About Time

First Hit:  It was thoughtful, funny and makes a good point – pay attention to each moment because that is where life exists.

The men in Tim’s (Domhnall Gleeson) family have the ability to go back in time and redo/retry events. They, like Tim, get told by their fathers when they are 21 years old. Tim’s dad (Bill Nighy) tells him that the best way he can use this power is for something he loved.

Tim wants to be loved and to love. He meets Mary (Rachel McAdams) in a dark dinner house (this is actually both funny and interesting) and gets her phone number. Because he re-winds the night to help is uncle with his opening night play, he doesn’t get to keep the phone number and although he has the experience of meeting she doesn’t.

The whole film is about the choices he makes, some for himself and some for others and the resulting consequences. In the end he realizes it is about paying attention to each and every little thing. The actors, especially Nighy, are lively, interesting and funny.

Gleeson is very good as the thoughtful young man who wants to and finds love. McAdams is funny and delightful as Mary. Nighy is so wonderful to watch and steals every scene he’s in. Lynda Wilson (playing Kit Kat), Lindsay Duncan (playing Mum) and Richard Cordery (playing Uncle D) were all very good. Richard Curtis wrote a fun crisp script and directed this cast in the same way.

Overall:  This is a very fun film and worth the price of admission.

12 Years a Slave

First Hit:  A very powerful film about a man’s abduction into slavery.

Despite serving active time in a war, it is hard for me to believe man’s inhumanity to man, as expressed in this film.

In this film, we are witness to a true story of how Solomon Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), a “free black man”, was abducted in Washington DC, shipped to Louisiana and sold to a southern slave owner. Northup is intelligent, talented and strong in spirit, and to stifle himself while submitting to slavery so that he doesn’t get beat to death is difficult. The story follows Northrup as he is transferred from owner to owner while being beat, ostracized by fellow slaves and then admired by his fellow slaves because of his ingenuity. All the while he keeps wondering how he can escape and get back to his family in upstate New York.

The acting of slave owner Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) and his wife (Sarah Paulson) is outstanding. Tibeats (Paul Dano) and Freeman (Paul Giamatti) are also impactful in their roles as managers and traders of slaves.  Then there is transcendent acting in the roles of Patsy (Lupita Nyong’o) and Ejiofor. That is not to say anything less of the acting by the rest of the crew – it was brilliant.

Letting the story settle within me over the last 18 hours, I realize how profound the story reflects how far we’ve come as a country and how much farther we must go.

The taglines of the film stating that the people who abducted and held him illegally escaped punishment were profoundly disappointing.

Ejiofor embodied the character so fully and completely that when he finally comes home his tears were his and all of ours for the injustice we do to each other. Fassbender, in an unenviable role, was amazing at being the selfish, arrogant, and self-centered slave owner. Paulson as Fassbender’s wife carried her frustration and meanness towards her husband’s fondness to Patsy perfectly. Dano in a brief but important role was perfect. Giamatti was amazingly cruel as the seller of slaves. Nyong’o was sublime as Epps’ slave love interest. All the acting in this film was amazing. John Ridley wrote a profoundly detailed script from the real Solomon Northup’s book. Steve McQueen expertly directed this film. My only criticism of the film was its length but I couldn’t name a scene that I’d remove.

Overall:  This is an Oscar caliber film and it will be honored so at the Academy Awards.

All Is Lost

First Hit:  Interesting, strong acting, and by the next day I still had a lot of questions.

This film is amazing in that there is only one actor and there is virtually no dialog. Yes the actor is the strong Robert Redford, but we are forced to dig past Redford the person, and see a character which we have to determine, for ourselves, who he is and why is he in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

One of the clues we have is the prologue where the voice over has Redford (as the character) reading the note he puts into a jar and tosses it into the water near the end of the film. The other clue is the name of the boat, the “Virginia Jean”. Is the name of the boat, his wife’s name? Mother’s name? Daughter’s name? Home state? We don’t know and never learn. Did he commit a crime and is hiding from the law? Did he lose his wife and finding solitude by being alone? Did he make it big and decided retirement was to just be the master of his own ship, not having to rely on anyone else?

What we do know, he’s been sailing for a while because the interior of the boat looks well lived in and he is a competent sailor. We engage this unnamed sailor in his boat, in the middle of the Indian Ocean, when it collides with a sinking metal shipping container.

The collision puts a major hole in his boat and it begins to take on water. The scenes following this crash give the audience a view of this man. He’s pragmatic and doesn’t get flustered. He’s a thinking man and he’s older because he can’t and doesn’t move too fast. He knows what he’s doing because he follows what he needs to do as a sailor. As each new disappointing development comes and goes, we continue to see him make survival moves.

