12 Years a Slave (2013) User Reviews

Roll Jordan Roll

[dvc5159 · 9/10 · 18 October 2013]

A random and encounter has led Solomon Northup from living freely in New York to being kidnapped and sold into slavery in Louisiana, getting handed over to various slave owners. There, Solomon witnesses numerous acts of cruelty that no man should ever face.

As I stared at the movie screen with full dread, I was reeling back at certain scenes I had just witnessed. There were good films and television shows about slavery before, and they had various nuances at how to tackle slavery. This film is part of said resurgence of the sub- genre, hot on the heels of "Django Unchained" and "The Butler". But while the former relinquishes on Spaghetti Western entertainment more than attempting to address the issue in a political light as the latter, Steve McQueen's "12 Years a Slave" shuts those two up, and perhaps the entire sub-genre, for good. I doubt any future slavery-themed film will be as harrowing as this one was.

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.

A fine ensemble of established and up-and-coming actors surround Ejiofor in his limelight - Paul Dano, Paul Giammati, Alfre Woodard, Sarah Paulson, even Brad Pitt and Benedict Cumberbatch, but none so ferociously as McQueen regular Michael Fassbender as the despicable, sadistic plantation owner Edwin Epps. So excellent and terrifying is Fassbender's portrayal of such a merciless and barbaric person, that the mere sight of him will either cause audience members unfamiliar to him to flinch.

I was left speechless as the credits rolled. A lesser film would have added tacked-on sentimentality/exaggeration and politically influenced claptrap. Not this one. This is a movie to watch as a reminder of how powerful the human spirit can endeavor, and how lucky all of us have grown past that dreadful time in history. The full effect of it has not been felt in movies before, until now.

Live, not just Survive

[ferguson-6 · 8/10 · 27 October 2013]

Greetings again from the darkness. Should this be labeled a historical drama? Is it one man's extraordinary tale of strength and survival? Does this fall into the "art film" category that so divides the movie-going public? The answer to all is YES, and I would add that it's a masterfully crafted film with exquisite story telling, stunning photography and top notch acting throughout.

The movie is based on the real life and writings of Solomon Northrup, a free man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery from 1841-53. Northrup's story provides us a look inside the despicable institution of slavery. Needless to say, it's a painful and sad process made even more emotional by the work of director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame). McQueen takes a very direct approach. Not much is left to the imagination. Torture, abuse, cruelty and misery take up the full screen. The only subtlety comes from the terrific work of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Northrup. His facial expressions and eyes are more powerful and telling than any lines of dialogue could be.

You will not find many details from the movie here. This is one to experience for yourself. It lacks the typical Hollywood agenda when it comes to American history. Instead this era is presented through the eyes of a single wronged man and his quest to return to his wife and kids, no matter the inhumane obstacles. We see Paul Giamatti as an emotionless, all-business slave trader. Benedict Cumberbatch is a plantation owner who has a heart, but lacks business savvy. And finally we enter the world of cotton farmer Michael Fassbender, who twists Bible scripture into threats directed at the slaves - his "property".

Fassbender dives deep into evil to find his character, and along with Ejiofor, Sarah Paulsen (who plays Fassbender's icy wife), and Lupita Nyong'o (who plays slave Patsey, the center of the two most incredible scenes in the film), provide more Oscar worthy performances than any one movie can expect. You will also note Quvenzhane Wallis (as Northrup's daughter) and Dwight Henry (as a slave) in their first appearances since Beasts of the Southern Wild. Other strong support comes from Scoot McNairy, Taran Killam (SNL), Michael K Williams, Alfre Woodward, a nasty Paul Dano, Garret Dillahunt and Adepero Oduye.

Steven Spielberg gave us a taste of the holocaust with Schindler's List, but not since the TV mini-series "Roots" has any project come so close to examining the realities of slavery. Northrup's story seems to be from a different universe than the charming slaves of Gone with the Wind. I would argue that what makes this watchable (though very difficult) is the focus on Northrup's story. While tragic, his ending actually deflects from the ongoing plight of those not so fortunate. It's a story of a man who states he doesn't wish to merely survive, he wants to live a life worth living.

McQueen's direction will certainly be front and center come awards season, as will many of the actors, John Ridley (the screenwriter), Sean Bobbitt (cinematographer) and Hans Zimmer (score). The only question is whether the subject matter is too tough for Oscar voters, who traditionally lean towards projects a bit more mainstream.

12 Years A Slave earns the right to be called one of the best films of the year.

[Sergeant_Tibbs · 9/10 · 24 February 2014]

If any contemporary director deserves to be in the mainstream spotlight without compromising their style, it's Steve McQueen. His debut, Hunger, already had the hand of a confident filmmaker taking a fly-on-the-wall style to the grimy art-house. Shame was one of the finest films of its year for its impeccable depiction of an addiction to one of humanity's primal survival instincts resulting in self-destruction. I'm so happy that his latest film has gracefully conquered early Oscar favourites from the output of David O. Russell, Martin Scorsese and the now delayed film from George Clooney to become this year's Oscar frontrunner. During its festival run when the buzz first began, I took it upon myself to read the screenplay. While I can usually sink scripts within a few hours, the poetic density of 12 Years A Slave took several sittings across a week or two. Even on the page it was a harrowing, exhausting experience. It's a film that needs a have a gut to truly display the length of time, but the script is bloated in its brilliance.

Naturally, scenes were cut (whether in the editing room or pre-production I don't know) and that's a blessing and a curse. Now in the film, we rush to Solomon Northup's capture, opening with scenes we shall revisit later on. I understand the decision to enter the world as quickly as possible, but I do feel it hurts its first act. As much as I jump for joy every time Scoot McNairy hides himself in a film, the transition from ordinary life to becoming kidnapped feels jarring and contrived. Who is Solomon Northup as a free man? What does he want? Maybe we don't know because there is no source for the matter. Maybe McQueen isn't interested in telling that story. At the very least, we definitely know that Solomon is a compelling character during his capture. Chiwetel Ejiofor is an actor I've always liked but he's never made an impression until now. His passion and commitment to his portrayal of Solomon is utterly captivating. While he can slink into the background of some scenes where he is not the focus, when it's time to shine he bursts a fuse.

Unfortunately during this cluttered first act, it concerns itself too much with subplots that we know will not succeed. While they accomplish establishing the stakes at hand and rule out the 'why doesn't Solomon just…' there's just too many abridged tales. Perhaps this is distracting just because I know the full stories from the script, but they should've went all or nothing with them. It results in editing that frustratingly refuses to let us into Solomon's headspace. We're along for the ride, but too frequently not Solomon's ride. During then we only get rare and rewarding glimpses into how he feels and his perspective on his past life stolen from him. Fortunately the film vastly improves once Solomon is free from the deliciously cruel Paul Giamatti to the spiteful live-wire Paul Dano. As the film focuses on his one-on-one conflicts and moral dilemmas, the film reaches intimate and truly challenging moments which is where the film's power lies. Fruitless subplots are dropped in favour of heartbreaking ones as we're introduced to the pitiful Patsey on the pathetic Edwin Epps' plantation.

