I would think it’s a tough task for anyone with a moral compass to be able to sit comfortably through a movie about slavery. I would say it’s virtually impossible with director Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave”. This edgy, brutal, and uncomfortable drama takes a no-holds-barred approach in its depiction of one of America’s darkest times. That’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes people need to be jarred out of their comfort zone in order to truly understand the weight of the subject matter.

But in taking such an approach a movie is faced with an assortment of unique challenges especially in this case. McQueen has made some rather unusual comments on race and slavery. Some critics have lauded “12 Years a Slave” as the anti-“Gone with the Wind”, giving the one true and broad sweeping counter view of southern life and of all southern people. Things like this throw up unfortunate obstacles which can create a negative aura around a film. This can be a problem for those unable to separate such comments and positions from the movie itself. I try to judge a movie on its own merits and hope that the outside stuff doesn’t cause problems. Such was my approach to “12 Years a Slave”.

The film is adapted from the 1853 autobiography of Solomon Northup. McQueen was deeply moved by this stunning story of a free black man who is kidnapped and sold into slavery. As advertised, McQueen’s film pulls no punches. The movie certainly looks at slavery and the plantation life from one specific perspective and it offers no room for any other interpretation. But amazingly it’s extremely effective within the context of the story. I never felt McQueen was making a blanket statement about the South. Instead I felt he was forcing the audience to look at slavery from a position that is so often swept under the rug. We do squirm. We do wince. But sometimes we need to.

McQueen’s direction is strong. He carves a number of piercing images into our minds many of which will stick with me for a while. It may be his artful camera movement that focuses on a certain object or it may be a long take where his stationary camera refuses to let us turn away from the brutality on the screen. He captures the natural beauty of the deep South while exposing the ugliness boiling out of some of his characters. The settings, the atmospheres, the environments all ring true and at no point feel fabricated.

Helping his direction is a powerful yet subtle score from Hans Zimmer and an often times brilliant script from John Ridley. Ridley compliments McQueen’s vision by conceiving some powerful moments of unflinching truth. He also develops a number of characters that you’ll either strongly sympathize with or strongly detest. Regardless of which, you can’t take your eyes off of them. Unfortunately some of the film’s weaknesses can be traced back to his script. While at times Ridley’s story offers unquestionable greatness, I did feel he stretched things out a little too long. In a film like this you don’t want to do anything that would take the edge off of your message. I’m not saying Ridley did that, but he may have dulled it a bit during the middle of the movie. Thankfully things definitely picked up in the final act.

And then there is Chiwetel Ejiofor’s performance as Solomon. It is something to behold. He’s a perfect choice for the role. It’s an emotionally and physically taxing role as we see him move from a happy free family man to a kidnapped, separated, and brutalized slave. The skill with which Ejiofor handles some of these intensely difficult scenes is mind-blowing.

He’s helped by a fantastic supporting cast, most of who give really good performances. Perhaps my favorite performance in the entire movie is from Michael Fassbender. He plays a mercurial and utterly abhorrent plantation owner whose volatility knows no bounds. He’ll make your skin crawl and his barbarism will have you questioning his humanity. Fassbender really sells him. I also really liked Benedict Cumberbatch who plays a gentler plantation owner with a moral sensibility yet conflicted with the very slavery that he participates in. And I have to mention Lupita Nyong’o who plays a slave caught in an unwinnable circumstance. She is fantastic.

But there are two performances that stand out like a sore thumb. With a cast this big normally you could overlook them. But both are pivotal in that they drastically change Solomon’s circumstances. Paul Dano, an actor I’ve been very vocal about in the past, is just dreadful as a hateful slave foreman. Dano speaks his lines with that same weak, sniveling delivery that we’ve seen over and over. The problem is the role calls for something much more than he can deliver. Then Brad Pitt shows up complete with an Amish beard, a pretty corny accent, and with some of the more contrived lines of the entire film. To be fair, much of this falls in Ridley’s lap. He writes the character for the purpose of offering a moral summarization to the audience. He’s basically telling how to think and feel instead of just letting the potency of his film speak to our hearts.

