"DOCTOR STRANGE" (2016) Review

“DOCTOR STRANGE” (2016) Review

Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) scored its first big box office hit of 2016 with the release of “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”. Six months later, the organization and producer Kevin Fiege scored another hit with its first adaptation of the Marvel Comics character, Doctor Strange. 

Directed by Scott Derrickson and starring Benedict Cumberbatch in the starring role, “DOCTOR STRANGE” told unveiled the origin story of a successful New York City neurosurgeon named Dr. Stephen Strange, whose career ends when he loses the use of both hands in a traumatic car accident. Despite emotional support from his former lover and colleague Dr. Christine Palmer, Stephen vainly pursues one experimental surgery after another in the hopes of mending his hands, so that he can regain his medical career. When all else fails, he learns about a paraplegic who was mysteriously able to walk again named Jonathan Pangborn. The latter directs Stephen to a community in Tibet called Kamar-Taj.

Upon reaching the Tibetan city, Stephen meets a sorcerer named Karl Mordo. The latter recommends Strange as a potential student to his former mentor, a sorceress named The Ancient One. The latter displays her abilities with the mystic arts to Stephen, revealing the astral plane and other dimensions such as the Mirror Dimension. An amazed Strange begs her to teach him her abilities. The Ancient One reluctantly agrees, despite her wariness over his arrogance, which reminds her of a former student named Kaecilius. The latter and his new group of zealots had recently broke into Kamar-Taj secret compound, beheaded the librarian and stolen a secret ritual from a book that belonged to the Ancient One. With this stolen ritual, Kaecilius hopes to learn the means to acquire the power of eternal life. And it is up to The Ancient One, Mordo, the new librarian Wong and Stephen to stop him.

Superficially, “DOCTOR STRANGE” proved to be a different kettle of fish for Marvel. One, due to the abilities of the main protagonist and other supporting characters, this movie marked the MCU’s first foray into magic. Well … not really. The two previous “THOR” more or less stated that at least two of its characters practiced magic. But the subject of magic was never fully explored until “DOCTOR STRANGE”. Also, the movie marked the first time in which the main character practiced magic. Second, the method in which Stephen defeated the main antagonist’s goals did not rely upon violence of any kind. Our magical hero basically resorted to magic and cunning to win the day. To be honest, I cannot recall any other Marvel hero or heroine who did not resort to brute force to defeat any of the main villains in the past thirteen films. And although the MCU movie had its share of unusual visual effects - especially 2015’s “ANT-MAN”, those for “DOCTOR STRANGE” has to be the most visually stunning effects I have ever seen in any Marvel film so far. 

As for the narrative itself … well, it is not bad. Aside from the unorthodox manner in which Stephen defeated the villain(s), “DOCTOR STRANGE” seemed to be your typical, paint-by-the-numbers superhero origin story. And I noticed that the film borrowed a good deal from other movies. Considering Stephen’s arrogant and witty personality, the movie bears a strong resemblance to the 2008 film, “IRON MAN”. In fact, like Tony Stark, Stephen’s arrogance remains intact by the last reel. Also, some of the visual effects reminded me of those found in Christopher Nolan’s 2010 movie, “INCEPTION”. And one of the villains that Stephen has to defeat in the end, Dormammu, reminded me of the villain called Parallax from the 2011 D.C. Comics film, “THE GREEN LANTERN”. Perhaps the originality found in “DOCTOR STRANGE” is limited to the MCU movies.

Although the topic of magic allowed the special effects team to provide moviegoers with some astounding visuals, I must admit that I found the movie’s portryal of magic to be a little … well, limited. Most of the magic presented in “DOCTOR STRANGE” seemed to consist of jumping through portals - either from one spot on the Earth to the next or to another dimension. If the movie’s magic practitioners were not jumping through portals, they were utilzing magical objects like the red Mystical Cloak of Levitation from the New York City sanctum that attached itself to Stephen; and the Eye of Agamotto, a relic containing an Infinity Stone that can manipulate time - which Stephen had used against Dormammu in the final action scene. Only one spell had appeared in the movie - the one that Kaecilius used to summon Dormammu.

