300 Rise of an Empire

                                           300 Rise of an Empire

              splattering post-Zatoichi digital blood with their sloshing swords and arrow

More blood, more action, more six packs, even more story! 

Calling 300: Rise of an Empire a sequel to 300 could be a misinterpretation. Rise of an Empire's plot timeline occurs before, during and after the original movie's timeline. The movie is narrated by King Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), who tells the story of an Athenian hero called Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton). Themistokles killed Xerxes' father Darius (Igal Naor) during the Battle of Marathon. Ten years after that event Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) decided to revenge his father and destroy all of Greece. This time Themistokles must stop the giant Persian navy lead by Xerxes' second in command, the menacing Artemisia (Eva Green). Even after just glancing at the movie's synopsis, it's very obvious that 300: Rise of an Empire's title doesn't make much sense. There are much more than 300 warriors in the movie (none of them Spartan) fighting the Persian hordes, and no empire is rising during the movie. There are some talks about uniting the Greek city-states, but that's about it.

300 Rise of an Empire tells the story of Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro, Lost) and his navy commander Artemisia (Eva Green, Kingdom of Heaven) and their crusade against the Greek, the Spartan queen Gorgo (Lena Headey, 300) and Greeks military leader Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton, Strike Back). It enlightens the story of how Xerxes became god-king and what happened after Leonidas and the brave 300 were overrun by the Persian empire.King Xerxes gets an exposition of his metamorphosis past, a "before" and "after" look as herbal steroid, magic spell and CG alter his appearance to that of a giant. This retains some of the magical vibe from previous title, although only a mere fragment of it.Some action sequences (especially the ones of naval battles) looked decent but everything fell apart when the fake CGI blood (which looked like something created in Microsoft paint) started spraying around

When Themistokles killed Persian King Darius with an arrow during a battle, it set off a chain of events, the most important of which was turning the King's son, a normal young prince at the start, into the campy god-king Xerxes we saw in "300". Instrumental to this was Artemisia, who pulled all the strings behind this new iconic symbol of the Persian Empire. Her own history is revealed a little later in the movie in another flashback: her family annihilated and herself ravished by fellow-Greeks during in-fights. Eventually saved and trained by the Persian to be their best general, she vowed to avenge herself by distroying greece.

Though Zack Snyder who directed the first 300, was only the producer of this one, his style of making a comic book come to life visually on the silver screen is all over this. It's one of the things I think we all loved about the first 300 (and Zack Snyder as a filmmaker) how he took Frank Miller's art work and brought it into motion almost like animation. Not as well as Robert Rodriguez did for Sin City, but that's because In a time when comic book movies are in, Snyder is a comic book artist in his own right. His film making on 300 was the difference between Frank Miller doing the artwork himself, or having Jim Lee or Alex Ross do it for him. 

The main body of the movie,Themistokles against Artemisia in the best set piece, as well as some fiery erotic action and cuss words between two superb fighters and strategist who appreciate each other's excellence and attempt to win over each other to their side. When neither succeeds, there is a predictable finale.

Thanks to Eva Green, who delivers a sexy revengeful Artemisia,  At first I thought it was only a big gimmick to have a female as the naval commander of Persia. However, as it turns out, Ms. Green would completely own this film. without her, this film would have been tanked big time.Noam Murro (a director with the credentials of the romantic comedy "Smart People" and some commercials)definitely brought his Snyder notebook on this one and it feels more of an expansion of a style rather than pure imitation. so if you are not fan of blood and gory then enjoy monochrome cinematic style !!

Pompeii

Pompeii

Get most bang for your buck with pure action spectacle !!!       

Pompeii is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and centers around the character of Milo, who is a man that stands against the Roman empire after he is put into slavery and becomes a gladiator in Pompeii. He befriends a fellow gladiator and slave Atticus, who helps him fight back against Rome and also ventures to save Cassia, who is to be married to Senator Corvis, a corrupt official.

