bad action movie cliches. And what’s really disappointing is that this ISN’T disappointing-- Because it’s what you expected all along.

As for people who go into Resident Evil looking for dumb action and good zombie kills, I guess they’ll be impressed. However, if the concept of seeing a SWAT team get trapped in a room where lasers fly at them and they have to jump them (A-button/B-button/Left trigger/Right trigger), then this is not the movie for you. It’s really just dumb, with very little entertainment value whatsoever. One would think that a movie about zombies, a rogue computer, and badass ninja women would at least have some campy B-movie strengths. However, one would suppose wrong. It’s just a mean-spirited zombie flick that doesn’t bring anything new to the table and basically is just an opportunity for the makeup department to go wild with their zombie effects.

The dialogue, unsurprisingly, is shit. Video game-to-film adaptations aren’t exactly famous for their spectacular scriptwriting, but it really blows me away how badly some of the dialogue in this movie is. People don’t talk like people in Resident Evil; they talk like expressionless and emotionless robots. The most inspired dialogue is when the heavy-handed and blatant political commentary on corporations comes in. If you thought Elysium was too obvious with its message, good holy God, stay away from this one. “Corporations like Umbrella think they’re above the law... but they’re not.” Wow! Such an inspiring piece of social commentary. How scathing.

Final Score for Resident Evil: 2/10 stars. It sucks, but fortunately it’s at least got a small sense of humor about how bad it is. Even the movie’s fans, who constantly crave the next installment in the seemingly unkillable franchise, seem to know how campy, corny, and stupid the movies are. Nothing about it is good, but it doesn’t aspire to be anything more than ridiculous trash, so it comes off as being agreeable popcorn entertainment and a semi-enjoyable distraction from far worse Hollywood blockbusters. If you’re capable of watching a movie while shutting your brain off, then this is truly the film for you.

HORROR WEEK: Halloween

After being told for years that Halloween is the best effort the slasher genre has ever made... I unfortunately am forced to agree. Horror is a fascinating genre, because when it’s successful, it’s good, but when it fails, it’s (no pun intended) horrible. Halloween is at the peak of the slasher subgenre of horror, which features scantily-clad teenagers running around and falling down while being chased by a nutjob in a mask wielding a machete. As one could imagine, that gets old after a while. I really don’t see why someone would put themselves through watching something like this. Either the appeal is just lost on me, or I am the only sane man on the face of the Earth. Maybe a little bit of both.

Halloween is the first installment in the long-running and lucrative Halloween franchise, because (as it always is with horror movies) one wasn’t enough. At the beginning of the movie, a young boy named Michael Meyers (who later went on to star in Austin Powers and Wayne’s World) inexplicably murders his sister and is sent to a mental institution, where he is examined thoroughly by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence). After years in isolation, Michael escapes, drives away, and begins to wreak havoc in his hometown once more.

It’s an okay premise, but it’s completely undone by a myriad of horror movie cliches and tropes. In every horror movie, the exact same things happen, and Halloween is no exception. Really, you could chart this and every subsequent horror film quite easily. It starts off with 40 minutes of dialogue and ‘character development’, which mostly consists of bad teenager writing that smacks of a 40-year-old trying to write for young people. It then starts with the lamest of horror scares: The sudden disappearance, where the main character looks out the window, sees the killer, does a double-take, and he’s gone. Of course, this is never creepy enough for her to freak out. She just goes right to sleep.

And then the killing begins... first to go is the topless girl. Then, she and her boyfriend are strung up in various disgusting ways by the killer, just so that whoever stumbles upon them will have a fit. Then, the victim spends a good amount of time crying in the corner, giving the killer a chance to sneak up on her. But fortunately for her, he only has bad aim when he’s trying to kill the main character! I could go on, but it would just be more of the same (much like slashers are). People make dumb decisions like hiding under the bed instead of running away, and then when they DO run, they always fall down. It’s repetitive, boring, and I’m fucking sick of it. There’s only so many times you can watch someone die in a disgusting way before you finally say “You know what? I think I’ll watch something with a brain.”

Final Score for Halloween: 5/10 stars. It gets points for its classic status, and for the fact that it started the entire slasher genre, but I can’t really respect it for starting a genre that I hate. It’s cliched, silly, and (worst of all) it’s not even remotely scary. Everyone makes dumb decisions (such as TEACHING MICHAEL TO DRIVE), nobody knows what’s going on (such as when Jamie Lee Curtis turned her back on Michael, allowing him to escape-- TWICE), and the film simply reeks of bad dialogue and bland acting. It’s a creepy enough movie to watch on Halloween night with your friends, but if you want to see a horror film that is satisfying and intelligent, I suggest you look elsewhere.