The movie’s narrative suffered from one major aspect - characterization. One, the story lacked a strong leading lady. I personally have nothing against Rachel McAdams as an actress. But it seemed obvious that director/screenwriter Scott Derrickson and his fellow writers, Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill did not know what to do with the Christine Palmer character. She was there to simply there to comfort Stephen following his accident and tend to his wounds, later in the film. At least McAdams had more lines than fellow cast member, Michael Stuhlbarg. The latter portrayed fellow surgeon, Nicodemus West, who seemed to exist to receive caustic criticism and needling from Stephen. Otherwise … what on earth was he there for? I realize that Marvel has a history of wasting some of its supporting character, but … good grief! And then we have poor Mads Mikkelsen, who had the bad luck to be cast as one of the most badly written villains in the MCU franchise. The Danish actor portrayed The Ancient One’s former student, Kaecilius, who resented the Ancient One’s method for maintaining a long life and long to do the same … even if it meant threatening the world by summoning Dormammu, the inter-dimensional being responsible for his former mentor’s long life. That is basically Kaecilius’ goal - to extend his life. That is what his attacks on the Ancient One’s sanctums in different parts of the world were about. Quite frankly, I was not impressed and believe that Mikkelsen was wasted in the role. Two actors and an actress wasted in one film. I find this disturbing.

And then … we have Tilda Swinton in the role of “The Ancient One”. In the Marvel comics, the Ancient One was a Tibetan man. In the name of “diversity”, Marvel decided to re-write the character as a Celtic woman … and still have her located in Tibet. Hmmmmm. Mind you, Swinton gave a first-rate performance as the mysterious and somewhat ambiguous spiritual and magical leader. But … “whitewashing!”. Marvel committed a major act of whitewashing. It is not the first time. But this was the most obvious example, considering the arguments that Derrickson and his two co-writers Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill used to excuse their changes. They had claimed that they wanted to avoid the stereotypical portrayal of Asians - namely the “Dr. Fu Manchu”, “Dragon Lady” or the “young Asian woman sex fetish” types - by re-writing the Ancient One role as a non-Asian. So, they cast Swinton in the role. Frankly, I did not buy the arguments. The filmmakers did NOT have to re-write the role as a Westerner in order to avoid the Asian stereotypes. Any good actor or actress of Asian descent worth his or her salt could have done wonders with the role without resorting to stereotypes. A good example would be James Hong and Victor Wong’s outstanding performances in the 1986 movie, “BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA”. But if Marvel was that determined for Ms. Swinton to portray “The Ancient One”, they could have re-located the character’s main sanctum somewhere in Scotland, Ireland or Wales.

However, “DOCTOR STRANGE” did feature some interesting performances that I had enjoyed. Benedict Wong, who could have easily been cast in the role of “The Ancient One”, managed to give a subtle and wry performance as the Kamar-Taj Sanctum’s librarian, Wong, despite his minimal screen appearances. Benjamin Bratt gave a brief, but very memorable performance as Jonathan Pangborn, a paraplegic who learned how to heal himself under the tutelege of “The Ancient One”. The movie’s mid-credit sequence also featured an amusing appearance by Chris Hemsworth as Thor. I can only assume that this was Marvel’s way of introducing the next film featuring the “God of Thunder” and the fact that Cumberbatch’s Stephen Strange will be appearing in that film.

When “DOCTOR STRANGE” first hit the movie screens, many filmgoers had complained about his American accent. To be honest, Cumberbatch’s accent seemed to lack any traces of his British ancestry. But I thought his accent had a trans-Atlantic vibe that I found rather bland. I could not regard his performance as the imaginative, yet arrogant Dr. Stephen Strange as bland. Like Robert Downey Jr. before him, Cumberbatch managed to create a character that was both infuriating and likable. But I thought that Chiwetel Ejiofor’s portrayal of Karl Mordo, another sorcerer who was trained by the Ancient One, proved to be the most interesting one in the film. Ironically, there was no outcry over the Karl Mordo character being changed from an Eastern European to a person of African descent. Considering the difficulties that many non-white actors and actresses still face in acquiring work in the movie and television industries, I am not surprised. But the best thing about Ejiofor is how he transformed Karl from an amiable sorcerer with a deep faith in the practices taught to him by the Ancient One to a potentially dangerous fanatic who became embittered by the Ancient One and Stephen’s willingness to use magic to defy nature. It is a pity that his performance has not garner much notice, except by the Evening Standard British Film Awards.