Milo's meet-cute with his romantic interest Cassia (Emily Browning) happens en route to Pompeii, when the latter's carriage becomes stuck in the mud and causes one of her horses to suffer a severe fall. In an act of kindness, Milo kills the horse with his bare hands to put him out of its misery, and immediately earns Cassia's fondness. Back in Pompeii, Cassia's father Severus (Jared Harris) and mother (Carrie Anne-Moss) play host to Corvus and his Roman entourage, whose favour they depend on to fund their plan to revitalise the city by building aqueducts. Turns out however that Corvus is only doing so to force Cassia's hand in marriage, whom he unsuccessfully courted while the latter was still back in Rome.

In the meantime, Milo forges an acquaintance with Atticus (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), one of the fiercest fighters who is according to the law just one fight away from earning his freedom. Needless to say, Atticus soon finds that his masters have no intention of honouring the law, and instead of being opponents, Milo and Atticus team up to rebel against their captors. All this culminates in a nicely shot showdown in the town's coliseum, where Milo and Atticus take on an entire Roman battalion in order to simulate Corvus' invasion of the Celtic homeland.

From that time on, Anderson's best instincts as a filmmaker take over, injecting the moribund proceedings with a much-needed shot of life that immediately jolts his viewer out of his seat. The sight of Vesuvius starting to boil over is a truly humbling one, even more so when it starts to rain fire, rock and lava down on the hapless citizens of Pompeii, not excluding our protagonists. Anderson skilfully cuts between wide shots offering birds-eye views of the scale of the devastation and close-ups of the disaster from the point of view of its victims, and it is to his credit - as well as that of his cinematographer Glen MacPherson and VFX supervisor Dennis Berardi - that we are simply and surely transfixed.

Mr. Anderson certainly knows how to stage and take advantage of an action setpiece. One scene involving gladiators fighting soldiers chained to a spiked pillar made full use of its environment, and will likely have audiences entertained. Something else worth nothing are the special effects; they are very well done and it is clear that the VFX team put a lot of effort into bringing the legendary eruption of Mt. Vesuvias to the big screen. What's even better is the 3D; lately 3D has been sorely mediocre in Hollywood films, but in this case it is very effective. From volcanic ashes to falling beams of wood, "Pompeii" succeeds in taking full advantage of the 3D technology with stunning results.
The last act of the film is among one of the most thrilling disaster scenes I have ever scene in recent years.The visual effects were very good (the effects that were made for 3D weren't as much), the musical score by Clinton Shorter was great (echoing the greatness of Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and even Game of Thrones), and Anderson's directing, He is his best here. Now, the acting, Emily Browning was good as Cassia (nothing amazing), Kiefer Sutherland was great as an antagonist, and Kit Harrington was (sadly) not as good as he is in Game of Thrones, but still good. The show-stealer is Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Atticus, who is very similar to that of Djimon Hounsou in Gladiator

Paul W.S. Anderson has never been a director of story or character; instead, as he had demonstrated with five chapters of the 'Resident Evil' franchise, it's all about giving his audience the most bang for their buck with pure action spectacle. And just as he did with zombies previously, Anderson spares nothing in recreating the destruction of the ancient Italian city laid to waste by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 72, so rest assured that it does deliver genuine spectacle as it promises.

The Monuments Men

                                            The Monuments Men

                                         Mediocre film based on a compelling true story

If you want to see George Clooney play George Clooney, Matt Damon play Matt Damon, Bill Murray play Bill Murray, John Goodman play John Goodman, and Jean Dujardin play a clichéd Frenchmen (right down to the French beret and scarf)...in a incredibly mediocre film based on a compelling true story that's badly written and directed, go see "The Monuments Men".It tells of a group of soldiers tasked to locate and preserve pieces of art that have been stolen by the Nazis during World War II.

