Tag Archives: Adaptation

Cinema-Manaic: Beasts of No Nation (2015) Movie Review

Cesar: “Can you put the Bat down?”

Matoi: “Why should I? You laughed at the sight of dead kids watching this movie.”

Cesar: “So? No matter what subject matter a film tackle a bad movie is a bad movie.”

Matoi: “I still think you’re insane.”

Cesar: “Fine, but I rather not have my laptop be destroyed.”

Matoi: “Sure, so long you tell me why you think this is a bad movie without comparing it to other films that tackle the same issues.”

Cesar: “Seriously? Than how will I get across how uninspired the film is.”

Matoi: “You figure that out.”

Beasts of No Nation falls into a difficult category of films to dislike. It revolves around a relevant issue that affect the lives of young children, and going against it can give the misconception you don’t care about human life. I often find myself quoting the song “Do You Feel” by one man band Bryce Avary aka The Rocket Summer when in discussion on these matters. Beside lacking expert knowledge on such matters, I ask myself if the cause wants me to see those involved as people, or simply victims of a crime. The portrayal of such tragic events, and crimes is just as important as understanding the reasons that caused them in the first place. Without that, ignorance further grows….

Matoi: “Stay on topic Cesar”

Beasts of No Nation tells the “story” of Agu, a child soldier fighting in the civil war of an unnamed African country. Within the first act of the film the writing shows some immediate cracks in its crafting, and execution of a delicate story. For example, instead of establishing an average day, or week for Agu steadily throwing in politics removing more, and more aspects of the average life it establishes war torn nation is the norm in his life. The film immediately jumps into its politically unstable setting before bringing up any history to this unnamed country has. It gets explained briefly in two scenes, but the broad generalization of the details can be apply to anywhere. Being incapable to express the value the people place on the country, or the people living in it. Then there’s also the writing failing to make the unnamed country significant to Agu in a meaningful way. There’s more to someone home than being a place to live in, but the film says otherwise made evident by its execution on the story. By not setting up the foundation for the drama to stem from the film ultimately feels aimless.

Commandant: “Graham knows we’re onto him, all right? And he’ll try, and kill as many as he can before we catch him, and if I terrify his wife to stop that happening. I can live with that”

Another aspect that crumbles because of the writing are the characters. Agu, despite being our main character, is not a defined person. He’s simply a ploy to do whatever the story commands of him. For example, in the first act Agu is shown to have a brother whom it’s easy to assume they have a good connection with one another. Agu brother is not treated as a person in the story which makes the weight of his character less significant. This wouldn’t be an issue if Agu displayed some sorrow over losing family members in his life, but does not which is apparent with his brother never coming to mind after the first act. The only time Agu is shown, or hinted at caring for his family is when he has to bid farewell to family members due to circumstances that prevented him from leaving the country. Then, there’s the other kids Agu interact with in the beginning of the film which if under good hands one of those kids would have also been with Agu in his journey. Sadly, this isn’t the case as Agu never seems to ponder much for his family, even if he loses a person close to him in front of his eyes the film does not allow Agu to display his emotions. Nor does Agu seem to care about the livelihood of his friends either at it is never brought up.

In its two hours, and 17 minutes run time it feels longer than it actually is. This is contributed to the uninspired formula the film chooses to tell its story. You have a kid whose innocence get taken away from him because of a war, they see families and friends dying as the war worsen, they befriend someone in the militia/rebel fighters that force them to fight, get noticed by the commander demanding more of the child besides fighting, the eventual downfall of the rebel fighter group, and finally the ending which either has the child dying for the cause, or struggling to settle back into society because of his experience. It’s a typical telling of the story minus engaging material that explores the psychology of it lead character. Another aspect that does not help is the cinematography gives away plot point when it lingers too long on something. However, the formula for kids drag into war stories start at a point where it shows the good life of the kids. This film avoids this aspect immediately throwing viewers into the politically violent nation. Afterwards, the child would be captured by a rebel leader, and this is where the kid would be forced to either choose to make a stand to hold true to what he/she believes, or do something that can damage them through adulthood. It also glances over this plot point as Agu simply becomes a fighter without protest which hinders the impact the story should have had.

