Category Archives: Michael Fassbender

Movie Review: 12 Years a Slave

Leave a reply
Image via Salon

WARNING: Spoilers for real life. According to the Internet, this is now something I have to say. 

Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” is about as intense and emotionally devastating as you might expect. Then again, a drama about slavery probably couldn’t go any other way.

“12 Years a Slave” is a great film that I don’t think I can ever watch again. And that’s a compliment. It plays like a series of terrible atrocities that you wish you had never witnessed, but you feel like a different person for having viewed history from a new perspective.


It seems that Hollywood has finally gotten comfortable telling stories about America’s past with slavery. “12 Years a Slave” is based on a book that is based on a true story of an odd occurrence that was unfortunately not uncommon during one of America’s darkest times. Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man from Saratoga. He is a husband, father, and talented violinist. One day, two white men who probably shouldn’t be trusted (re: they have facial hair) trick Solomon and sell him into slavery. If it takes a movie to make you realize how cruel slavery was, then you’re probably an idiot. If it took a movie to make you realize that something this cruel could actually happen to another human, then you’re probably me.

Image via Daily Princetonian. 

When I think of Solomon Northrup, I’m reminded of something Red said about Andy Dufresne in “The Shawshank Redemption”: “Some birds aren’t meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright.” During these next 12 years, Solomon deals with a series of cruel masters who beat him, manipulate him, and try to extinguish whatever hope might be left inside of him. But as they say in movies, you can’t lose your hope as long as you’re good at playing a musical instrument.

Under the direction of Steve McQueen, “12 Years a Slave” is one of the darkest period dramas I’ve ever seen. At times, it is less about hope and optimism and more about the pure will to survive. There is little talk of morality, just desperate people who will do literally anything they can to be free. The nicest man to take Solomon in (Benedict Cumberbatch) must let him go, as he feels he cannot keep him safe from those who want to hurt him. While “12 Years a Slave” is an emotional film, it does distance itself as much as possible, so as not to alter history. “12 Years a Slave is about witnessing, not changing, history.

Image via Collider

Despite this, McQueen is neither tasteless nor sadistic: he truly knows how to capture tragedy in unimaginably horrifying ways. One scene which involves an attempted punishment for disobedience (you’ll know which one it is when you see it) seems to go on forever. I wish I brought a stopwatch in to time the length of the shot, which gets more and more unbearable and threatening the longer it goes on. McQueen takes the elements of film (image, sound, time, etc.) and uses them masterfully.

“12 Years a Slave” brings up a lot of obvious points (slavery was bad; slaveowners were assholes), while also shedding new light on a part of history that was thought to be so well documented. “12 Years a Slave” is accurate until whoever the history equivalent of Neil deGrasse Tyson says otherwise. Either way, movies should be primarily about capturing the emotions associated with living during a certain period in history. All it takes is a scene where a mother is separated from her two children for another person’s financial benefit in order to get a sense of the cruelties of slavery.

“12 Years a Slave” also focuses on the slaveowners as well. Michael Fassbender is riveting as Edwin Epps, the man who would own Solomon for most of his time as a slave. He’s unpredictable, and lets his power go to his head just a little too much. Paul Dano, meanwhile, lets his Eli Sunday side come back in full form. The most powerful performance, however, comes from Ejiofor, who does so much acting simply with his eyes, which hide so much pain and longing. It’s truly beautiful and moving, and it works perfectly with McQueen’s directing. I sense many future collaborations between McQueen and a majority of the actors from this film.

It might seem difficult to drag yourself to a theater to watch a movie that is this uncompromisingly brutal. Just know that you will be part of an experience that will be talked about for years to come. McQueen defies the norms to make a movie that shouldn’t be defined as “feel-bad,” but also doesn’t resort to a happy ending that ties everything together too perfectly. In the end, one slave is safe, but that was sadly just one man who was able to walk free at that time. In the end, the hope in “12 Years a Slave” lies in the hindsight.