The truth is, The Monuments Men could be, and really should be much more entertaining than it is. The best part of the film, and at the same time, its major problem, is the script. There are seemingly continuous laughs coming from quick one liners and witty character interactions, which keeps the audience somewhat engaged, although with such bleak subject matter, it's debatable that a movie dealing with the eradication of an entire culture's achievements should be as lighthearted as it is. But the flaw with the script is that it seems like the first act eats up almost all of it's running time. It's as if the film is missing large portions of the actual plot to make room for massive amounts of unnecessary exposition. Secondly, the film's characters are stale and one dimensional at best, except Kate Blanchett who plays a tough French woman smoldering with an inner burning anger, and she is convincing in every scene she was in.The movie is flawed. Its editing is choppy. It feels rushed.if the original Monuments Men could see this film they'd be rolling over in their graves.

George Clooney has said the film is about 80% accurate, and that seems fair enough. But the problem isn't the historical inaccuracy; the problem is that the cheap humour diminishes the very people and story they're trying to empower. The humour was just a handful of lines wanting to kill Hitler and standing on a landmine. It just didn't make the film entertaining. The story could have done that but it didn't become interesting until they started discovering where the Germans hid the art. Coincidentally, the same point when the film started following the real story.How much of this film is true and how much is fiction is open to question. The real 'Monuments Men' were of course much more than platoon strength - in the film we are told there were just eight (led on-screen by Clooney, who also wrote and directed), in reality there were a few hundred. Some of the characters are apparently loosely based on real people, but their names have been changed. 

It seems Clooney was making his film for people with short attention spans who want the shallowest treatment possible of the subject matter. That's too bad, because with a little more tender loving care, this could have been a great movie rather than a good one. 

Now see History in action. in 1964 the Great Hollywood Director John Frankenheimer created classic on the same subject. it is better to watch this classic than The Monuments Men.And why "The Train" is classic?
Because Frankenheimer choreograph the real trains… Frankenheimer and his cinematographers capture the heat of the engines, the noise and sound of the cars in motion, the fault in the oil line, the crushing strength implicated when the machines come into collision and the derailment…Beautiful deep-focus black and white photography, and solid supporting performances by a mostly French cast (of which Jeanne Moreau may be the best-known), convincingly evoke the bleak misery of the Occupation. John Frankenheimer's economical direction manages to present highly-charged action scenes without glossing over the human cost, as Von Waldheim exacts savage reprisals against escalating efforts to hinder the train's passage.Ah, only Clooney missed the point !!!

Vampire Academy

Vampire Academy

 'they suck' because it did.

Just because it has vampires doesn't mean it sucks just read the books. Anyways there's 3 types of vampires and yes they go to school and some can do magic but the main story is about two best friends who are bonded together and what they go though as they try and survive high school (bullies, depression, cutting, not fitting in) while also learning how to survive themselves for when they leave the academy and are faced with protecting each other from the evil Strigoi! 

 Vampire Academy is the tale of Rosemarie "Rose" Hathaway (Zoey Deutch, who resembles a mix between Ellen Page and Linda Cardellini ?) and her BFF she has sworn to protect, Vasilisa "Lissa" Dragomir (Lucy Fry). These two ladies have been brought back to St. Vladimir's aka "Vampire Academy" in Montana after being on the run for a year. Lissa is the only living, rightful heir to the throne of Moroi (good vampires) through some regal upbringing that is given little explanation. They've been hiding out because Rose, a Dhampir (halfsie vampires who are the guardians of the Moroi) believes that Lissa has inherited some bad juju and is in danger.

Of course shenanigans occur once they return to school. Blood warnings are smeared on the walls to frighten Lissa, the truth to discover who's behind a mystery no one seems to care about has to be uncovered (Scooby-Doo), and the Strirgoi (evil vampires) want to kill the royal family because, you know, they're evil and such.

There's awkward teenage love, high school melodrama, a big stereotypical speech about how we should all get along (Mean Girls), magic is used to push the story along, and random pop culture references that make little sense because we are told these kids aren't allowed off the premises of the academy and do not have Internet access or iPhones !