Commandant: “Chop em up boys! We got us dinner tonight!”

Then at some point in this story the child protagonist eventually has to come across a point where he is forced to kill somebody in front of a commanding officer. Agu does not show, nor expresses any hesitation when this pivotal moment happens. Giving the false impressions Agu didn’t apply any values to human life before the war which yes means despite saying he loves his friends, and family it’s simply for show instead of an ideal for the character. Now, not all films of this subject matters has the child killing someone to show how much the character changed from their normal life before being taken to war. In some cases, the kids would even protest doing such a thing resulting in either severe punishment, or deaths at the hands of the rebel leader. However, earlier in the film there was a shot that lingered on an unimportant event of a kid going into a shack with the commander. Since I know the plot beats of these kind of stories (particularly the uninspired ones) I expected the child to lose their innocence. This same shot also spelled out the outcome of the “the turning point” (as I refer to these of plot beats) before it happened. This particular moment between Agu, and the commander could have painted a harrowing image of Agu lost childhood, but cuts from it before showing anything remotely hinting at the action. If the viewer got to see Agu reaction it would have been more harrowing than simply implying it. Like mentioned in the past, if you only provide a tame version of an atrocity the sugarcoating of the crime is more damaging.

Also in these kind of films the importance of family is empathize either be it with the protagonist actual family, or the rebel fighters they fight with. In Beasts of No Nation it gets both aspects of this plot point wrong. Agu actual family is used in a manipulative way in the scenes they’re written. At the beginning, it hints that Agu, and his brother don’t always see eye to eye, but after one brief moment of anger they get along easily. Now imagine this sort of portrayal for the rest of Agu family only showing them in a good light. However, without Agu expressing his sadness of losing his family it creates a detachment. This would have been remedied if the rebel were treated as Agu new family, except it’s not. The rebel fighters only has two character one of whom Strika, a mute who get no development pass that trait so you can pretty much guess what his contribution is. Most insulting about Strika character is he was unneeded in the way he was used since the film does not glorified child soldiers even in their eyes so using Strika to deliver the “War is bad” message only serves to hammer in its point.

I’m guessing this is how Netflix got a good performance from a child actor. Wonder if this technique will be common.

Matoi: “You still haven’t explained why you laughed during this film?”

Cesar: “Fine, but that was the fault of the editing.”

The editing in Beasts of No Nation is competent, though nothing outstanding about it. In general, there is nothing really to complain about the editing. There’s a moment in the film where the rebels, and Agu are cheering together as they take over a town. Up-roaring music also plays during the march as it shows the rebels relishing their victory before abruptly cutting to bodies of dead kids. This abrupt cut made me laugh because the music does not fade out, nor does the scene fade into showing the dead bodies of kids. It simply just cuts to the scene. Going from Agu celebrating on the streets with other gun wielding rebel fighters with up-roaring music to like a snap of a finger showing dead bodies is not good editing. Granted my suggestion of fading the music, and fading the scene out is plain, but is allot more appropriate in transitioning between the two tonally different scene. One is meant to be a dark celebration due to the context while the next moment is a cut back to reality. What it did was make me laugh when the movie is about a kid being forced to fight in a war.

Matoi: “Oh. I didn’t notice that while watching it.”

Cesar: “That’s okay. This is the reason Izanagi considers me the Devil when watching movies. I notice stuff that tend to go over his head.”

Matoi: “Keep going.”

Cesar: “Come on. I told you how a film about kids going to war made me laugh.”

Matoi: “You know you still have to explain why you think the movie is bad.”

Cesar: “Did you not listen to me? Whatever.”

By the end of the film it comes across empty. I wondered what was the point of it? Was it trying to say using children in warfare is bad? Well, of course it is Sergeant Obvious. That’s basically the equivalent of watching a film like Schindler’s List with the only thing it tells you is the Holocaust was bad. It is trying to be an exploration for the kids who participate in the war? To be blunt, it is not character study even in the minimal sense. It feels more exploitative using the images of little kids killing, or dead kids to make viewers care what from they’re suffering from and not because they’re people who lost their ways. Agu, our main character, simply accepts the new life as a combatant without protest making him appear as if family has no value to him.