Brain Farts From The Edge

  • Great to see that Brad Pitt walked right off the set of “Inglourious Basterds” for this role, but replaced the mustache with one of those weird chin beards.
  • Speaking of Pitt, it’s funny that the producer would cast himself as the guy who saves the main character. Just saying.
  • Speaking of funny accents, I don’t know what Benedict Cumberbatch was going for. Sure, he wanted to be Southern, but there was still a little bit of British left in there. My theory is that it was a compromise, as Hollywood believes that anyone born before the year 1950 had a British accent (I’m looking at you, “Hugo”). 
  • I should probably write a second post about this film. Soon.
  • I don’t want to Armond White this here, but there were tiny flaws here and there, but definitely not enough to ruin the experience. Mainly, the villains often bordered on cartoonish, but luckily nobody pushed it too far over the line. However, this is a true story, so maybe their actions speak more to the evils of slavery than to the possible flaws in the script. Just an interesting thought to ponder.
  • I don’t know if I am alone here, but there were several occasions throughout the film where I just wish Django would show up.
  • The South was an unjust place. However, McQueen finds time to focus on the beauty of the region. From fields of cotton to jungles of cane to swamps, “12 Years a Slave” had some of the best cinematography of the year.
  • Taran Killam is in this for some reason. You’re awesome Taran, but this casting decision will forever confuse me. 
  • Paul Giamatti. Man, calm down and drink some wine. 
  • Favorite note I took during the movie: “Slaveowners were weird.”
  • I finally figured out where Salvatore Romano has been hiding all of these years. For those of you who don’t watch “Mad Men,” Salvatore Romano is not Ray Romano’s cousin. 
  • The most important note I have ever taken: When he puts on a bandana, Michael Fassbender looks like Chris Meloni in “Wet Hot American Summer.”

Movie Review: Prometheus

3 Replies
Look familiar at all?

Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” is like a sci-fi opus from a better time in the history of sci-fi films. And I would know, because I like to pretend I grew up then. 

“Prometheus” rises above because for once, it is a movie interested in actually exploring what lies in space, as opposed to just killing everything not from our home planet. If you give Ridley Scott a space ship and weird space creatures that like to impregnate people, he will create his best work. Basically, he needs to stay out of Medieval England and French vineyards.

“Prometheus” was sold largely as a possible prequel to the “Alien” franchise. It would be better suited as a prologue than as a prequel. It is not just expanding on the lives of a few characters and explaining trivial details that didn’t need to be explained (do I even have to say it? I’m talking about “Star Wars”). Instead, “Prometheus” is about expanding an entire universe.
Here is a movie that asks a lot of broad questions about the origins of life. They are the kind of questions that have been asked before, but “Prometheus” asks them in ways that you would never think of asking. At times, it doesn’t even feel like giving us all the answers. However, I was always down to stay on this ride until the very end.


“Prometheus” begins in some place that looks an awful lot a cross between Antarctica and Victoria Falls on a planet that may or may not be Earth. A bald man resembling Voldemort eats a black liquid goo, which alters his shape and DNA into something else entirely. 

Cut to the year 2093. Just like the explorers of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a team of scientists on Earth are called to examine something that may explain mankind’s origin, located in deep space. Scott takes his precious time taking us to the new planet, and points his camera at infinite stars, and then tracks it around the elaborately detailed ship. The painstaking attention to detail and abounding curiosity shows Scott in his absolute element.

On Earth, a diagram of planets is found in old cave paintings by archaeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) and their team, which also includes Janek (Idris Elba) and Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron). These planets may map out the beginnings of humanity. Or not. Another thing that makes “Prometheus” work is that it takes so much time to explore its characters, and make each of their personalities distinguishable. Yes, Vickers seems like the kind of person who would order a Vodka Up.


Cue the Weyland Corporation, where aging founder Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce, in inexplicably silly old man makeup) funds the building of Prometheus, a ship which will take its crew to LV-223, a moon named after the toxic air in its atmosphere. I want to leave as much of the plot as a surprise as possible, but let’s just say that being trapped in a cave by yourself in LV-223 filled with creatures you can’t see is even more frightening than being trapped on the Nostromo with one creature you can’t see.