All of the secondary characters: Dimitri (Danila Kozlovsky) head Dhampir guardian, Christian (Dominic Sherwood) a fellow Moroi student, and Natalie (Sarah Hyland) also a Moroi, are carbon copies of roles we've seen before. Not a single character do you care about their outcome or come to understand their background throughout the movie. Olga Kurylenko, Gabriel Byrne, and Joely Richardson play the overseeing, party-pooper adult figureheads who bring some flavor with the cheesiest and most chewed up roles imaginable.
The only redeeming quality that Vampire Academy has going for it is the dialogue; not because it's witty, funny, or sharp – it's far from it – but because it's miles away from the brooding vampire/fantasy we're use to. Sometimes Rose's banter with the others works because of Zoey's well-timed delivery, but the script feels like it is trying way too hard to be edgy and cool. The best part is that the film tries to rip on Twilight, but just ends up being nearly as shallow.

True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, The Twilight Saga, and Underworld, you would think someone would catch on that we've had a bit of an overload on the whole niche as of late, right? Vampire Academy in no way helps bring vampires back into the forefront of pop culture, it reinforces the fact that someone needs to drive a stake into the genre to put it to rest. Without the enthusiasm of the young cast Vampire Academy would have been insufferable. Take note Hollywood, it's not the quantity of young adult fiction-fantasy novels you bring us, it's the quality.

RoboCop

                             RoboCop

Entertaining sci-fi action thriller that appeals to the human heart

The film is set in the year 2028 in Detroit, and America is the only country in the world not allowed to use robotic cops on the street. OmniCorp — the company which manufactures the mechanised police officers — are desperately trying to overturn a state bill that prohibits the use of these new-age law enforcers. When honest and dedicated-to-the-job policeman Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is nearly killed by a car explosion, the massive tech corporation uses this as an opportunity for them to humanise the robotic cops by fusing Murphy — well what's left of him — with a machine. And the result is RoboCop, but it's not that simple. OmniCorp uses one of their chief doctors, Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), to aid Murphy in his transition to half-man, half-robot and with pressure from OmniCorp owner Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), the good doctor resorts to some questionable work ethics. The relationship between Oldman's and Keaton's characters really enhances the story and carries the plot along at a captivating pace.

The movie opens with a political show, called the Novak Element, led by the host Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson), during which we see a news footage of OmniCorp droids (including the famous ED-209 and the freshly introduced humanoid drones called ED-208) patrolling and inspecting the streets of some Islamic state. Novak compliments the droids and then starts attacking The Dreyfuss Act – a law that forbids the deployment of such drones in the USA. We are then introduced to Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), the CEO of OmniCorp, who is trying to find ways of tricking The Dreyfuss Act and start deploying his products in the USA. He gets the idea of incorporating both man and machine into an ultimate law enforcement product. We are then introduced to our protagonist – Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) – who is soon heavily injured in an explosion and is used as a guinea pig in this newest OmniCorp program.

The new RoboCop is a surprisingly good and entertaining sci-fi action thriller that appeals to the human heart by conveying emotions and the humanity side of Murphy, the main character who eventually becomes the titled cyborg law enforcer. The film ultimately wins for not trying to be the original (1987 version). The story of Murphy is similar (since it's a remake) but does its own thing to provide something new instead of retelling the same thing again. The film focuses more on the development of Murphy's character, his initial response to his cyborg body and relationship with his family, making the character more emotional and relatable to the audience.

The film delves into the meaning of humanity, family themes, media influence on public opinion, corporate greed (capitalism), authoritarianism and corrupt law enforcement authorities. It provides a brief view of the struggles we might face with machines or digital surveillance of the future. It also briefly raises the question whether it's ethical or legal to eliminate the human factor in law enforcement to reduce crime rates by creating merciless cyborgs or robots to replace humans.