The movie reveals more about Commandant (Idris Elba) leader of this rebellion than it does any of the children whom are the center of its focus. It demonstrates why so many rally behind Commandant, why the battles feel aimless under Commandant leadership, and why the Commandant lost his original purpose for fighting for Africa. Commandant has a motivation, has conflict, and reacts to it in a dynamic way expressing his distraught he can’t do anything for his country, or its people. However, Commandant is neither not the main character, nor the main focus despite the fact his subplot is written far better than the main story. Commandant feels like a struggling person because he expresses himself through he believes is right. This unknown nation, and its people mean something to him. Those strong emotions for his country, the people, and soldiers are not attributes found with Agu. For even when the violence seem aimless, and ordinary when itching close to the end how Agu dealt with the situation feels robotic in conveying emotions, and emotionless commenting about violence through the eyes of a child.

Matoi: “Well if the writing is as bad as you claim taking away the part you praised Idris Elba character. How come so many who’ve seen it are challenged by it?”

Cesar: “Images.”

Matoi: “I should break your laptop now.”

Cesar: “Wait! Some people are so close minded to real issues, and the dark nature of humanity they can’t phantom stuff like this as part of life. It’s part of human nature to be self centered. If possible we do it to ourself without thinking about it.”

Matoi: “So, you’re saying because we’re not expose to this sort of events people like it. That’s shallow of you.”

Cesar: “Well, it’s true for some people. Like it says in The Rocket Summer song “Do You Feel”. Why should I have to try to fix things I didn’t create or contrive? Do you feel the weight of the world singing sorrow, or to you is it just not real cause you got your own things? In the instance of Beasts of No Nation, it failed to make me care. Now can you move away from my laptop.”

Matoi: “Next time I’ll watch a movie with someone who isn’t as insensitive as you are.”

Cesar: “Well excuse me for hating a work of fiction.”

Matoi: “Wait, it’s not based on a true story?

Cesar: “Nope, just a novel.”

Matoi: “Oh, well, this is embarrassing. I’m going to leave.” [Matoi has exited the review]

Beasts of No Nation strengths are in its production aspects. Leading actor of the film is child actor Abraham Attah who was flawless in his portrayal. He gave his character more depth than the writing did. In his eyes, he gets across being a tortured soul with body motions that shows nervousness in the heat of danger. Subdue in his portrayal despite whatever context is given Abraham Attah balances the harrow nature of the film. Avoiding the pitfall of being too showy (at least for a child actor) opting for performing a character not simply being seen as a child actor.

Idris Elba: I see, my Oscar is the distance.

Lastly from the cast is the fantastic Idris Elba. While he does get overshadowed by his younger co-star Attah. Elba performance is nothing that be taken away from. Through his mannerism he slowly transform into a lost soul when reaching the end of the film. Idris Elba managed to sneakily create a performance that gets across his subtle manipulation of his character. Much like with Attah, Elba performance is mostly subdue with the only time he riles up is when he is inspiring soldiers to fight. The supporting cast do well in their roles, but aren’t given big roles like with Attah, and Elba to make much of an impression. They unfortunately fall into thankless roles, but aren’t wooden as the actors put allot of effort into their performances.

Cary Fukunaga’s cinematography is quite good ambitious, and atmospheric in its goals. Optimizing various wide shots of locations to set up the vast landscape, using close ups to get personal in dramatic scenes, and keeping the camera on a single actor for a period of time to follow the chaos. A huge compliment also goes in Cary Fukunaga decision in using filters for a majority of the film to make the scenes appear more realistic. When it comes to violence he doesn’t compromise showing dead kids, or showing a kid kill people. He does not stylized his violence. Rather, makes it as grounded, and dirty as possible to display the rough nature of combat. Dan Romer (the film composers) creates a score that favors ambiance for a foreboding atmosphere. Mixing various ambiguous instruments, like a drum kit made out of stringed instruments, to create musical that oscillates between themes of innocence, confusion, and terror. Progressing naturally as it changes tone in the film. Given the film doesn’t incorporate montages of fighting it was the right direction to take the music in. While unnoticeable it serves it purpose well by not drawing attention itself, nor taking away from its usage.

