An unforgivably wasted opportunity to tell a remarkable story

Rating: 3/10 (5 April 2014)

Several months ago I was fortunate enough to discover the 1984 movie "Solomon Northup's Odyssey" among my local television listings. To my great surprise, I had never heard of this fascinating true story and sat enrapt while the compelling plot line unfolded of a free black man in 1841 Saratoga, New York, a talented fiddler, who was hoodwinked into traveling down to Washington, D.C. for a paid musical engagement and then kidnapped into slavery.
After all the Oscar hoopla, I caught "12 Years a Slave" on "On Demand" and I hate to have to say this, but I was exceedingly disappointed.
For one thing, if I had not seen the prior movie, I would have had difficulty following the finer points of this story line. Right off the bat, I knew I would be frustrated by the disjointed manner in which this movie unfolded. The use of flashbacks can be a very effective instrument, but here it was over-used, leaving the movie with little coherence.
Accordingly, there were small - sometimes important - details to the plot that I simply did not grasp.
More importantly, AND THIS IS WHAT IS SO EGREGIOUS: The director jettisoned a golden opportunity to tell a truly compelling and largely unknown story in favor of the opportunity to wallow in sadism and brutality.
We all know that slavery was a cruel, barbaric institution. But enough already! This movie was far too graphic in its violence. Was it really necessary to watch the skin being flayed off Patsey's back while she is being whipped? Was it really essential to the plot line to see Solomon hanging at the end of a noose for the length of time that the camera dwelled on this scene? Isn't it possible to get a point across without bringing the audience to the verge of nausea? One review on this site likened this movie to "The Passion of the Christ," and I think that's very apt.
I must say the acting of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon was phenomenal. He was well deserving of his Oscar nomination. However, and I know there will be disagreement here, but I thought the rest of the acting was atrocious (the other exception being Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey). Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps was little more than the stereotype of a cruel and downright depraved slaveowner. Sarah Paulson as his wife was little more than an overly theatrical evil stepmother. And Brad Pitt? What the heck was that all about?
The ending was a sore disappointment. For one thing, Solomon's reunion with his family fell absolutely flat. Granted, it gave Mr. Ejiofor another opportunity to shine in his acting ability, but why so little joy on the part of his family upon his reunion with them?
Also criminally lacking was the background story of how Solomon came to be rescued. The behind-the-scenes machinations of his wife back in New York to find his whereabouts were simply swept under the rug.
In actuality, the movie gave short shrift to BOTH the before AND after of how Solomon was tricked into slavery, all in favor of the chance to bring stomach-churning brutality to the big screen. And that is a shame.
Very disappointing after all the press that this movie has generated. In the past I have painstakingly avoided movies that were presaged by the prospect of graphic violence, and if I had known that this was one of those movies, I would have avoided it as well.
Three out of ten stars, only for the stellar acting of the lead.
My best advice to anyone who reads this review is to try to get your hands on the aforementioned "Solomon Northup's Odyssey," a far better movie.