While a few things do keep “12 Years a Slave” from being a masterpiece, it still is incredibly effective in giving us a look at slavery that is piercing and heart-wrenching. It does make us ask important questions but also appreciate how far we’ve come. Maybe there is an attempt here to give a one-sided visualization of the South, a perspective that has been shown to be untrue. But I didn’t get that from this film. I saw it as the incredible story of a man and his painful journey. His journey took him to dark and despicable places that are often times passed by. This film reminds us that they should never be forgotten. And for that alone Steve McQueen deserves a ton of credit.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Of all the superhero movies released in the Marvel cinematic universe, 2011’s “Thor” was the biggest surprise. It was the fourth film in Marvel Studios’ highly profitable and generally entertaining world and it was very smart in its execution. It never took itself too seriously and that clever mixture of humor and superhero action proved to be a winning formula.

Combine all of that with a near $450 million box office take and you know a sequel is guaranteed. That sequel comes not during the traditional summer blockbuster season but nestled in November. It’s “Thor: The Dark World” and it continues the story of our Asgardian hero. It’s a busy time for Thor (Chris Hemsworth). He’s just led the final battle in a two year war which brought peace to the Nine Realms and he’s brought Loki (Tom Hiddleston) to Asgard to face justice for his actions in New York City (see “The Avengers” if you’re unfamiliar with Loki’s transgressions). All the Asgardian characters from the first film return including Odin (Anthony Hopkins) whose relationship with his son Thor certainly isn’t as heated as in the first film. Odin is still grumpy and at times arrogant. But his devotion to protecting his people is unquestionable.

Back on Earth Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) has relocated to London where she has continued her scientific studies. She stumbles across a portal which exposes her to an ancient force called the Aether. This seemingly sentient liquid enters Jane’s body which grabs the attention of the observing Asgardians. Thor makes his return and takes Jane to Asgard in an attempt to free her of the Aether. But the Asgardians aren’t the only ones drawn to the Aether. An evil Dark Elf named Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) seeks the Aether’s power in hopes of joining with it to take the world back to the dark days before creation – a time where the Dark Elves ruled.

There’s a lot of story there and for the most part the film does a good job of bringing it all together. We have the central conflict between the Asgardians and the Malekith-led Dark Elves. We see more of the complex family dynamic between Odin, Thor, Loki, and Frigga (Rene Russo). We get more of the complicated romance between Thor and Jane. For my money all of the film’s different storylines are told well even though there are a few small shortcomings. First, I found myself slightly bogged down during a couple of the films heavy bits of exposition. There are also things that you just have to accept in a movie like this. If you start questioning them too much you’ll ruin the movie for yourself. They are unavoidable holes that even the best Hollywood writers couldn’t fill.

But put that aside and you have a really fun movie. It doesn’t forget those elements that made the first film a success, mainly a sense of humor. In many ways the first film was a ‘fish out of water’ tale. We get a little of that again, this time with Jane in Asgard, and that offers some funny monents. We also have the return of Kat Dennings as Darcy, Jane’s assistant. I found her to be a bit on the nose in the first film. Her designation as comic relief was way too obvious. In the sequel I felt differently. I thought she was funnier and easily more entertaining this go around. There are several really good laughs in “Thor: The Dark World” many of which are nestled in the middle of some of the film’s bigger action sequences. But the humor doesn’t drown us. This is still a superhero action picture and the action is satisfying. There are loads of really cool special effects and some fun battles that stand out.

But a major reason it all works is the phenomenal cast. Of all the character franchises in Marvel’s movie universe, Thor may have my favorite cast of the lot. Hemsworth is just perfect as Thor. He looks and acts the part wonderfully. I’ve mentioned the big roles played by Hopkins and Portman. But it’s great performances in smaller roles that are just as effective. I love Idris Elba as Heimdall, Asgard’s cosmic watchman. I also really like Jaimie Alexander as Sif (I would have loved to have seen more of her in this film). It’s also great watching Rene Russo in a bigger role and Stellan Skarsgard having a lot of fun reprising his Dr. Erik Selvig role. But as always it’s Tom Hiddleston who steals the show for me. Hiddleston absolutely owns the Loki character and I’ll never get tired of watching him steal scene after scene.

It could be said that “Thor: The Dark World” doesn’t feature a top villain on par with other Marvel heavyweights and there are a few minor plot holes and oversights. But to me this is still a wildly entertaining sequel and another fine installment into Marvel’s cinematic world. At first I had some doubts as to whether Thor had the strength to carry his own franchise. I’m sold now. Thor offers a very different type of film from the other Marvel movies and that freshness works for me. But it’s still nicely tied into the greater cinematic universe. Just stay for the mid-credits and after-credits scenes if you need even more proof of that.

VERDICT – 3 STARS