In the end, Beasts of No Nation is a hollow film whose images evoke more emotion than the people it is about. Despite the fact it’s based on a sensitive subject matter it provided no reason for me to care. Commandt was the most developed, and engaging character even though I’m clearly meant to hate him for basically making who know how many young children, and teenagers fight in a cause resulting in large amount of deaths under his command. It’s a shame he (Commandant) shows a greater importance for everything that is occurring around him than the filmmaker do. Agu who is the main character didn’t need to understand politics to express how the war changed him, and the effect it had on everything he held important. Sadly, that does not become a focus since Agu expresses little value to everything that gets taken away from him. While well made the images are the only aspect that will trigger a reaction since they involve kids committing war acts. It’s a shame things like this happen, but when done in this manner it comes across as lip service rather than showing concern for those in the same position.


Cinema-Maniac: How I Live Now (2013) Movie Review

How I Live Now follows an American girl, sent to the English countryside to stay with relatives, finding love and purpose while fighting for her survival as war envelops the world around her. On paper the ideas it presents on love and depiction of war probably sounded a lot better on the book pages than they do on screen. It’s clear from the getgo that this film will attempt expand on its premise as our protagonist is a rebellious teen who hasn’t grown up despite the war torn world around her. The concept is fine in an arc that makes our protagonist transformation and growth dynamic while showing her live life with that transformation. Beginning with a poor introduction that immediately makes our protagonist hateful, a series of conversations that makes her come to term on the acceptance of her new define home, interaction with an undefine human character helping her find new meaning in life, and becoming that new person as the world around her goes in ruins. What doesn’t work is everything else in the middle from hammy to cheesy dialogue, sappy romantic elements, and underdeveloped characters. Everything is emotionally detached in a story that wasn’t demanding detachment. Despite learning plenty about the characters we follow there’s no level of anxiety for their survival nor a care for an apocalypse that could occur in the real world. Missing is a sense of the world itself giving us too little to go on for what is meant to be its driving metaphor. Other elements like our protagonists thoughts, romance with her cousin, being in charge of a life, or even how little human nature changes go nowhere and become are seen as plot devices instead of an important piece of characterization. For a story that has good ideas and avoiding the formula of both romance and apocalyptic films nothing comes across as it should. Instead of sharing a journey that emotionally breaks our protagonist viewers might instead become detach from everything that occurs and even bored in a film that shows a child getting shot.

Directed by Kevin McDonald the film looks great and has a nice sense of pastoral elegance about it, with the beautiful British countryside being the backdrop to both love and death, joy and pain, beauty and horror. However McDonald is unable to shift tone elegantly as he’s able to capture the beauty of the countryside. Becoming a prominent issue when tones jarringly shift from being sad and broody quickly turning into cheesy and dull without without warning. The cast are all good, especially the star of the show Saoirse Ronan, who has been carving a niche for herself as special but tormented teens yearning to reach out and find a common humanity. She charts the inevitable growth of her character well, but alas is poorly served by the script, which requires so little of her given the circumstances. A lot is implied through the photography, imagery, music and strange visions that Ronan herself is required to do little actual “acting” herself. Same goes for the talented George Mackay, who is meant to embody an ideal of love and masculinity but is not asked to do much to prove it apart from bring out the nice side of his own cousin. The younger kids Holland and Bird are also very likable without being annoying, a tough act especially for Bird who is meant to be a typically chirpy happy seven year old in war torn times, but naturally unaware of any of it.