The acting — with particularly Oldman and Keaton stealing every scene that they are in — is top-notch all round.Gary Oldman's particular standout performance once again proves he always delivers no matter the role or movie. Kinnaman is somewhat wooden in places but gives a decent enough performance even though at times he looks uncomfortable with the role.Samuel L Jackson's character who opens and closes the film and offers his very one sided views satirically. If this is their replacement of the satire of the original they can keep it.The special effects and the design of the robots and the suit (silver suit anyway) is great. The action sequences are fine. The film is like eating a three-course meal and still feeling hungry.

her

                                      her
                   when virtual love takes over real love

At the heart of every truly great science-fiction film there is an emphasis on character that aims to reflect on some element of the human condition usually intended to open our minds to thought provoking predictions or eerily warn of an impending reality. We've seen numerous examples of these contemplative films throughout the very existence of cinema stemming all the way back to Fritz Lang's haunting futuristic piece Metropolis and has inspired countless others in its thoughtful wake as seen in memorable cinematic creations such as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker. Never to be a director to back away from experimental presentation or psychological study, Spike Jonze's Her fully embraces this reflective science-fiction quality by peering into the deep sociable aspects of the human psyche giving us more of a prophetical reality than a fictional reflection.What does it mean to be human? And if we create near-humans what is our responsibility to them and what is their relationship to us? These themes underpinned Blade Runner and Spielberg's A.I. And Sci Fi of the 50s and 60s dealt with machine self awareness. None of the films that touched on this subject in the past presented it so thoroughly, intimately and believably.

In a future world, one in which an Operating System can bridge all equipments, the main character, Theodore Twombly, is just about a year living by himself after a marriage separation. Working on a job which he loved so much, writing customized letters, He fell in and out of relationships. One day Theo came across a new Operating System, OS1, which is essentially an AI butler but with highly advanced adaptive intelligence which enables it to learn and somewhat be human.'Her' is in the near future, but everything we see is within reach now: the isolation and starkness of the "business district," the oppressive scale of the architecture (with thin, clumsy attempts to soften its sterility) and the need for continuous connection to remote voices.

The relationship of Theo and Samantha, the persona of his personalized OS1, is then evolved into a romantic one, which is becoming a growing trend amongst the AI OS users. Yet, being a person without any physical manifestation, Samantha and Theo's relationship soon meet it's inevitable and quirky dramatic consequences.

 Even without any AI, many people, males especially are going literally socially acceptably insane by marrying inanimate objects for real. How can you describe car craziness of western world ?

The overriding message that love cannot be defined lineally, that two people who connect initially can grow apart due to different rates of evolution among the pairing and that love is a constantly evolving concept that operates beyond the reams of stagnation is a theme that resonates immensely due to just how superbly well it's driven home and represented within the boundaries the film sets - of which there aren't many, much like the concept of love itself. Love has no definition other than the definition we create for ourselves on an individual level and to expect everyone to fall in-line with that definition - even those we make our partners - is to expect the impossible. The film brilliantly tackles this throughout. 

As a love story, it provides the kind of perspective Hollywood had seemingly long since lost; almost completely devoid of cinematic cliché and full of natural verve and a very real look at the connection made on a level beyond the physicality of body and the physicality of carefully constructed monologues. The falling of Phoenix for Johansson is subtle, but feels so entirely natural that by the midpoint of the film - even without being the lonely soul Phoenix is - you can absolutely believe and totally accept why, not only this guy, but you yourself, have fallen for all that Johansson portrays as an outlet of desire.

The script. For 2 hours. It moves through all of the most complex and interesting questions that we should be asking ourselves about what it means to be a human being. About what it means to be alive. This film is about all that life is. And after the screening, as well as during, I found myself questioning things in my own life that either don't make sense or don't have to make sense. Like love and thoughts and emotions. They're all so natural and yet none of us truly how they work. In my opinion, more so than any other film this year, Her has the perfect mix of complex ideas, story, and character development. One of the best scripts ever written.