Michael Fassbender and Steve McQueen have been one of the most enthralling director/actor combination in recent years. They always bring out the best in each other. Here, it feels like they've reached their finest work yet, but still feels like their collaboration has just began. Fassbender's Edwin Epps is the film's most fascinating and complex character, a man who sincerely refuses to believe he is evil. He demonstrates the thesis of the film in that the authoritative caucasians didn't believe they were doing anything wrong. Many people have laid claim that he is pure evil, but I don't think that's the point, he belongs in a misguided world where he thinks his lust and affection is apt praise for Patsey's talent. While I may not have sympathy for him, he is a tortured soul, a regrettable and irreversible tragedy of mankind and this is thanks to Fassbender's incredible performance. His victim Patsey, played by talented newcomer Lupita Nyong'o, is an utter revelation. She may not have a fully developed character but in at least two powerful scenes, she makes the best out of what she can for a character that warrants the tears you will inevitably shed.

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. No shot this year, not even in the extraordinary Gravity, has been as stunning and unforgettable as the infamous long take of Patsey's lashes. It's a filmmaking masterclass in just a few short minutes. Despite the shaky first half hour, it's all redeemed in its harrowing final 15 minutes. It's the greatest sequence I've seen in a long time and I've never had a scene make me a blubbering mess quite like it. 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.

9/10

Slavery is an evil that should befall none

[BackFire83 · 10/10 · 25 October 2013]

12 Years a Slave tells the true story of Solomon Northup, an educated and free black man living in New York during the 1840's who gets abducted, shipped to the south, and sold into slavery. It is a film that stimulates at both an emotional level and an intellectual one.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup. He's been a "that guy" actor for sometime – film-goers may know his face but not his name. After this film his name will be known. He gives, quite simply, the best performance from a leading actor since Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. Because of his character's position as a slave he is usually unable to speak his mind unless he is prepared to be beaten. As a result Ejiofor is forced to utilize body language and his eyes, which become enormous pools of emotion to express himself to the audience. He's forced to endure terrible things, but he always maintains a certain dignity and nobility that makes his plight even more affecting. It's a performance of incredible subtlety that may leave you speechless and in complete awe.

Micheal Fassbender gives the best performance of his already extremely impressive career, even besting his previous high marks from the films Shame and Hunger (both directed by Steve McQueen, who also directed 12 Years a Slave). He plays Edwynn Epps, a vicious and demonic slaver and perhaps the most loathsome and disgusting character ever put on screen. If alive today, he'd likely be a drunk with severe anger management issues. By turns pathetic and terrifying, he embodies the ultimate nightmare of a deeply flawed man given absolute power over other human beings, and through that absolute power finds only madness, which drives him to deeper cruelty. He's always a menacing and malignant presence even when not on screen, as his slaves must always be aware and prepared for his seemingly random bouts of sadism.

Other actors give excellent performances as well. Paul Giamatti, Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, Sarah Paulson, Alfre Woodard are all great in relatively small roles. But in this film of titans it's the one you've probably never heard of who perhaps stands above them all. In her first role in a feature film, Lupita Nyong'o, playing the pretty young slave Patsey - the object of Edwynn Epps demented and horrifying affections and the emotional epicenter of the entire picture, gives one of the most devastating performances I have ever seen. A portrait of unbearable sadness, her character is a mirror image of Solomon. While Solomon is a man who refuses to break and give up the dignity which he's known since birth, she is one who has long since been broken, and who never knew dignity in the first place. Her life is a living hell, forced to endure the "love" of Edwyn Epps and the brutal jealousy of his wife, she's trapped in a terrible triangle that she can't escape. Despite that, she retains a level of innocence that only heightens the tragedy of her character. It actually gets to the point where simply looking at this character might be enough to bring you to tears. It's a shattering performance.

Starting his career as a video artist before making full length films, Steve McQueen has an uncanny eye for imagery and contrast. He's also a very patient film maker, utilizing long, steady single shots to emphasize various things. In his prior films this has felt like a purely stylistic choice, here, it's a choice aimed directly at our heart. When the events on screen become their most horrifying and ugly is when his camera becomes the most unflinching. At times feeling perhaps like we're seeing out of the solemn eyes of the ghost of some murdered slave, watching in sorrow and rage. This is both McQueen's most accessible and artistically searing film yet.

There are also moments of stunning natural beauty that would make Terrence Malick proud. Alone, these shots would inspire wonder, but in the context of this film they make us feel more forlorn, as if the ugliness of man is encroaching on the natural beauty of the world.

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about 12 Years a Slave is the way that it portrays slavery itself. Instead of taking the easy way out and limiting his exploration of the topic solely to the slaves, Steve McQueen increases the scope and we see how it affects those who profited by it. Take Benedict Cumberbatch's character. A seemingly decent and caring man who treats his slaves with some semblance of respect and kindness. He comes off as a relatively good man who is trapped within the powerful confines of the institution of slavery. In 12 Years a Slave, slavery is shown as a horrifying and destructive social construct that drains the humanity from everyone it touches, turning good men into moral quandaries, turning flawed men into monsters, and turning an entire race of people into livestock and tools.

To watch 12 Years a Slave is to be confronted with the grim reality of slavery in a way that's never been done before. To say this is the best film ever made about slavery feels trivial, as slavery is a subject in film that has been shown with naive romanticism from films like Gone With the Wind or silly exploitation from something like Django Unchained. Both of which serve to make the topic digestible. To watch 12 Years a Slave is to experience a level of despair and misery that can become overwhelming. It's a film of such ugliness, such blunt emotional trauma, that it may haunt you for hours if not days after seeing it. So why should you watch a film that could leave you reeling and devastated? Because, it's also one of the greatest cinematic achievements of our time.

And the Oscar goes to...