How I Live Now comes across as an adaptation of a book that didn’t translate as great as it should have on film. While it certainly avoids formula for a fresh mixture of genres what it fails to do is elevate them beyond mere ideas. The technical sides while faring better is unable to overcome a sloppy direction that makes the film faults more evident. As it stand it’s a solid picture slightly overcoming its issues thanks to its strong cast, interesting ideas, and great cinematography that make it worth a one time viewing, though certainly nothing that will leave a big impression for how it does things.


Cinema-Maniac: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) Review

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire follows Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark targets of the Capitol after their victory in the 74th Hunger Games sparks a rebellion in the Districts of Panem. Structurally “Catching Fires” sticks too closely to “The Hunger Games”. We go from District 12 to the Capitol and the training period and then into the Games. The “been here, done that” vibe is inevitable, but improved upon its predecessor is in character development. Characterization strengthen the film structure from what’s already a tale of love, faith, strength, and humanity against the system into a compelling tight narrative. Spending time building its world to understand why this future is in constant conflict and seeing the effect our characters actions have on the world. Touching on the difficulty of being a living symbol through Katniss; who has greatness thrust upon her uncertain on what exactly to do with that power. It’s this conflict that makes Katniss a dynamic protagonist fighting what she believes is right versus what is seen as being right. Not only are major characters given more depths, but minor characters leave an impression including those specifically designated to be plot points. Some scenes are specifically written as comedy relief to ease the drama before the hunger games. While the film ending does only serves as buildup what came before is more than satisfactory for a complete narrative.

As for its political side the film lacked subtlety. Its in your face with moments designated to discussing Katniss position as a symbol in a revolution, a public execution of a revolutionary, what’s at stake defying the government, what previous freedom was lost, and many aspect are constantly present throughout the film. It does so without shoving down any sort of message down its viewer throat. Thought provoking it is not barely exploring the government sides of politics beyond wanting more and maintaining that power. A missed opportunity no doubt, but nothing noticeably damaging to the film narrative. The undertone romance between Peeta and Katniss which no longer remains underdeveloped is an undertone political one. Controlling the image of influential figures while in context subtly hides its intention with a double meaning. One might simply past the romance aspect of being nothing more than a romance, but doing so is missing another layer of added humanity. Katniss love interest are more than just guys she likes, they are metaphor; choosing temptation to live in a bubble away from the world problem with lip service versus being part of the world taking position in its conflicts.

Francis Lawrence direction borders on if its isn’t broke, don’t fix it mentality to the material. Rather than recreate everything Francis Lawrence merely expands on all ideas and makes them clearer and more concise. There is continuity from a change in style, tone, and authentic that doesn’t alienate it from it predecessors. A large part of continuity also works is because James Newton Howard music utilizes all of his prior thematic material to bring you back into the world. With Howard’s score, and Francis Lawrence’s direction, it makes the film feel familiar both aurally, and visually. The action scenes themselves work narratively, but the set pieces are empty of any creativity and ferocity. Once a promising setup is in place for an action scene the film falls victim to a standard execution of them playing like a straight cliche; playing around the idea one of our heroes drowned, the sacrifice after carrying someone destine not to survive for long distances, shooting a lethal projectile (in this case an arrow) pointed at an ally to hit an enemy behind ally, protagonist losing grip against a strong uncontrollable force, sharp object narrowly avoiding hitting someone’s head, everything needed for a generic action scene are here visibly clear.

Jennifer Lawrence (the only reason I’m seeing this series) exudes the spirit of Katniss in every breath and pulse of the film. Controlling every single emotional nerve of the audience with vacant stares and dimpled smiles breaking every stereotypical mold attached to her. Josh Hutcherson balances the sensitivity of love and charm with the emotional conflict of a ravaged heart with effortless poise. The interactions between Hutcherson and his merry company form the highlights of the film, filled with the cackling chemistry. Woody Harrelson delivers a matured and restrained performance while Liam Hemsworth as Gale Hawthorne blends in simplicity. Donald Sutherland is exceptional as President Snow in his mannerisms lends a third dimension. Supporting cast includes Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee. Malone in particular sets into this role that is so eccentric, so over-the-top, and manages to make Johanna somewhat relatable and real.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire improves on its predecessor even if it sticks too closely to its structure. Strong characterizations raises the stakes as well as expanding what came before it without alienating newcomers nor fans. Supported by a strong, tightly woven script, and a confident direction it improves upon the predecessor foundation refining old tricks that work better the second time around.