Cinematography.  the extreme close up works so well is because it allows you to see the emotions of the character so plainly. Like their face is right in your face, so you just have to look at it. And that's where Joaquin shines. He delivers such a powerful and emotional performance and the close ups are there to capture it all. They also make great use of the natural backlighting of Shanghai, and the colors all fuse to make it a really pretty movie.It looks like every shot was photographed with the intent to make it the most beautiful shot in the film. And I admire the DP Hoyte van Hoytema who did a really great job. 

Amy Adams is always the sprinkle on top in all of her films. As "Amy," the awkward friend and neighbor who sympathizes more with Theodore more than she'd like to, Adams expertly executes. With four prior Oscar nominations to her credit, her stunning portrayal is just another fantastic pin to add to her credits. She could find traction during the awards season if the film hits in the right way. That's also part to the petty Oscar rules about rewarding voice performances because if that wasn't the case, Scarlett Johansson would be on stage holding an Oscar of her own next March. As "Samantha," Johansson has never tapped into the essence of her abilities as an actress the way she does in "Her." As an OS, full of wonder and curiosity, "Samantha" is essentially a child. Learning at a rapid rate and studying the behaviors of the human mind, she looks at the world through the eyes of Theodore. Johansson holds our hand in through the tale, even when her voice isn't on screen.

 In his latest film Jonze creates a disconcerting yet equally endearing romance between a secluded depressive and his female operating system with an evolving consciousness, basically a HAL-9000 homage from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, that brings to light a commentary on our dependency of programmed living and our need to maintain sociability when direct communication avenues have been stricken from life's normality. Rarely do ambitious films meet idyllically with their inquisitive potential, but Jonze has fashioned a delicately profound science-fiction contemplation that is depicted through the thoughtfulness of character alone that brims with wry humor, authentic pain, and charming revelation. Through the use of beautiful cinematography, impeccable production design, and subtle yet evocative performances, 'Her' becomes a multilayered film experience where its character study of an isolated man afraid to become vulnerable again blends harmoniously with a truly unconventional yet naturally heartfelt romance. Jonze's affinity and ambition for presenting psychological challenges, as he has done before with Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and especially in Where the Wild Things Are, finally collides with emotionally piercing conveyance within 'Her' making it as thought provoking and as it is undeniably sweet. If the sole purpose of the science-fiction genre is to expound on societal, moral, and deeply psychological aspects of our human condition than 'Her' fits soundly within that genre's capabilities by capturing our condition's essential need for sociability and love uncomfortably linking it with our antisocial dependency on technology.

Sure the whole concept of having a relationship with an AI partner is not really an original one. If we really delve into it, the relationship between Planton and Karen, his ECG monitor manifested computer AI, in Nickleodeon's Spongebob Squarepants was the first to ever incorporate this concept. But 'Her' brought the concept into a more realistic enactment.And yes, Her's realization of the concept isn't really taking into account the developments in the real world. Such developments may include improvements in the robotic sectors. I see that those developments are intentionally omitted from Her's world to emphasize the point of Samantha not being able to have a physical manifestation, a body.

As a science fiction piece, it garners itself an even greater standing, exploring themes of the physical and the metaphysical spheres, way beyond what's generally comprehensible within the scope of humanity. That the film manages this through subtext, without compromising the driving, surface level pretext of love, is a victory the likes of which may only really be properly appreciated in the years to come. 

A personal assistant that learns independently and takes initiative for its hapless user, "Her" is at once the ideal tool and — who knows — perhaps closer to the next level of evolution. Watch and fall in love with Her !!!