[thamanidelgardo-822-410218 · 10/10 · 19 October 2013]

chitchens fan • 2 hours ago △ ▽

−

Well, to begin, I cannot remember the last time I could not get up at the end of a movie. I literally could not rise up from my seat. My body felt as though it were being weighed down by something considerably larger and heavier than myself... History had it's way with me( I am an African American woman). Thank you Mr. McQueen, Mr. Ejiofor, Ms. Nyong'o, Ms. Paulson and others, and yes, even Mr. Fassbender. I am not a film critic nor a movie hobbyist, although I try to stay current, but what I am is a human being trying to understand the various problems and issues within our country. This movie is a potent reminder of why we are where we are as a society today. How man can be so unflinchingly cruel to his fellow man, especially if he looks, speaks or behaves differently, I will never understand.

nothing can show us the full brutality of slavery, but this comes close

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 20 April 2014]

Solomon Northup's story of his kidnapping and sale into slavery got widely read upon its original publication but then disappeared as the Confederates built up an idealized image of the antebellum south (exemplified in "Gone with the Wind"). Now that Northup's story has gotten brought to the screen, it's important for everyone to see it. "12 Years a Slave" not only takes an uncompromising look at the sheer brutality of slavery, but also shows how nothing could take away Northup's dignity and his hope that he would one day be a free man again. One of the ugliest scenes is the whipping of a slave for perceived disobedience.

Most of the credit goes to Chiwetel Ejiofor as Northup, showing him to be a man who wouldn't let even the most vicious treatment break him. The rest of the cast deserves ample kudos, but Steve McQueen deserves credit for bringing to the screen a story that got suppressed for over a century.

This movie should also motivate us all to take a serious look at the plantation system and the fact that the US economy got built on it. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and the White House is the product of slave labor.

In the end, this definitely deserved Best Picture. Three quarters of a century after the pro-Confederate "Gone with the End" won big, we are finally seeing atonement. If you see only one movie this year, make it "12 Years a Slave".

Another masterpiece from McQueen

[LetwitJr · 10/10 · 9 September 2013]

I attended the premiere of 12 Years a Slave at the Toronto International Film Festival. Having no tickets, we had to wait close to 4 hours hoping they might let us in. I have to say it was definitely worth the wait and it is hands down the best film I've seen at the festival.

The film is based on the real story of Solomon Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free black man living in New York, who is abducted and sold into slavery in Louisiana. As the film begins, we are exposed to his talent as a musician (he plays the violin) and get a glimpse of the life he leads with his wife and two children. All is well until he meets two men who seem taken by his music and want to bring him along with them so he can play at various events. When Solomon wakes up in chains, his dark journey starts and the film never lets you take a break.

If you've seen McQueen's other works then you more or less know what kind of movie to expect (if you haven't then please stop reading and watch Hunger and Shame). 12 Years a Slave is dark and raw, it exposes everything, without sugarcoating it. It is definitely hard to watch; Several people walked out of the the theatre but in my opinion, it is not only worth watching but necessary. Films exploring themes of slavery are few and far in between and never has one been quite as exhaustive and effective as this one. Beautifully shot and edited, the film features moments of tension, heartbreak and a few laughs here and there. Steve McQueen has created another masterpiece.

Most actors get very little screen time. Paul Giamatti and Sarah Paulson are seen for a few minutes but both are great as usual. Benedict Cumberbatch plays a plantation owner, who recognizes Solomon's talent and tries to help him to a certain extent. Despite being a slaver, he is presented in the film as being a good man. Cumberbatch was very good, though outshined by far by Michael Fassbender. He goes through every emotion and gives it his everything. In my opinion, this is his best performance to date. Paul Dano gets a few minutes of screen time as well but makes incredible use of it. As Benedict's worker, he despises slaves and the songs he sings to Solomon makes an incredibly powerful scene, one of the most disturbing in the film. Lupita Nyong'o's first appearance in a feature film is stunning, as she plays a heart breaking young slave. I hope she has a long career ahead of her, she certainly has the talent for it. The true star is definitely Chiwetel Ejiofor. His performance as Solomon is stunning and unforgettable, I truly hope he wins the Oscar for it this year.

All in all, if you get a chance to see 12 Years a Slave, don't miss it. Not everyone will be able to stomach it but it's an outstanding film that deserves and needs to be seen.

McQueen's epic is beautiful and tragic anchored by sensational performances...

[ClaytonDavis · 10/10 · 14 September 2013]

Read More @ The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com)

One of the things that have been thrown around for months now is the notion that awards season voting bodies won't respond to it because it's too "difficult" to sit through. Let's define difficult, shall we? Is it difficult to see the first openly gay politician gunned down by his closeted colleague? Is it difficult to see a reformed convict put to death by our country for his crimes? Is it difficult to see a mother choose which one of her children dies during the Holocaust? I'd argue that these answers add up to a resounding yes. Yet, no one threw those phrases of "too difficult" around.

I've watched hundreds of films throughout my short 29-year history and I've seen some difficult cinema. Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" can make anyone quiver in shame as it shows the despicable reality of the Holocaust. Paul Greengrass' "United 93", which is almost an emotional biopic of America's darkest hour, makes me want to crawl up into a ball and cry. And finally, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", one of the highest grossing films of all-time, shows the labor of our sins fleshed out into the beaten skin of an honest man. And still, no one threw these hyperbolic terms out saying, "it's too hard watch." Is it because this is an American tragedy, done by Americans? Is it the guilt of someone's ancestors manifesting it in your tear ducts? I can't answer that. Only the person who says it can. The structure of this country is built on the backs and blood of slaves. But slavery didn't just exist in America, it was everywhere. It was horrifying what occurred for over 200 years and believe it or not, still exists in some parts of the world TODAY.

Now when approaching the powerful film by McQueen and distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures, there is a resounding honesty that McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley inhabit. There are no tricks or gimmicks, no cheap takes on a side story or character that is put there for time filling or a life-lesson for Solomon to learn. Everything is genuine. Is the film heartbreaking? Oh my God yes. Did I cry for several minutes after the screening? Embarrassingly so. I was enamored the entire time, head to toe, moment to moment.

I have long admired the talent that's been evident in the works of Chiwetel Ejiofor. I've known he was capable of what he has accomplished as Solomon Northup and he hits it out of the park. He has the urgency, worry, and drive to get home to his family and executes every emotion flawlessly even when all hope seems to be lost. Where he shines incredibly are the small nuances that he takes as the story slows down, you notice aspects of Solomon that make him even more believable.

As Edwin Epps, Solomon's last owner, Michael Fassbender digs down deep into some evil territory. Acts as the "Amon Goeth" of our tale, he is exactly what you'd expect a person who believes this should be a way of life to behave. He's vile and strikes fear into not only the people he interacts with but with the viewers who watch. As Mrs. Epps, Sarah Paulson is just as wretched. Abusive, conniving, entitled, and I loved every second of her.

Mark my words; Lupita Nyong'o is the emotional epicenter of the entire film. The heartache, tears, and anger that will grow inside during the feature will have our beautiful "Patsey" at the core. She is the great find of our film year and will surely go on to more dynamic and passionate projects in the future. You're watching the birth of a star.