Cinema-Maniac: Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013) Review

A sequel that delivers more of the same can share several ranges of quality. Depending how it predecessor did it could be either good or bad if we get the same thing twice. In the case of Percy Jackson: Sea of Monster it all depends on your feeling of the original because when it comes to delivering more of the same this sequel stays closely to its predecessor in every imaginable way.

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monster follows Percy Jackson and his friends embarking on a quest to the Sea of Monsters to find the mythical Golden Fleece while trying to stop an ancient evil from rising. Following suit of the original this sequel has good ideas, but rushes through them before they could even develop. Introducing several mythical creatures, new characters, and diving into established characters past without the proper time to explore them. Instead of getting into one thrilling adventure it all feels like a series of side trips. Any obstacles upon being presented is easily defeated by plot conveniences or the villain forgetting basic knowledge of our heroes. These flaws hold back any sense of danger in the heroes journey. The dialogue ranges from cringe worthy recycling of bad lines to entire scenes fill solely with expositions. What it does get right does not contribute in favor of the writing in any significant way. Never is there a dull moment moving from set piece to set piece in its own fast pace. With it’s brisk pace making it easy to look past it’s unexplained moments. Telling a simple story that’s easy to keep a track of and understand the characters even if they are not compelling. It’s has a consistent tone that isn’t fighting against itself on what to be. Like the original the story had potential that could be seen which unfortunately it never reaches.

Logan Lerman reprises his role as Percy Jackson and does another solid job. Lerman has charisma and charm to carry the film to the finish line, but when it comes to expressing his character emotions he’s given little to work with. Only seeing a half of Percy character and half of Lerman potential as an actor. Alexandra Daddario returns as well as Annabeth. Her performance allows her to portray a vulnerable layer to her strong character and a convincing chemistry with Lerman gets across the idea of a potential romance angle better than the film itself. Although she is not given enough scenes to showcase her strength like Lerman both in her character and acting. Brandon T. Jackson screen time is considerably reduced. He’s plays the stereotypical best friend comedic role well. It’s the only thing that script requires him to do. The rest of cast fare out in the same way. Not enough material work off from and not enough time to evolve their roles. Strictly delivering what the script requires of them. Solid acting from the cast, though nothing inherently deep. Thor Freudenthal like Chris Columbus goes more for modern music because when you think of Greek Mythology you want Fall Out Boy. This results in the music being forgettable with no sense of anything becoming epic. What it’s not light on is CGI effects which are passable. Every time CGI is used everything including the actor all look plastic. Sure some of the CG deliver some decent creative set piece and unique monsters designs, but doesn’t leave any lasting effect failing to pack any kind of punch.

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters is bigger, but repeats past mistakes with a pace that does not allow its story to take shape preventing it from reaching its true potential once again. Saying it’s more of the same is an understatement carrying over the same strength and weaknesses from its predecessor. Depending on your position on the first film should help you make the decision easier as it does little to innovate the franchise in any better or worse direction.


Cinema-Maniac: 12 Years a Slave (2013) Review

Slavery remains a troubling issue so much in fact that we feel more comfortable viewing dozen Holocaust films than a single film on slavery. It’s an certain period in human history no one is proud off and willingly attempt to prevent from ever occurring again. However, simply labeling this film with a single intention is saying very little of its true power. What many hailed as being the greatest film about slavery I dare say is an essential statement on humanity. It’s not just a film about slavery, but rather about the common man.

