Review: Dallas Buyers Club

Focus Features

Much of this year and reaching back into 2012, film audiences have been stunned by the overhaul that is Matthew McConaughey. The pretty boy actor formerly known for taking his shirt off in every movie he was in and only producing chick flicks and romcoms took a couple years off from acting and came back with the proclamation that he was only going to take roles that "scared him." Many actors have said similar things, but none have had the turn-around we've seen from McConaughey. With Magic Mike, Killer Joe, and Mud, McConaughey has proven that he can handle roles outside of being shirtless including comedic ones but also dark, ruthless killers. With Martin Scorses' star-studded Wolf of Wall Street still to be released this Christmas, McConaughey seems to be putting everything he's got into winning an Oscar this year.

But first, we must consider Dallas Buyers Club, the movie many critics are saying could potentially win McConaughey the Oscar. The film received early attention due to behind-the-scenes shots of a shockingly emaciated McConaughey who underwent extreme weight loss to portray real-life AIDS victim Ron Woodroof. Like Robert De Niro, Christian Bale, and others before him, McConaughey seemed to be going the route of extreme body-makeover to draw even more attention to his new dedication to serious acting. Along with the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I eagerly awaited Dallas Buyers Club to be released in a city near me. I didn't expect too much from the movie as a whole, but I figured it'd be worth seeing for McConaughey's undoubtedly great performance. Because as many Oscar hopefuls have demonstrated in the past, often times a film doesn't have much more to offer other than an impacting protagonist.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

Fox Searchlight Pictures

The picture above is a still frame from a shot in 12 Years a Slave that lasts at least a full minute. The camera remains fixed on Solomon Northup's (Chiwetel Ejiofor) face as he simply stares. This shot occurs late in the film so the audience has already witnessed a host of atrocities committed against Solomon. You half expect the camera to cut away to reveal some horrendous sight or the beginning to a new scene, but it does not. Such a long, lingering shot of his downcast face forces the audience to try and imagine what he is feeling. Solomon was kidnapped from freedom with his family in New York and forced into slavery to suffer at the hands of several, very cruel slave owners. What could he possibly be thinking and feeling, nearly 12 years later?

In the end, we really cannot know. I think director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame) had this intention all along. He's mentioned in interviews how he wanted to make a realistic depiction of slavery and felt that Hollywood had not done a sufficient job up to this point. He came across the true story of Solomon, written by the man himself, and figured he'd finally found a story that would do justice to years and years of injustices against an entire race. It was a very ambitious plan, but McQueen's previous films more than demonstrate that he is an expert when it comes to directing highly emotional and intense content.

Review: Captain Phillips

Columbia Pictures

I was hesitant about Captain Phillips at first for a number of reasons. For one, I find many, recent "based on a true story" films unnecessary. Part of the reason being a clear attempt by Hollywood at jumping on the bandwagon of any recent, big news story. They rightly estimate that enough people will be curious enough to pay to see a cinematic rendition of something they saw plastered all over CNN and Fox News for weeks. And they do so out of sheer curiosity or the idea that they'll somehow learn something new from an often largely fictitious reenactment. Or, what I'll never understand, is that so many people actually go to see many movies solely based off of the "based on a true story" tagline because that makes a movie somehow "better" or more "worthwhile." I don't believe a movie, or story for that matter, loses any of its meaning or impact just because it happened once upon a time or it didn't. I don't know about you, but the movies and stories that have impacted me the most have been fiction. After all, most "true" stories aren't that at all. So, obviously, I had my reservations about Captain Phillips' largest claim to fame besides the presence of one of every American's favorite actor, Tom Hanks.

Secondly, I am not the biggest fan of Paul Greengrass' directing style. The Bourne Supremacy was Greengrass' first big hit as a director followed closely by United 93 and The Bourne Ultimatum. Greengrass' shaky-cam, quicking cutting (the average shot in The Bourne Supremacy is something like 1.5 seconds or 2 seconds long, I don't remember exactly but it's crazy short) style thrilled Bourne fans and is an effective, albeit easy, way of creating high tension and forcing the audience to focus as hard as they can on what the hell is going on. In the case of the Bourne films it was usually a matter of keeping track of who was still holding the knife in a very intense, hand-to-hand fight in a dirty hotel room in Berlin or something like that. Suffice to say, Greengrass' style, while definitely effective, is generally uncomfortable to watch. I much prefer smoother, more graceful styles of cinematography and editing. So, Captain Phillips also sounded like a rather unpleasant viewing experience that I'd rather not inflict upon myself.