One question that came to me while watching was; why was he experiencing these failures? But because we know nothing about him, it is all speculation.

Redford is outstanding in this role. He gives you everything in his actions, expressions, and in his eyes. This role must have been very challenging and Redford shows he’s up to the challenge. J.C. Chandor wrote and directed this film. Many of the shots were amazing and beautiful. I’m still not sure what he wanted to say in this film.

Overall:  Visually strong but with so many questions, I was left wondering.

The Counselor

First Hit:  When all is said and done, there were a few outstanding moments of acting in a film that tried to make a statement.

The question is: What is the statement Director Ridley Scott wanted to make with this film? Was it about greed? Was it about accepting the consequences of the path chosen?

This film begins with a very luxurious soft, emotionally available scene where the Counselor (Michael Fassbender) and Laura (Penelope Cruz) are lying under the sheets in a beautiful modern bedroom. Their mutual attraction physically and emotionally drips off the celluloid.

Then we see that the Counselor must be doing well for himself as he’s driving a Bentley motor car and lives in a very nice home. He visits a client/friend Reiner (Javier Bardem), who we learn quickly is a major player in the drug trade. He enjoys his riches and the accouterments of his home, but he never looks or feels like it is his, it is more like he’s a guest in his home.

Bardem also seems this way in this character; he doesn’t look or feel like he is at home with this character and I never felt like I knew if this was on purpose or not. The best acting of the film came from Cameron Diaz as Malkina who, with her silver nail polish and cold look, defined an I don’t give a f&%# attitude.

Additionally, Brad Pitt as Westray a drug deal middle man carried the right amount of emotional detachment, sleaziness, and peacefulness at the path he’s chosen. The obvious point of the film's main character is: Was The Counselor prepared to pay the price for a big drug deal gone bad? The answer seemed to be not really.

There are major dialogue segments by Reiner, Malkina, Westray, and Jefe (Ruben Blades) that warn him about what the price is, but he still takes the chance. However, questions remain; why is he in this drug deal (excitement, money, greed)? What is the motivator?

Then again, maybe this film is just may be a Ridley Scott vehicle to give his advice on living life.

Fassbender was very good, however I didn’t care about him or his character. There was no background about why he would risk love for more money? Cruz was good as Fassbender’s love interest. Bardem, seemed lost in this role. I never got he was in the role but rather speaking the lines. Diaz was fabulous, showing the ability to be a strong dark presence and make each scene she was in interesting. Pitt was really good at having a laissez faire presence while carrying a clear message to the main character. Cormac McCarthy wrote the script but I don’t know if it was him or Scott that decided to glaze over providing enough information to care. Scott, created some amazingly beautiful scenes and shots but did he just want to tell us his version of the saying; you get what you pay for OR you have to be willing to pay the price?

Overall:  This film was forgettable by the next day, although Diaz’s performance will land her more roles.

The Fifth Estate

First Hit:  Although interesting, don’t think I learned much about Assange through its 2+ hours.

This film is very topical in that the US Government just sent Bradley Manning to prison and Edward Snowden is now living in Russia.

The tie between these two is the publication of documents showing the underbelly of our government. However, the film and camera spends a lot of time on Julian Assange (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) but outside a few statements about his past, he ends up being an enigma. Do his decisions make sense? Sometimes.

Does he really believe in what he is doing? It appears so. Does he use people? If the film is to be believed, yes at times. One statement in the film that seemed to fit the character as Cumberbatch portrayed him was: “Julian is out for himself.” For the 2+ hours we float from scene to scene watching and waiting to see how Wikileaks handles the exposure of a plethora of US Government documents.

The suspense is minimal, because we know the answer already. The worst part of the film is that it didn’t leave much of a lasting impression about Assange. I did feel compassion for Daniel Berg (Daniel Bruhl) as he was a believer of Assange’s drive and belief, but ended up feeling betrayed by him.

Did the film move forward the Wikileaks cause? I don’t know. My personal dilemma with Wikileaks is that, although I think exposure of information is really good, if it is posted anonymously, one has to trust that the information is fully validated before it goes public; else it becomes a personal bitch Yelp posting. So far so good; I can only hope it stays that way.

Cumberbatch is excellent at giving the illusion of an enigma of a person. Bruhl is really good as Berg and I could feel him become a believer and how he provided traction to the cause. Daniel Domscheit-Berg and David Leigh wrote the book on which the film is based and it shows the elusiveness of Assange. Bill Condon seemed lost, as we spend 2+ hours getting to the big test of Wiki Leaks but the breadcrumbs along the way weren’t necessarily interesting or engaging.

Overall:  Maybe this film comes too early in Assange’s life. It might have been a better film if there was in-depth character development – as there was none here.