Hans Zimmer puts forth a very pronounced score, enriched with all the subtle ticks that strike the chords of tone. One thing that cannot be denied is the exquisite camera work of Sean Bobbit. Weaving through the parts of boat and then through the grassroots of a cotton field, he puts himself in the leagues of Roger Deakins and Seamus McGarvey as one of the most innovative and exciting DP's in the business. Especially following his work in "The Place Beyond the Pines" earlier this year. Simply marvelous.

Oscar chances, since I know many of you are wondering. Put the Oscar's in my hands, you have a dozen nominations reap for the taking. Best Picture, Director, Lead Actor, Supporting Actor, dual Supporting Actresses, Adapted Screenplay, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling, Original Score. There's also a strong and rich sound scope that is present. The sounds of nature as the slaves walk or as Solomon approaches his master's house is noticed. The big question is, can it win? I haven't seen everything yet so I cannot yet if it deserves it or not. I can say, if critics and audiences can get off this "difficult" watch nonsense and accept the cinematic endeavor as a look into our own history as told from a great auteur, there's no reason it can't top the night. I'm very aware that seeing this film along with Steve McQueen crowned by Oscar is nearly erasing 85 years of history in the Academy. Are they willing and ready to begin looking into new realms and allowing someone not necessarily in their inner circles to make a bold statement as McQueen and Ridley take in "12 Years a Slave?" I remain hopeful.

Astonishing and heartbreaking

[hal9341 · 10/10 · 18 October 2013]

I just saw this at LFF. It is a brilliant piece of cinema. Clearly it's central theme is slavery, and the depravity human nature can so easily reach; but it has many other small moments that trigger thoughts about wider issues - the role of religion being one for example. It is violent, and in some respects awful to watch, but this is the story of Solomon Northup told truthfully. There is nothing saccharine about the way Steve McQueen presents this and that is what makes it so astonishing. You cry because what you witness is truly terrible, not because the violins are out and the director's tugging on your heart strings. All the acting is first rate, as is the score by Hans Zimmer. This really should be essential viewing for everyone old enough to understand it.

A very special piece of film making

[rogerdarlington · 19 January 2014]

Let's be honest about it: this spotlight on the darkest days of American history is a particularly British triumph. The brilliant director (and artist) Steve McQueen and outstanding Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the eponymous Solomon Northup, are both British; even Michael Fassbender, in the main support role as a sadistically brutal slave-owner, is half British; and Benedict Cumberbatch makes an appearance as a 'kinder' slave owner.

But, of course, there is a vast array of American talent here too. As always, Sean Bobbitt is inspiring as director of photography, making full use of the Louisiana locations. And a host of fine US actors make cameo appearances, notably Brad Pitt (who was one of the 10 producers), Paul Giamatti (looking as if he had walked straight out of the TV mini series "John Adams"), Sarah Paulson and Alfre Woodard. In her first film role, Lupita Nyong'o gives a heart-rending performance as a young slave who is horrendously abused. Original music by Hans Zimmer and use of contemporary songs add to the searing atmosphere of the work

McQueen is unrelenting in his focus: except for short pieces at the beginning and the end of the film, all the time is the period in captivity and, except for occasional glimpses of humanity, we see the slaves subjected to humiliation and horror again and again and again. McQueen's style is slow and penetrating with some long and wordless scenes totally captivating.

As a piece of social history, this movie is simply stunning - a virtual blow to the solar plexus. As a cinematic work, it has some challenges: there is no conventional narrative arc in which a plot unfolds or a character develops because Northrup is confined to a small geographical space where he can only survive by keeping as low a profile as possible; the characters are literally black and white with little subtlety or nuance; and there is not really a sense that the period of incarceration is more than a decade.

At the start and finish of the film, we are reminded that this is a true story based on the book written by Northup in 1853, once he finally re-acquired his freedom (in a pedestrian act of bureaucracy rather than anything more dramatic or violent). As if Northup has not suffered enough, we learn that his legal actions against both those who sold and bought him failed in the courts. A special award should go to McQueen's Dutch partner Bianca Stigter who discovered Northup's book and recommended it to the director.

Acting cannot save a soulless "Slave"

[peibeck · 6/10 · 14 November 2013]

Director Steve McQueen has gathered a talented cast, a compelling plot idea, and a wonderful cinematographer and then snuffed the life from them with his clinical, detached directing style that robs what should be the most affecting movie of the year and turns it into a plodding, emotionless, historical biopic.

Despite the valiant efforts of Chiwetel Ejiofor and especially newcomer Lupta Nyong'o, this drama about a musician who is duped, drugged and sold into slavery never manages to find an emotional chord.

Like last year's Oscar-bait, "Les Miserables," the film is often told in long, steady pan shots or a continuous array of distracting close-ups of actors filled with angst or anger. And the film finds no rhythm in its editing to make these extremes work. Even the most harrowing scenes in "12 Years," and there a plenty of them to choose from, lack dramatic tension. One may as well be watching an accident filmed on a surveillance camera on the local news, because that's how detached McQueen's film style is (which also killed his over-praised "Shame," for me as well.)

Some have likened "12 Years a Slave" to "Schindler's List," but for emotional wallop, there is no comparison. "Schindler's List" is in every way, from script to score, the vastly superior movie: not only shocking but truly emotional and with actual drama.

John Ridley's screenplay has a few fine dynamics, but quite frankly in the end all the characters in the film end up being (literally) too black or white. Even the few characters (like Benedict Cumberbatch's Ford or Garrett Dillahunt's Armsby) who seem to have shades of gray, of course turn out to be turn-coats. Michael Fassbender and Sarah Paulson get two roles that feature them being evil incarnate, to the point you expect Fassbender to twirl his mustache at times. But again, any kind of shading the actors may have tried to play gets lost with McQueen's endless habit of sticking the camera repeatedly into the actor's faces.

"12 Years" is by no means an awful movie, but I think hype surrounding it in the press will lead to disappointment in movie goers who are expecting an amazing visceral tale, and are deceived into getting a stagnant and clinical examination of some of the darkest days of American history. Members of the audience I saw the movie with began talking half-way through and some people were overheard saying, "How can they make this subject so dull?" as they headed for the exit.

Abducted to a Southern hell

[tigerfish50 · 9/10 · 22 September 2013]

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 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.

The story begins with him living with wife and children in upstate New York as a free man. After being lured to Washington by a couple of con-artists who promised him work, he was subsequently drugged, chained, 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 relatively civilized by slave-owner standards, but the plantation's half-wit manager was threatened by Northup's superior intelligence. Their mutual dislike produced a volatile situation, and unwilling to lose his investment, Northup's owner re-sold him to a neighbor. This individual regarded his slaves as property to be used for pleasure and profit, which caused them to live in perpetual fear that his moods would flare into sadistic lust or rage at any moment.