FILM REVIEWS: 12 Years a Slave

What often makes a movie great is the debate that it sparks. Truly awesome films will force audience members to pick sides, argue their points, and defend the philosophy of the characters portrayed onscreen. However, with a movie like 12 Years a Slave, there is no controversy whatsoever. There’s no way to present two points of view in any movie about slavery, as one side is so clearly wrong, but I’d love it if the audience wasn’t bludgeoned over their heads with the most “So What” message in movie history: “SLAVERY BAD.” True? Oh, very much so. But everyone with a functioning cerebral cortex knows that. This is a movie that tugs at emotions, but definitely doesn’t make you think.

Not to say that 12 Years a Slave is bad-- It’s actually one of the best films of the year. But let’s get the flaws out of the way before we delve into what makes it so good. The film is about slavery, and any movie about slavery (yes, even Django Unchained) will feature a pretty straightforward message: Southerners are assholes. But what makes 12 Years a little more grating is the fact that it pretends to be exposing some kind of revelatory truth. Realistically, it’s doing no more than preaching to the converted. In this case, the ‘converted’ refers to anyone who isn’t a racist piece of shit. But much like this summer’s poli-sci-fi study, Elysium, it goes through the effort of screaming its already clear message at us every five minutes. It’s a silly complaint to have, yes, but preachy movies are INCREDIBLY annoying. There’s nothing worse than wanting to stand up in the theater and yell “OKAY, WE GET IT, SLAVERY IS BAD” while watching someone being whipped for the millionth time. This movie has a moral code that nobody can object to... and I object to that.

Fortunately, the film has several redeeming qualities. Firstly, although it does get a little holier-than-thou in the beginning, it is held up expertly by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s remarkable performance as Solomon Northup. Northup is a free man in New York who is conned by a pair of slavers and taken to Washington DC, from where he is smuggled south. Ejiofor presents a perfect portrait of a man who has nothing to live for, yet somehow has not lost all hope. His facial expressions are great, and few actors can do crying scenes as well as he can. He isn’t always bringing his A-game, but when he is, you forget that you’re watching a movie. He sweeps you up into the life of his character, and he’s never been more riveting to watch.

The two other notable performances, by Benedict Cumerbatch and Michael Fassbender, are both great, although it’s clear from the get-go that Fassbender has the more difficult job. Cumerbatch plays a relatively humanitarian and kind slave owner by the name of Ford, while Fassbender is given the role of Edwin Epps, a sadistic and ruthless man who regularly beats his slaves and continually rapes one in particular. Cumerbatch’s role is certainly a difficult one, as he has to convey a truly split personality: Ford is a slave owner, yes, but there are moments throughout that suggest that he is truly a kind and generous man, giving Ejiofor a violin and protecting him from a surveyor with ego problems (Paul Dano). By the way, Dano hasn’t really taken a role outside his comfort zone yet, which is disappointing. In Looper, Prisoners, There Will Be Blood, Ruby Sparks, and now 12 Years a Slave, he has constantly played a spineless dweeb who tends to get beaten up a lot. He’s a strong actor, but he doesn’t have much range, and most of the roles he takes are characters you want to punch in the face.

But Fassbender ends up stealing the show, which isn’t surprising, but still deserves some analysis. His performance as Epps is unspeakably great, and could easily win him Best Supporting Actor this year. Normally, I would disregard this character as another one-dimensional white supremacist whose sole purpose in the movie is to be hated. But I can’t, as this is a true story, and Epps was a real human being. Which makes the situation pretty disgusting. Fassbender has a great (if sometimes unsettling) connection with the character, making him instantly hated from the moment he steps onscreen. But there’s one thing that sets him apart from every other awful white plantation owner in the South-- His bitchy wife, who might actually be worse than he is. She’s controlling and manipulative, and you can’t help but wonder if Epps is frustrated with the fact that she wears the proverbial pants in the family, and therefore takes his anger out on his slaves. Still, that’s a reason for his behavior, not an excuse.

Final Score for 12 Years a Slave: 8/10 stars. It’s a great film that is slightly let down by repetitive themes and a WTF Brad Pitt cameo that jolts the audience out of the film’s world and reminds them that yes, this is a big Hollywood movie. He seems shoehorned in, and of COURSE he plays the only likable white person in the whole movie. But the movie is otherwise fantastic, featuring sweeping cinematography, a Shakespearian script, and inspired direction. If you’re looking for a classic revenge movie, well, sorry... but this ain’t Django Unchained. The slavers get off scot-free in the end. But that’s what you get when you form an emotional attachment to a true story. Sure, it’s Oscar bait, and no, it doesn’t do much new with the subgenre of slavery films save for tell the story of one man. But for pure, emotional entertainment value, it’s difficult to beat.