“Prometheus” is the kind of movie I could see myself watching and admiring with the sound turned off. This is not to say that the story is trivial, but that the worlds created are unlike anything I have ever seen. It just about puts Pandora to shame. The 3D is used in the best possible way: it is present, but not too flashy. It is there enough so as to give the stunning images a little more depth, but it doesn’t make things pop out in your face. It is immersive enough that the eyes gets accustomed to it and at times, it doesn’t feel like you are even watching 3D. I still prefer my images to be flat and removed, but “Prometheus” is a big step up for the technology.

Scott utilizes genre so well here as it is not just used as a means for action, but as a means of portraying an incredibly complex view of life. It both shatters and fuels creation myths. It asks many questions that will have you arguing on the car ride home. Does it matter how we were created? Would knowing the answers better or worsen mankind? We all come from somewhere, and the way “Prometheus” portrays it, it certainly isn’t as pretty as we’d like to think.


As this film’s Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) replacement, Rapace perhaps had the biggest shoes to fill. She is a worthy predecessor to Weaver’s throne. She displays Ripley’s bravery and ability to survive against all odds. Because at the end of the day, the ability to persist triumphs above everything else. While Shaw is certainly brilliant, part of her final battle at the end felt like a bit of a cop out, and didn’t allow her to outwit the enemy in quite the same way Ripley did in “Alien” (SPOILER singing it a lullaby while launching it into space? All of the motherly creation themes of the movie lie right there).

            Meanwhile, as David (Biblical name much?), Michael Fassbender is much more philosophical and sophisticated than the machines in “Alien” movies past. He is also one of the keys to figuring out what this movie is about. He plays a robot that is cold and mechanical, yet also very human. Like Scott’s “Blade Runner,” a very human robot can make us question the very definition of what constitutes human life. Can it be simply the ability to breath and make decisions? Does it matter if we are run by blood, or by gears?

In order to enjoy “Prometheus,” you don’t necessarily have to have seen the other “Alien” movies, but it would definitely help. Perhaps you just need to know that the ship is named after the Greek myth of a Titan who wanted to be a God, and was punished because of it. Or so a friend more educated than myself tells me.

The best part is that “Prometheus” actually provides answers that make the “Alien” universe far more interesting and complex. It will definitely create new fans of the series. Perhaps the one thing fans of “Alien” were waiting to see occurs in a very brief instant, and in a pretty ingenious way. It is as if writers Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof (“Lost”) were saying, “here this is what you wanted, right? Are you happy now?” Yes, yes we are. “Prometheus” might try and tackle too much some times, but the scope and intrigue puts it streets ahead of the average franchise blockbuster.


SPOILER SECTION

Here are a few of my thoughts on “Prometheus.” This section is made for anyone who has already seen the movie:

-The big revelation at the end, in which we discover how the Alien was first born. This was not just used simply because it looks cool. After leaving the theater, the true significance really struck me: the Alien came from the same creator as mankind. Therefore, Man and Alien are somewhat related. I will not be able to look at the original “Alien” movies in the same light again.

-The role of religion- In the end, Shaw puts her cross back on her neck, to which David asks, “after all this, you still believe?” Shaw doesn’t respond. Despite being a work of science fiction, “Prometheus” is heavily about God and faith. I can see the touch of “Lost” scribe Lindelof in the aspect. In the “Prometheus” universe, everyone seems to come from some kind of creator, and the fact that the human’s creator can be killed shows perhaps that God is not all powerful. Or, as more eloquently put by Hattori Hanzo, “if on your journey you should encounter God, God will be cut.”

-I think another overall theme of this movie is that creation is a natural process that should not be interfered with, and that creating new life will create chaos in natural order. From the beginning, it seems that the creation of humans was a mistake, and perhaps the reason that man’s predecessors wanted to destroy Earth was as a means of righting their wrong, and creating a new, better life form. After all, when one life form goes extinct, another one can come into existence.

-Here is a very good theory a friend of mine pointed out about David: David himself was disappointed with his own creators. Therefore, he wanted humans to be disappointed when they met their own makers, so he decided to “screw up” contact with the engineers as a means of shattering their illusions and beliefs.