12 Years A Slave is set in antebellum United States, Solomon Northup, a free black man from upstate New York, is abducted and sold into slavery. Its biggest strength is being able to depict slavery how it is without feeling exploitative. This film always walks on a thin line of being one hanging, one whiplashing, one beating from being deemed tasteless. All the more praiseworthy when its difficult depiction is pulled off successfully. On paper it’s easy to sympathize for Solomon Northup just as a slave, but that was not the intention. Solomon is not just a free black man; he’s a common man, with common features, common dreams, sharing a common will for the desire to live in his harrowing endeavor. Sympathizing with Solomon for who he is and not what he became. Enduring as much as the human spirit could living and entrapped in a cruel world that coexist with his former one. Much like Solomon, we never forget the freedom we have while attempting not to lose the shred of humanity we have left as the world around become engulfed in seemingly never ending tragedies. We feel what Solomon feels and think what Solomon’s thinking. Reflecting upon Solomon with ourselves of how something like freedom no matter the world around you can be taken for granted.

Interpreted directly “12 Years A Slave” is a harrowing and even inspiring story. Beyond that interpretation are many metaphorical meanings both simplistic and in depth. The “N” word for example is not simply use as a profane word. Its first usage in the film is profoundly powerful. Perhaps for some it will be the first time ever truly understanding the strength behind this single word. Being able to reduce a loving father, skilled musician, husband, and highly intelligent human into an animal to be bought and sold. Another subtle use of metaphorical symbolism is a fiddle. What it represents is rather simple and difficult to miss. On the surface the fiddle represents freedom; however, music present another form of hidden expression. What you hear can be calmly and joyous while in context that piece of music being played comes across differently. As a form to remind slaves of their oppressive position, provide a small taste of freedom, or further reminds them of the consequences if attempting to run away. Music expresses many emotions and has the same power to conceal truth; it can be use to hide the ugly nature of the person’s intention or in this film as a form to defeat racism.

Steve McQueen direction is relentless and one of sheer brilliance. His decision in not telling the audience the passage of time directly is genius. Only giving audiences subtle visual clues on how long has time has past never eliminating the sameness of Solomon endeavor. Getting across that perhaps there is no end in sight in this dehumanizing time. Utilizing long, steady single shots to emphasize various emotions. When events on screen become their most horrifying and ugly is when his camera becomes the most unflinching. One powerful scene involves an excruciatingly long shot of a punished Solomon. When Solomon is hanging on the tree the other slaves go on with their business, seemingly oblivious to the man literally hanging in their midst, until one slave woman gives him a glass of water and meekly scurries away. Showing the true fear and power the slave owners possessed over them. Agonizing scenes like these can make audiences become increasingly uncomfortable in a situation we desire to be removed, but powerless and unable to realizing the outcome if we do. Capturing the rawest of human emotion feeling, thoughts, and seeing how Solomon views things. Even when it draws to a close were left to ponder the long forgotten thought of what does freedom mean to a free man?

Chiwetel Ejiofor’s acting excels with facial expressions you realize when he succumbed to his situation versus how he emotionally fought his sudden twist of fate. A mentally and physically challenging role becoming cold himself and attempting to conceal his own emotions completely understanding and sympathizing him. Spacing out in despair as the camera lingers onto him for solid minutes at times with no spoken words. Ejiofor I’ll dare even say provides one of the best performances not just in his career, but in one of the best of the decade. Benedict Cumberbatch portrays a slave owner yet he treats his slaves humanely. He makes you ask yourself if neutral people like him are good or bad for progress. Michael Fassbender is a raving dog one minute, and calmly ordering everyone to dance the next, he knows he can make these slaves do anything, they are toys to him, puppets. It is that controlled rage that makes his performance have an eerily threatening presence even when he’s not on screen. Lupita Nyong’o gives one of the most devastating performances. She retains a level of innocence that only heightens the tragedy of her character. The cast is flawless no matter how small or big the role is.

12 Years A Slave is brutally honest and heart wrenching for a that does not chooses to play by traditional rules. It’s more than a film about slavery and more so a statement on humanity in its gloomiest state never losing sight of one’s self. For some it’ll be difficult to watch, but even harder to accept the honest truth that McQueen presented to the world. With all the hype surrounding “12 Years A Slave” it might be easy to forget that it’s a humble film. Truly deserving of its praise, but should be seen without the hype for it never presents itself to be bigger than life. Rather it presents itself honestly with good intentions and heartfelt emotions for many who can’t share a similar story.