It's noteworthy that a British director has chosen to tell this story, and the combination of John Ridley's script and McQueen's direction has inspired fine performances from the entire cast. Their dramatization of Northup's experiences is both riveting and uncomfortable to watch, as the film depicts the perverse nature of a society that permitted such barbarism. Hopefully a large US audience will learn how a Southern elite cruelly exploited their fellow humans in order to obtain an easier life for themselves.

Let me explain my stance on this film:

[FairlyAnonymous · 7/10 · 2 May 2014]

I'm just going to get down to my point: Twelve Years A Slave is a good film. It may be an even better film to people who know less about slavery, however, to me it is just "A little better than good".

Twelve Years A Slave tries really hard to make the audience uncomfortable by showing the truths of slavery and the cruel world slaves lived in during the middle of the 19th century... and it succeeds at it. The movie doesn't hide how messed up some of the slave masters were and how delusional others were. I have read a bit of the book along with the autobiography of Frederick Douglass and several other slaves. The movie does interpret these events very well.

However, this is where the movie's fault comes in: The movie isn't much more than a slave statement. Slavery is bad. Here is a man who changed and went through much suffering. While I condemn racism and I'm glad this movie shows the wrongs of the past, the movie doesn't do anything more than show a whole bunch of wrong doings. The movie is just: bad event, bad event, bad event, bad event--coincidentally similar to Gravity in a sense. The movie doesn't stand up and prove anything that the audience (maybe it's just me) didn't know. We have seen slavery movies in the past and we have read the autobiographies. The movie forgets to be something more than an anti-slavery statement. Slavery has already been gone in America for over 150 years, so the movie needed something more to its message other than "slavery is bad".

Granted, racism is still an issue today, which is why this movie still holds importance. Still, the movie doesn't try to do anything other than inform of the evils of the past. The movie is literally a series of horrible things and that is it. As soon as the evils end, the movie ends. In my opinion, the movie needed to flesh out its purpose a little more.

On a side-note: This movie has one of the most generic soundtracks I have ever heard, and it is even down-right bad at times. Not even joking, you will hear the same chords played exactly the same for the entire movie.

A good movie, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table regarding the issues of America's past.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

[robinbishop34 · 2/10 · 22 November 2013]

12 Years a Slave — a biopic about a black fiddler in NY who somehow wound up a slave in Louisiana from 1841 until the law rescued him in 1853—is the nearly universally acclaimed front runner for the Best Picture Oscar. Yet it's built upon a fourth-rate screenplay that might have embarrassed Horatio Alger.

12 Years a Slave is hailed by critics as a long-awaited breakthrough that finally dares to mention the subject of slavery after decades of the entertainment industry being controlled by the South.

The message behind the ongoing enshrinement of the rather amateurish 12 Years a Slave is that the cultural whippings of white folk for the sins of their long dead ancestors will stubbornly continue on until morale improves. The formula: Stoke it, package it, market it.

Steve McQueen directs the film in a sort of minor league Passion of the Christ manner. Some of the appeal to critics is that Northern whites are shown as saints of racial sensitivity in the film's preposterous first 20 minutes.

12 Years a Slave opens in 1841 with Northup being effusively admired by his white neighbors in Saratoga, NY. Northup is a model of ridiculous bourgeois respectability, always doffing his top hat to his white peers while out riding with his family in an elegant carriage.

How could he afford that? Well, actually, he didn't and couldn't. A glance at Northup's ghostwritten 1853 memoir makes clear that in 1841, rather than being a pillar of this Yankee community, he was an unemployed fiddler dragged down by his own "shiftlessness."

In McQueen's often baffling movie, this respectable family man suddenly decides to run off to join the circus with two fast-talking white men without even leaving a note for his wife. Later, while dining in an elegant Washington, DC restaurant with his new friends, he suddenly takes ill and wakes up in chains.

Ironically, his poor family never reported or even guessed that he'd been kidnapped. They apparently assumed that vanishing was just the kind of thing he'd do.

When word of his kidnapping finally arrived home in 1853, top officials in both NY and Louisiana were dismayed by the trick played upon this freeborn citizen and worked together to quickly have him released.

Interestingly, it was widely believed that Northup had conspired with his white cronies to defraud slave owners of their purchase price by attempting to pull a con on them. Reminiscent of the 1971 comedy Skin Game, starring James Garner and Louis Gossett, Jr. as traveling grifters in 1858 where Garner repeatedly sells Gossett into slavery and then helps him escape.

Northup's hometown newspaper, the Saratoga Press, surmised that Northup had been an accomplice in a scam gone awry:

"…it is more than suspected that Northup was an accomplice in the sale, calculating to slip away and share the spoils, but that the purchaser was too sharp for him, and instead of getting the cash, he got something else."

This theory that Northup was a man of dubious character rather than the tediously upright one depicted in the movie might explain another puzzling aspect of his tale: how little help he got from his fellow slaves. In general, the other slaves as display remarkably little human warmth toward Northup. They mostly act completely indifferent whenever he is around.

When Northup finally arrived home, an abolitionist politician hired David Wilson to be his ghostwriter. Wilson wrote Northup's story in his own style, and they hit it big in the slave-narrative craze that followed the 1852 publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Not many were sold, but more than enough to launch Northup on the abolitionist lecture circuit.

Predictably, Northup disappeared from history four years later. Those who knew him best seem to have assumed that he had become a "worthless vagabond," as his wife's obituary bluntly phrased it. Almost all of this is left out of the movie as being far too interesting for Oscar Bait.

I suppose Third-rate Victorian literature such as Wilson's version of Northup's memoir is tolerable today if the author understands his limitations. Most of the first-person narration is thankfully utilitarian. Only occasionally does Wilson have Northup reminisce in the grand Victorian manner: "Now had I approached within the shadow of the cloud, into the thick darkness whereof I was soon to disappear, thenceforward to be hidden from the eyes of all my kindred, and shut out from the sweet light of liberty, for many a weary year."

Indeed, on the rare occasions when Wilson quotes Northup's utterances, the slave speaks in a more plausible fashion, such as, "There is nobody I want to write to, 'cause I ain't got no friends living as I know of."

Unfortunately, Ridley's adaptation takes its inspiration for its made-up dialog from the worst prose in the book. Since it would be racist for Ridley to show slaves ending their sentences with prepositions, they instead orate pompous speeches toward each other, like Prime Minister Gladstone addressing Queen Victoria. As the hero, Ejiofor labors to bring life to these lines, with indifferent, if not comical success.