-What did everyone think of the scene in which Shaw has the Alien seed removed from her stomach? As bad as the instance from the first “Alien”? Worse? Or lacking the essential element of surprise? Also, it displays a standard for horror that Scott helped set once upon a time: what we don’t see is scarier than what we actually do see.

Now, share some of your own theories. There is a lot to dig from here.

Movie Review: A Dangerous Method

Leave a reply
Psychoanalyzing the Psychologists

Scorsese has one. Kubrick has one. Cronenberg now has one. The Croneberg stare; in which a character looks into the camera, realizing what they lost is really what they wanted and all they have left to feel is remorse and self-hatred. This happens just seconds before the dramatic cut to black. This is repeated once again in “A Dangerous Method.”

Movies have a funny way of dealing with history. Some praise those movies that remain completely accurate to the facts, and others prefer those that deviate into historical fiction territory. “A Dangerous Method” is a restrained drama that wants to be an intense one and a piece that strives to be totally historically accurate yet deep down, it wants to be an insane piece of historical fiction. 
  “A Dangerous Method” begins at the turn of the 20th century as Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender), a budding star in the psychoanalysis movement, attempts to cure a seemingly incurable patient named Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). Jung’s personality is one that is cold and impersonal, and he doesn’t even look at his patients when he speaks to them. The deeper Jung digs into Sabrina’s child issues, the closer the two become, and the more dangerous their relationship ultimately turns out to be. Let’s just say a touch of S&M is involved. 
While Jung studies and beds Sabina (unbeknownst to his wife), he makes frequent trips to Vienna to visit his friend and mentor, the cigar-chomping Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). The two construct the foundations of early psychoanalysis but they have differing opinions on it. Freud is purely scientific and Jung is quite spiritual. They clash and talk but mostly, they just talk. 
“A Dangerous Method” is not necessarily a bad movie. It is more like a good movie that missed the mark of greatness that it had the potential for. Oftentimes, this is even worse than a movie that is just bad. Cronenberg is an immensely talented director, especially when it comes to dealing with the darkest depths of human behavior. However, he never really makes movies on a larger scale, and a larger scale is exactly what “A Dangerous Method” could have used. 
I walked into “A Dangerous Method” as a stranger to psychology. The many dialogues between Jung and Freud made me more interested in further exploring the subject on my own. However, it is the subject matter, and not the story created about it, that is so interesting here. It tries to tell too many different stories at once and therefore never effectively completes any of them. Cronenberg seems like he wants to focus more on Sabina, and while she has a twisted and interesting mind, there is much more fertile ground that needs to be explored in the rivalry between Freud and Jung. The movie sometimes feels like a vehicle for Knightley’s turn in a dramatic role. She is effective when she’s not hamming it up and being reminiscent of nothing more than a pirate princess.
But let’s back up to the rivalry between Freud and Jung, and the fact that it doesn’t even seem to exist. In the movie, it is less of a rivalry and more like an extended heated argument that leads to nothing once the steam cools. In one brief sentence, it is revealed that Sabina’s findings go against Freud’s findings on sex and the ego. It is addressed once, and then never brought up again. In another similar incident, Freud tells Jung he will reveal nothing of his thoughts to him as a way of remaining powerful over him. It is a strong moment that should have paved the way for an entirely different movie. Why wasn’t Jung more angry at Freud for this, when Jung knew that some of Freud’s findings were wrong?
“A Dangerous Method” should have taken a cue from a much better film about a rivalry during the birth of the new discoveries during the beginning of the 1900s: “There Will Be Blood.” The rivalry of that movie culminated into something much more horrific and tragic; a boom rather than a whimper. Maybe this story would have benefitted in the hands of a different director and a different writer.
“A Dangerous Method” is saved mostly by the outstanding performances of Fassbender and Mortensen. Fassbender rises to the occasion even with some of the flat dialogue he is given and Mortensen, meanwhile, depicts a tone and voice that are reminiscent of Alex DeLarge, who ironically could have used a serious couch session with Freud. The real star of the movie however, is cinematographer Peter Suschitzky. His stunning camerawork is romantic yet haunting; a mood that most perfectly captures the era. I could see myself watching this movie with the volume off and just being carried away by the imagery.
All of those great parts just feel like fragments. Occasional lines are thrown in here and there to show their importance but then are never brought back to their full extent. “A Dangerous Method” is like watching a very monotonous professor in a very crowded Psych 101 lecture. That is why that stare at the end feels blake rather than thoughtful at the end, as Cronenberg’s previous features (“A History of Violence”, “Eastern Promises”) left so much more to ponder. “A Dangerous Method” consists of many great parts searching for a much better movie to be a part of.   

