All subject matter, no movie quality.

Rating: 5/10 (18 August 2015)

I cannot objectively find justice that this movie received critical acclaim and best picture Oscar. yet again, it seems that the subject matter was enough to guilt-trip people into believing this was a great movie. Well it's simply not. Film producers seem to sit around and decide not what movies to make, but which movie they are going to put forward for the best picture award. It's easy, you don't need imagination, creativity or an excellent screenplay - you just need the right subject matter; something historical, a biopic (almost always with a 'snappy' title taken from the subjects last name) or something related to war, civil rights, anything political, anything about disabilities or social injustice. Although these movies do not win the award, you can be sure as hell they will be in the running, movie producers have that power at least. There is no style to this movie whatsoever - anybody could have made it. I don't believe Steve Mcqueen had any opportunity to express himself. The movie was not his idea, but again the idea of Oscar hungry producers who got a hold of an 'Oscar worthy' idea and decided what the movie would be. I'm sure they knew exactly what they wanted before hiring Mcqueen for his name, which would be powerful enough to bring in more attention, while he himself is not so established a director as to threaten the studio with his ambition or movie making principles. Two cameo appearances rubbed me up the wrong way. Firstly Paul Giamatti's role as some form of slave trade administrator, which lasted about a minute and a half. Earlier in his career Giamatti was known to have played these bit-parts and although perhaps not quite a household name, he is a well recognised face who one could imagine taking the lead in an Oscar winning movie. The fact that he appears for such a short time suggested his inclusion was a cheeky nod from the director to say "Look, it's Paul Giamatti. We are friends. We must be friends otherwise why would he agree to such a minor role?" The second cameo that bothered me was where Brad Pitt popped up about half an hour from the end. Now I love Pitt, but again this is not the role for him. I had the horrible feeling that the producers managed to hire him for one afternoon before he had to rush back to making whichever movie he was really interested in making. Pitt appeared in two scenes, made one medium sized monologue about the injustice of the slave trade (which was far too blunt) and had a short conversation with the lead about delivering a letter which would see him freed. When you are this far into a movie you are supposed to be glued to the story. If you go to see a Brad Pitt movie where he is in a leading role, you should be forgetting that it is Pitt early on and only be thinking of the character from there on, but when Pitt showed up about one hour forty into 12 Years a Slave, it just drew me out of the movie. Instead of thinking "Who is the new character at the plantation" I and I am sure everyone was thinking "Oh, Brad Pitt! I didn't know he was in this movie." I also guarantee many viewers were not listening to what his character was saying as they too busy giggling at the sight of him kitted out in the appropriate clothing complete with old-timey facial hair. Cameos should be left to more lighthearted genres where it is OK for the audience to be well aware that they are watching a movie. These cameos felt like such amateur mistakes. The fact that the producers hoped the subject matter would be enough to win the Oscar is so evident from the lack of substance in the movie. All that happens is that a free black man is abducted (somehow) and lives as a slave for many years. He has a horrible time of it as do the other slaves...that's it. The movie ends very quickly so as to disguise the fact that they did not know how to finish the movie. Nothing occurs between the time the lead actor asks Pitt's character to deliver the letter (despite talk of the risks involved in delivering the letter - this goes nowhere and we see nothing) the carriage shows up to free him and that is that. Predictably, what details of Solomon's life the screenplay could not find room for was hurriedly read from the screen prior to the end credits. Least favourite moment for me was where Soloman was strung up by the neck and left on his tippy-toes in the mud, struggling to keep himself upright enough as not to choke to death. This was supposed to be horrible and uncomfortable and I understand that was the purpose of the scene and the reason for it's longevity - but they overdid it. The scene felt like about 3 minutes long and soon I was not just keen for it to end because Solomon was choking, but rather I was irritated at the sound of the mud under his feet. When one is more concerned with his own ears than the main character's neck, it is pretty clear that errors have been made. The 5 stars I have given this movie are for the actors, make-up artists, costume department and visual effects people etc.