Hollywood has been waving its celluloid wand over history since its inception. Unfortunately, studio contrived "reality" usually wins the emotional battle over the truth --even for those with more than a tenuous understanding of the world around them. It's all part of the ongoing, and successful campaign keep all critical theory groups in their respective consensus trances; instilling grievance focused identities in blacks, and derivative guilt syndrome in whites. I suppose once all the altruistic white people who fall for sympathetic pleas of universal equality have been eliminated via natural selection, blacks will spontaneously adopt their innate, but perpetually oppressed Western sensibilities and go on to build flourishing, first world Utopias?

Coming soon to a theater near you!

A disturbing but powerful portrayal of slavery in America

[parallel_projection · 9/10 · 3 November 2013]

Directed by Steve McQueen and staring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Benedict CUmberbatch, newcomer Lupita Nyong'o, and a ton of other stars, '12 Years a Slave' is based on the memoir of Solomon Northup, a freeman who was living in Saratoga, NY before being tricked, drugged, and sold into slavery in the south.

McQueen is an auteur known for his honest and brutal direction, and he keeps filming when others would shut the camera off or look away. While making the picture that much more difficult to sit through, his steadfastness greatly elevates the emotional impact of the film. It's a must-see, if only for educational purposes—just as 'Schindler's List' is used to teach about the Holocaust and 'Milk' about the struggle for gay rights.

I'm not trying to compare the events depicted in this film with the events depicted in those I just mentioned, all I'm saying is that they are all equally important in portraying the reality of their respective situations. There is a moment in '12 Years a Slave' when, as a form of punishment, Northup is hanged by his neck, the tips of his toes just able to reach the ground below him. The camera stays on him for a few minutes. It is silent, and all you can do is listen to him struggling for breath.

This is one of the more disturbing moments in the film, but not the worst. Eventually, Northup is sold to Edwin Epps, a short-tempered and impulsive plantation owner portrayed by Michael Fassbender. He is by far the most villainous and terrifying character in the film, and Fassbender brilliantly captures his mood swings and tempestuous personality.

It is Chiwetel Ejiofor, however, who steals the show. He brings so much life to Northup, and completely disappears into his characters. He is able to depict so many deep levels of emotion, while also bringing dignity to a man who was unwilling to let anyone take away his will to "live" rather than just "survive." Additionally, Lupita Nyong'o, in her first big film role, is mesmerizing as Patsey, and hardworking and desperate woman, and the object of her master Epps's attention. She is hated by Epps's wife—masterfully played by Sarah Paulson— and most of the more dramatic moments in the film revolve around her character's tragic story.

If I have one complaint, it's that 12 years do not seem to pass by at all, mainly because none of the characters substantially age. Also, Brad Pitt is thrown in for ten minutes to depict a kind-hearted abolitionist, and while he does a good job, it just feels like Brad Pitt on a slave plantation, which is totally out of place.

Regardless, while the film may be harrowing and difficult to sit through, it is simply brilliant all the way through, and by far the most honest depiction of slavery that I've ever seen.

As high as cinema can go

[gsygsy · 10/10 · 12 January 2014]

It's rare that a movie lives up to its hype, even rarer that the hype is transcended by the actual achievement. 12 YEARS A SLAVE does both. Aided by powerful performances and cinematography, director McQueen exposes the barbarity of dehumanisation, of treating people as property. Reviews focus on the brutality on display, and it's true that the film is not easy to watch, with its powerful juxtaposition of sublime scenery and human degradation. But to me the final scene is the most powerful of all: we are party to the kind of raw emotion that in the hands of lesser artists could easily descend into tawdriness or sentimentality. Here, as in the rest of the film, it is raised up high, as high as cinematic art can go.

A direct telling of the horrors, but not quite the complexities, of a man kidnapped into slavery

[secondtake · 8/10 · 2 March 2014]

12 Years a Slave (2013)

Who can possibly argue against the power of this kind of movie, and the injustice that it waves as a welcome reminder? Superbly directed and acted (especially leading man Chiwetel Ejofor playing Solomon Northup), and set with high levels of realism in pre-Civil War America, there is little to separate what the filmmakers intended and what they achieved. A work of excellence.

It is not, however, quite the masterpiece it might have been. I don't mean the story or the level of competence here at all. I mean the way the story is told, the choice to simply tell it like it was.

That means that the presentation is quite linear (excepting a few gratuitous flashbacks that seem like a last minute editing decision). And uncomplicated. This is the biggest surprise. I mean, the basics might seem enough—a free black man in Saratoga goes to Washington and is kidnapped and made a slave, and he remains a slave until his recovery 12 years later. But that is actually the entire movie.

Oh, I know, the details are missing in that sentence. But it is these details where the movie succeeds too well. We are shown the horrors of slavery and made to experience them. It isn't that this is ignoble or unimportant. On the contrary, this is an "important" film and should be seen. But in some weirdly surreal way, we already know everything that happens in these details.

Do we need to see a woman, naked and tied to a post, whipped and whipped and whipped, with screaming in our ears? Many will say yes. We need to feel that horror even a little bit (through a movie) to understand how utterly unbelievably horrible slavery was. I would just argue back that I don't really want to be tortured directly to confirm what I already fully agree with. It's just a choice you want to make as a moviegoer. It's similar to watching a kidnapping movie—do you want to experience the inner and outer torments of the kidnapped, or see some larger view of a kidnapping situation and the complexities of that kind of plot?

For me, then the movie was excellent at being literal, but that's not enough. For example, there is absolutely no hint at what the family did when Solomon didn't return home after his trip to Washington. Did they search? Worry? How? Who helped, who ignored them? Etc. That's just one of many complexities the movie avoids for the sake of a direct experience of the protagonist.

I hope that gives a sense of where this unpleasant, terrific movie leaves you, and whether to watch it.

Powerful and Gripping

[thewoman7437 · 9/10 · 27 September 2013]

One of our partners was invited to TIFF for the premiere of Life of Crime so I was lucky to be able to tag along with him and watch these two great films along with The Lunchbox. I didn't initially even think of writing a review because I would hate to discuss something that the majority of the public hasn't seen yet because public opinion would be limited. But, seeing the reviews that some have published has pushed me to write a review of my own.

In the beginning, the movie moves semi fast as far as getting into the central plot but not too fast that you don't get the opportunity to assess the characters. In fact, by the time Solomon (Ejiofor) is sold into slavery, in my opinion, his demeanor, education, and his family are established enough for you to invest enough emotion into him that by the end of the film you care enough about him to wonder if he and his family will ever be reunited.

I don't understand how someone can say that they were bored because they are desensitized by the beatings and tortures that African American slaves endured during that dark time. Odd analogy but, I cried at the end the movie Titanic not because I was unaware of the fact that the ship would sink and eventually be the demise of thousands of people but because the story telling grasped my attention and pulled at my heart strings. Same case with 12 Years. Yes, you know Solomon along with the other unfortunate souls will endure physical and emotional pain and you might be well familiar with the tools and methods they accomplished this with but it makes it no less shocking, sad, or important. I wonder if this person saw the same movie that I saw, if at all, because without spoiling too much of the movie, there is a torture scene in which the camera not only zooms into what's occurring but it also seems to last forever to the point where I was so uncomfortable that I wanted the scene to end. McQueen does this throughout this film (along with many of his other films), his scenes make you uncomfortable mostly because his camera lingers on scenes that are very hard to watch.