Movie Review: Fish Tank

Leave a reply

Mia is always running. You would to if you lived a life like her’s. Her life is hard. That might sound vague, but her plight is emphasized in almost unbearably vivid detail in “Fish Tank.”

“Fish Tank” is the next chapter in what I consider a British New Wave. Along with last year’s “In the Loop,” “An Education,” and “Moon” as well as 2008′s “In Bruges,” “Fish Tank” is part of a series of incredibly well crafted (and entertaining) British films.
Of all these films, “Fish Tank” might just be the darkest. It is a gritty look at lower class life. With its shaky camera, “Fish Tank” at times feels like a documentary. The film follows the life of Mia (Katie Jarvis). Mia is a 15-year-old living on the outskirts of London with a tendency to get in trouble. On the outside, she’s tough and reckless. On the inside, she’s vulnerable and dreams of being a dancer.
Any hope Mia might have is crushed by her physically abusive and unloving mother. Her mother’s new boyfriend, Connor (Michael Fassbender), is kind and caring. Mia soon falls in love with him, and begins a doomed affair with him.
“Fish Tank” introduces its audience to a world it is likely not at all familiar with it. By the end, you’ll feel like you lived it. As mentioned, the constantly shaking camera makes the film feel like a documentary. When Mia sits, the camera sits. When Mia runs, it runs with her, shaking all the way, as if someone is directly following her every step.
The film’s cinematography is just one thing to show that this film is alive. Not to mention, the constantly changing colors brilliantly match each shot and never get in the way of the story (this was a big problem for me in “A Single Man”). Then there is the music. The rap songs help make this film the most vibrant and energetic social drama I’ve seen since “Do the Right Thing.”
It is amazing to say that I’m saying that a film like “Fish Tank,” full of emotionally devastating abuse, could also be classified as energetic. It is a testament to the power of Mia, that she can still bring life and energy into such horrible circumstances.
Speaking of Mia, she’s an interesting character to talk about. She reminds me in a way of a young, more destitute Madame Bovary for the 21st century. She seems to base her life in the idea of fantasy so much that she blends fantasy and reality. This can be seen in her affair with Connor. She might think she’s finding true love, but actually, in a twisted way, she’s really searching for a father figure in her life. Or maybe she just needs an intelligent and caring male to counteract the poor female role model in her life.
Newcomer Katie Jarvis is electrifying in her debut performance. She has no problem going down to the hardboiled truth of Mia’s character. I was also thoroughly impressed by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender wowed me in his brief performance in “Inglourious Basterds” and in “Fish Tank” he brings that same tough yet relaxed geniality to make Connor a character who is hard to hate. Fassbender is blossoming into something of a great actor, and I’m expecting much from him in the years to come.
“Fish Tank” is a great movie because it takes a good story and uses a distinct directorial style to make it great. Director Andrea Arnold has a love of the surrounding world. She’ll often focus on different objects around a room to directly reveal character.
Arnold also focuses heavily on the surroundings, like a giant wind turbine that lies right outside her apartment. It creates a direct contrast between two very different worlds within such close distance. Then there is the film’s beautiful last image. I won’t give it away, but I will say is that it nearly encapsulates the entire film in just one shot. Even in a film that seems to deny the idea that people can live out their wildest fantasies, this one shot shows that in a hard world love still exists if you actually try and find it. The title itself, meanwhile, shows how everyone is trapped into their own personal fish tank of an existence. Only the strongest can swim away.
Even though it’s only February, “Fish Tank” is the first great film to be released in 2010, and one that will most definitely be a top 10 contender come December.