Cinema-Maniac: Ender’s Game (2013)

War is a two sided conflict that is condemned and rewarded that mostly have been seen through the eyes of adult in films. Certain films have touched upon the subject of killing a child soldier and how it affects children at young age, but rarely any put a child in front and center in war with as much power as in “Ender’s Game”. On the surface “Ender’s Game” is an ambitious film that misses its mark emotionally, but intellectually succeeds where it counts most.

Ender’s Game follows Ender Wiggin, a brilliant young mind who is recruited and trained to lead his fellow soldiers into a battle that will determine the future of Earth. The plot is intellectual though restraints itself from being thought provoking. What it provides are questions and explores several possibilities for answers on how far a battle should be taken. One central question that is our main focus is what makes a good leader; lacking compassion seeking only to win no matter how many lives are lost or becoming one with your team forming better solutions in areas the leader has little understanding in. Exploration is always a factor in its established world. War is seen on a much greater devastating level letting kids have a major influence the outcome. It does not shy away showing the hardship with Ender’s psychology being brought to question. Showing the effects how drastic responsibility can affect Ender to the point of being cold and dehumanizing his own spirit. Making matter worse are the adults around them being as divided in seeing them as children over puppets of warfare. Both the adults and kids mindset on war correlate as much as they differ with one another. When it reaches the end it is clear what position the film takes in truly ending all wars avoiding touching upon the complexities of that solution. This same rule can be apply to the rest of the chosen topics suffering from mood swings switching quickly from one position to another.

As a complete film it is intelligent making its dumb moments more noticeable. The biggest offender being why kids are being taught to lead an army is reduce to age and processing data. Simplifying some aspect of the story is fine; however, whenever this film provides a simple response to a question it’s not selling the reasons behind it. Choices like these leaves out a plot where significant key points are loss and a complete understanding of the characters are left out. Important characters relationship are minimized. Characters are large in numbers, but few in holding any weight. No matter how often the film highlights the strong bond between Ender and his sister Valentine emotionally its hold no weight. Only three characters are given any development and only Ender end receives enough become a fleshed character. This universe no matter how many times it states the human race is at stake tells to care about an issue where it did little to garner it. The aliens only make an appearance in the ending and the appearances are slightly foreshadowed. Aside from the alien tactics these aliens never become an established threat. These aliens appeared to be created to metaphor a common enemy much closer than what one might expect.

Asa Butterfield excels in capturing Ender’s spirit, strength, bravery and vulnerability. Effortlessly switching emotional gears from being cold to having a heart when needed to. Creating a tense dynamic with Ford that hits the boiling point in the concluding scenes. Harrison Ford leverages on his grandfatherly gravitas in portraying a man who is convinced that the end he has in mind will justify any means. Sharing a hint of humanity in a man that lost hope years ago. Ben Kingsley hams it up in his small part in very silly manner. Other performances are one dimensional ranging from being the nice sibling, the cruel sibling, the other bully (Moises Arias acting is fine, but his physical height does not help him sell his character), the other nice person, among multiple uninspired characteristics. The film is as much an intelligence experience as it is a blockbuster. CGI brings to the screen thousands of detailed warships in various sizes in the same battle. Like space itself the simulated battles sequences are big in scope visually having a series of blockbuster worthy moments. Groundbreaking the technology is not outstanding it is having hundreds of airships looking convincingly selling the exhilarating battles. Production design is decent with this future setting looking close to modern times, but lacking anything gives itself an identity. As for the film score it is generic. Loud and bombastic music indistinguishable from a trailer for a blockbuster.

Ender’s Game is more thoughtful look at tactical warfare exploring difficult subjects through the often ignore eyes of kids. Missing is any reason to care about the fate of the our own Planet not feeling connected as one should taking away it scope. It brings brains to the dilemma on the extent of war and how should it be taken for anyone protection. Intellectually Ender’s Game is one stimulating experience minus the attachment to take it to heart.