Surprisingly, the only time I got teary eyed was in a funeral scene where Ejiofor's acting shines and mostly with facial expressions (and some singing) you realize that he's finally succumbed to his situation versus how in the beginning he emotionally fought his sudden twist of fate. As far as the other actors, much has been said about Fassbander and Nyong'o's superior acting, rightly so, but I found myself being really impressed with Benedict Cumberbatch and Paul Dano's performances. Hopefully, we can all agree that Fassbander's character, Edwin Epps, is that of a tyrant and just an awful human being. Someone like that is easy to assess but Cumberbatch's William Ford is more complex. He's a slave owner yet he treats his slaves humanely, to an extent he cares about them but he definitely puts his and his families' interest above all, and although he doesn't partake in the beatings he sure doesn't interfere with the process. He makes you ask yourself if neutral people like him are good or bad for progress. I still don't know the answer to that. Paul Dano plays John Tibeats and his character is cruel and has horrible mood swings. The way he was played, I wondered if the person the character was based on had a mental disorder. He's uneducated (almost slow), not even respected within his peers, and overall just a loser. Not to make excuses for him but how could someone with those defects possibly be kind to another human being let alone a human who was considered inferior throughout that time. He too makes me question the hardships that other people, other than slaves, were going through during that time.

Overall, this film had a great narrative, strong performances from the entire cast, and I would definitely recommend this film. I do have two complaints, though. I too felt that the ending was a bit abrupt. In all fairness, I'm not sure what kind of closure I was expecting but I felt like much was left unsaid. My biggest gripe of all has to be the torture scene I mentioned above in which Patsey (Nyong'o) yells something to Solomon and it just had John Ridley's over the top style written all over it. According to Solomon Northup's biography this exchange did not happen so why did Ridley feel the need to add such a dramatic statement? What was the need to create sexual(?) tension between Patsey and Solomon's character? The same could be said about a speech Solomon gives in the film. That too was fiction and not realistic but I guess they did that to emphasize on their message on hope.

Masterpiece.... o_o;;

[carrot99 · 10/10 · 19 October 2013]

so incredible.... the trailers don't do any justice to the film. it's so powerful lingering unconventional it presents so many variables to that system one might not consider. the situations they show linger and you get the full effect of them too. you really get the sense that it is based on an account. characters will appear and vanish. they will not have little arcs and get give the audience satisfaction. it just is what it is. nothing is edited to bits either. this film is the work of a genius!

and about the musical selection, good lord. there are long bouts of silence and parts where it just freaks you out. it was really effective and hypnotizing. I was surprised to see Hans Zimmerman did the music. this is far beyond anything I've heard from him. Not the usual inception foghorns or military hum drum. also a great deal of real folksongs incorporated into it. I love when films incorporate the actually used folksongs. period pieces should be filled with music. when there were no modern devices people would sing!

people can't say that this is unrealistic either as it's an actual account. glad McQueen brought it to the public eye and in such an untethered fashion. I'll probably watch this on repeat when it comes out. I'll have to check out McQueen's other films. haven't seen them yet for some reason

excellent

[neebanne · 9/10 · 11 March 2014]

I am a southerner and when I watch movies depicting slavery, I am usually suspect. Most films depict Southern plantation owners as evil, cruel, despicable individuals. What I liked about the film, was the fact that it showed the political insanity of slavery, and those who owned slaves as the people they were. Some evil, some defective and some indifferent, and some, just trying to run a business. Notwithstanding the evils of slavery, in some cases the owners knew the horrors of slavery, yet the system was set up by a national government indifferent to the horrors of such evilness. How the lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofore did not receive the academy award, shocks me. The entire movie showed a character who persevered in circumstances inconceivable to most. The story line was straightforward, and since I will not write a spoiler, I am happy to say that the facts of the story appear to be told without undue political banter. I think it is the best movie ever made, and God knows I think Matt McConeghy is adorable, and Dallas Buyers club outstanding, it was a tie for Best Actor in my mind. If you have any time, read the book, 12 Years a Slave. This is a part of history that should never be forgotten, and hopefully all will gain insight of the complications and absurdity of slavery in the 1800's.

Persistently avoiding cleansing

[chaos-rampant · 6 January 2014]

Going into a film like this you somewhat know what to expect. You ready yourself for callous suffering without end for no other reason than a system was just set that way, hope snuffed by despair. You know the injustice and stupidity will revolt, because it is just so blatantly wrong it baffles that it would be allowed to go on for even a day in plain sight.

We can't avoid the bluntness if we are to confront that world. Slaves are casually stabbed and thrown overboard on the journey south, a mother is separated by her kids in a slave sale, down at the bayous they are beaten, a girl flogged for wanting a piece of soap, treated at best as mischievous kids or at worst as animals. We see how our man is over the years beaten or numbly retreats to protect himself into a hollow shell.

But what good does it do if it merely blunts you to cleanse?

Serious question here. Most films work in this way, from the Greek model demanding catharsis, a cleansing from evil so that we can go on about our lives. But if we just go on about our lives merely relieved of a burden, has any actual change taken place? If I shed a few tears at a film like this and the next day take out my work stress on my kids, am I really cleansed of the same root ignorance that at one time supported slavery? Southerners were not in support of an apparent evil after all from their pov, but of what they saw as a right or a tradition or a natural necessity.

So I'm glad the film does these two things right, it's the only way it can truly be an eye-opener on the subject.

It runs the gamut of people who exist today with the same ignorance: among them the young overseer scorned because he was outsmarted, the jealous and neglected wife, the white worker who betrays the letter to jump ahead in his career, the plantation owner who is thoughtful yet won't buy the kid with his mother because of the cost.

And offers no catharsis. The exasperation is sweated out with a stoic capacity for having to be in the world, sentimental music doesn't try to waste all the pent-up energy into simple spine-tingling, the world itself is full of texture and sound because past the imposed confines there was still a world that extended in the distance and went on.

I would only have the first segment of normal life much longer so that we'd be more deeply torn from our safet. All that staring into a clump of sunset trees in the distance much more intense because somewhere beyond that is still home and a wife, and this is the greatest visual education I could wish for anyone: not giving up into suffering as not losing sight of the horizon where loved ones are. The notion of persistence solely visual in the arduous field work itself. And only a whole separate film could do justice to the richness of slave songs, their call and response, their hidden narrative and spontaneous order.