12 Years a Slave

                     12 Years a Slave

Considering the social and economic importance of slavery in America's history, the scarcity of serious films depicting the daily life of slaves in the Confederate States is significant - especially since the after-effects from this shameful episode still echo through the culture. '12 Years a Slave' is based upon the memoirs of Solomon Northup, who endured a hellish period of enslavement in Louisiana, which is backed up by legal records. it is a biopic about a black man who wound up a slave in Louisiana from 1841 until the law rescued him in 1853.
The story begins with him living with wife and children in upstate New York as a free man and respected member of his community. After being lured to Washington by a couple of con-artists who promised him work, he was subsequently drugged, locked in chains, viciously beaten, stripped of his identity and shipped to New Orleans to be sold into slavery. Over the next twelve years, he was owned by two men who treated him in contrasting ways. The first was a relatively civilized fellow, but the plantation's half-witted manager was threatened by Northup's superior intelligence. Their mutual dislike produced a dangerously volatile situation, and unwilling to lose his investment, Northup's owner re-sold him to a neighbor. This unbalanced individual regarded his slaves as property to be used for pleasure and profit, which caused them to live in perpetual fear that his capricious moods would flare into sadistic lust or rage at any moment.

Steve McQueen is a fearless filmmaker, continuing his streak of unfiltered brutality within human depths. He frames his actors' faces in extreme close-up, the eyes staring into despair, the nostrils fuming in aggression. Naked flesh are shown not because of erotic content, but rather because of desperation and futility. Long takes and wide shots are not uncommon in his films, and here they showcase a plethora of fantastic scenes and performances that work to discomfort the viewer as much as possible. McQueen doesn't just allow the audience to tackle slavery, he guts the audience and leaves them for the consequences. This is an extremely uncomfortable film to watch. Beautifully shot locations are placeholders for unsettling sequences before and after, contemplated by Hans Zimmer's poignant and at times horrifying score. This all works to create a nightmarish time and place where hell walks on Earth.

Central to all of this is the performance of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. Ejiofor showcases that he is a natural force to be reckoned with in this film, after a decade of mostly supporting characters. He spaces out in despair as the camera lingers onto him for solid minutes, not a word spoken. Another sequence shows him mourning the death of a fellow worker, in which the singing of the surrounding group compels him and shakes him down to tears. These scenes follow earlier ones where he is a classy, free man in the upper states, mingling happily with the crowd and partaking in fanciful music sessions. It is a tour-de-force performance.

One of the most consistent aspects of McQueen's films is the magnificent taste in cinematography and production design. Presumably from his art background, he's great at immersing you into his bleak visual worlds. Working with Sean Bobbit again, the cinematography is reliably enchanting. In true McQueen style, if a character must endure patiently, in this case Solomon hanging from a noose on the tips of his toes, we must endure with them. It's a filmmaking masterclass in just a few short minutes.another one my favorite shot of Solomon's wondering face after a fateful conversation with a sympthetic carpenter Bass, played by Brad Pitt, and we show hope and fear and lossonhis face along witha new realisatiof all that he has endured. here i realise after so many years some one really remember and use Bertold Brekht's technique cinematically.A kind of cinematic incarnation of Brekht. Despite all the little flaws, inconsistencies and off-moments throughout, it's all redeemed in its harrowing final scene. Yes, the jump to his kidnapping feels abrupt and there's no sense of relief to his inevitable freedom, but this is all calculated to mirror the struggle of his experience and we've felt every beat. 12 Years A Slave is a powerful testament to the endurance of the human spirit with its theme of injustice applicable to any point in history that earns the right to be one of the best of the year. After a string of lightweight Best Picture choices from the Academy, this will be a refreshing choice. 

Let us not forget that this is a product packaged for entertainment just as Django Unchained was, or any other film for that matter. It will no doubt go on to win gold and earn a great deal at the box office. Yet great films bring great debate and this is precisely what McQueen offers. Whether it wins awards or not is now irrelevant, what is important is that it now exists. Striking with visceral impact, McQueen's intense, unblinking eye has earned him the reputation of a fetishist, which is unfair. Audiences are being shown these images for their artistic merit. Whereas lesser directors avert their eye and suppress these scenes, McQueen keeps the camera rolling, allowing the images a voice. As expected it is a test of endurance and yet for such an ugly subject it is an aesthetically beautiful, if brutal piece of work, uncompromising, necessary and strangely his most accessible film to date.