But a film that already calls up these intuitions has worked more than most, and any future film on the subject will have to build on this.

No cleansing because there's nothing to so easily pretend like we can cleanse ourselves of and leave behind in the theater, all the evil in the film does not arise from intrinsic evil itself (otherwise we'd never be able to become better persons) but conditional ego and ignorance and we live every day with these things. If you relieve us with catharsis all that energy goes away. If you don't, it becomes a ball of lead that we have swallowed and have to carry with us back home to our kids, so that maybe it can work its own answer in this life.

Fantastic Performances, everything else overrated.

[mr_bickle_the_pickle · 6/10 · 13 December 2013]

I honestly think this film is overrated. Don't get me wrong. Fantastic acting. Definitely I think Chiwetel and Michael Fassbender are Oscar worthy. Would be surprised to not see them nominated. I even really enjoyed Paul Dano's small part in the film. Lupito was also good, but I wasn't as wowed with her as I was with the others. Plus, I think Brad Pitt was the worst of the bunch. I've liked him in other movies, but he was the weak link here and felt out of place.

I also didn't care much for Steve McQueen's directing choice. Like, he would use these really long shots of Chitwetel's face or example. Not doing anything but breathing. Some people might like that artsy stuff...but I just wanted to get on with the program already. Also the film just feels really long. Its only around 2 hours and 10 min long. But it felt like 3. And I realize that slavery was absolutely brutal but I just personally felt like the film was trying to much to make you cry and grab you by the heart. And I just didn't feel that way. And I'm not some robot. I cry a lot at movies. Last thing I didn't like, "aging" Solomon (Chiwetel). They add some grey to his hair to signify that 12 years had past. But did absolutely nothing else. He still looked the same. Plus, I don't even feel like the movie adequately showed that 12 years had gone by (except for the title, and at the end of the movie, his kids are grown up). I felt like there was no sense of time in the movie. It seemed like the events only took place over a year. None of the other characters "aged" either.

But those were my main problems with it. Otherwise, its a pretty decent flick and should be checked out at least for the performances.

Black northerner sold into slavery and survives

[maurice_yacowar · 9/10 · 20 October 2013]

Like the whipping scenes we uncomfortably witness, in 12 Years a Slave the sting comes in the tail. The end titles tell us neither the slave pen manager nor Solomon Northup's kidnappers were punished. Solomon is saved, but that individual justice does not redefine the terrible system. Racism, slavery and savage injustice persist at film's end. Of course, the point is that even after the Civil War, the freeing of the slaves, the Civil Rights Movement and its legal and societal successes, racism and injustice persist. Hardly a major daily newspaper passes without a reminder, whether it's a regressive change in the voters' rights laws or a Florida bully justified in "standing his ground" against the unarmed black kid he hunted. 12 Years a Slave reminds us what contemporary America grew out of and where too much of its roots remain.

McQueen's film deploys an uncompromising visceral violence that rejects the sentimentality and softened focus of American treatments of that period. There is such violence in the air that steamboat paddles churn up a riot of raucous white water and the boat's furnaces roar infernal. The Southern swamps have an eerie other-worldliness that sets up the ghosts of slavery past as a still haunting presence.

Apparently it takes an outsider to cast such an unflinching eye on the subject. To his credit, the physical world and the language seem perfectly realized. No trace of the outsider there, but the work of a director steeped in his subject's world. Perhaps the only false note is producer Brad Pitt appearing as the Canadian who brings Northup salvation. His performance is fine but he can't stop registering as Brad Pitt, who gets to make the film's wisest and most humane and modern speeches. Whether his casting was his or McQueen's idea, it shivers the film's verisimilitude and seems self-congratulatory. Pitt brings Northup's story to the North as outside the narrative he helps bring it to the screen.

But that is a minor cavil about a film that's courageous, brilliantly written, scored, directed and performed, and as important a statement to America and the world as we have seen this year. For more see www.yacowar.blogspot.com.

It's a summary of the book

[TruthSeeker82 · 7/10 · 8 July 2020]

I watched this movie right after reading the book and it felt like watching the summary of it. Events mentioned in the book are presented mostly accurately but some events are squeezed to save time. Plus, I didn't feel like emotions of the book portrayed as well as they are portrayed in the book. For example, Solomon's life before enslavement and Eliza's Separation with kids, which is very emotional and difficult part of the book, seems rushed over. Probably because of it, viewers of movie can't connect with this part of story as well as the readers of the book. They also skipped one important event mentioned in the book. Solomon had a fight again with Tibeats and he successfully escaped to save his life but after some time, he returned back to Ford. They also didn't mentioned that why he didn't escape, like there were guards, hired by planters, patrolling the roads and anyone can ask slaves for the travel paper and in the absence of it can hand them over to authorities. There are also some other events mentioned in the book skipped in the movie for time or some other reason . Anyway, it is still a good movie and people who haven't read a book probably will enjoy mor.

2 hours of sadism

[Ajtlawyer · 2/10 · 24 November 2013]

I was hoping to really enjoy "12 Years a Slave" but wasn't expecting a 2 hr long movie of very long, ponderous slow camera shots of nature and hardly any compelling dialog or character development. This was then broken up seemingly every 10 minutes by a savage flogging or a vicious rape or some other sadistic cruelty being inflicted on the movie's hero, the hapless Solomon a freeman sold into slavery, and the other slaves. Except for Brad Pitt's Canadian abolitionist and a gentleman from Solomon's home town, virtually every white character in this movie is portrayed as the very embodiment of evil. No nuance, nothing but unremitting sadism.

A lot of people seem to be comparing this movie to "Schindler's List" although I can't understand why. In "List" you had the compelling story of Schindler who, for reasons known only to himself, risks his life to save as many Jews as he can. The Jewish prisoners are depicted as full characters, people you know and care about. Even the Nazi played by Ralph Finnes is given some depth, a man whose cruelty has been unleashed and sanctioned by his Nazi bosses but, you suspect but for the war would be a man who might be interesting to be around---a lover of fine food, good wine and a roving eye for the women. But the slave masters in "12 Years a Slave" don't have the slightest hint of anything human about them, just treating people with cruelty for cruelty's sake.

If filmmakers really wanted to make a powerful movie about slavery, they might consider boldly making a new version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and hew closely to the story that Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote. It's a powerful book and it gets far deeper into the immorality of slavery than anything like "12 Years a Slave" does. The memoirs that "12" was based on came out soon after the huge success of "Uncle Tom's Cabin". The opening scene of the slave-traders benignly discussing their "wares" in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was so chilling to read that I couldn't even bear to read it through in one sitting. "12" had a similar scene with the excellent Paul Giamatti as a slave-trader, but the movie never got any deeper.