Overall, “DOCTOR STRANGE” is a solid entry for the Marvel Cinematic Universe that featured decent direction by Scott Derrickson and solid performances from a cast led by Benedict Cumberbatch. But aside from the movie’s visual effects, I would not consider to be particularly mind-blowing. I also believe that the movie was hampered by some poor characterizations and a misguided casting choice for one particular character. Oh well, Marvel cannot always hit it out of the ballpark. 

"DOCTOR STRANGE" (2016) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franchise, "DOCTOR STRANGE". Based upon the Marvel Comics character and directed by Scott Derrickson, the movie stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Steven Strange aka Doctor Strange: 


"DOCTOR STRANGE" (2016) Photo Gallery

"12 YEARS A SLAVE" (2013) Review

"12 YEARS A SLAVE" (2013) Review

I first learned about Solomon Northup many years ago, when I came across a television adaptation of his story in my local video story. One glance at the video case for "HALF-SLAVE, HALF-FREE: SOLOMON NORTHUP'S ODYSSEY" made me assume that this movie was basically a fictional tale. But when I read the movie's description on the back of the case, I discovered that I had stumbled across an adaption about a historical figure. 

Intrigued by the idea of a free black man in antebellum America being kidnapped into slavery, I rented "HALF-SLAVE, HALF-FREE: SOLOMON NORTHUP'S ODYSSEY", which starred Avery Brooks, and enjoyed it very much. In fact, I fell in love with Gordon Park's adaption so much that I tried to buy a video copy of the movie. But I could not find it. Many years passed before I was able to purchase a DVD copy. And despite the passage of time, I still remained impressed by the movie. However, I had no idea that someone in the film industry would be interested in Northup's tale again. So, I was very surprised to learn of a new adaptation with Brad Pitt as one of the film's producer and Briton Steve McQueen as another producer and the film's director.

Based upon Northup's 1853 memoirs of the same title, "12 YEARS A SLAVE" told the story of a New York-born African-American named Solomon Northup, who found himself kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1841. Northup was a 33 year-old carpenter and violinist living in Saratoga Springs, New York with his wife and children. After Mrs. Northup leaves Saratoga Springs with their children for a job that would last for several weeks, Northup is approached by two men, who offered him a brief, high-paying job as a musician with their traveling circus. Without bothering to inform Northup traveled with the strangers as far as south as Washington, D.C. Not long after his arrival in the capital, Northup found himself drugged and later, bound in the cell of a slave pen. When Northup tried to claim he was a free man, he was beaten and warned never again to mention his free status again.

Eventually, Northup and a group of other slaves were conveyed to the slave marts of New Orleans, Louisiana and given the identity of a Georgia-born slave named "Platt". There, a slave dealer named Theophilus Freeman sells him to a plantation owner/minister named William Ford. The latter's kindness seemed to be offset by his unwillingness to acknowledge the sorrow another slave named Eliza over her separation from her children. When Northup has a violent clash with one of Ford's white employees, a carpenter named John Tibeats, the planter is forced to sell the Northerner to another planter named Edwin Epps. Unfortunately for Northup, Epps proves to be a brutal and hard man. Even worse, Epps becomes sexually interested in a female slave named Patsey. She eventually becomes a victim of Epps' sexual abuse and Mrs. Epps' jealousy. And Epps becomes aware of Patsey's friendship with Northup.

"TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE" has gained a great deal of critical acclaim since its release. It is already considered a front-runner for the Academy Awards. Many critics and film goers consider it the truest portrait of American slavery ever shown in a Hollywood film. I have to admit that both director Steve McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley have created a powerful film. Both did an excellent job of translating the basic gist of Solomon Northup's experiences to the screen. And both did an excellent job re-creating a major aspect of American slavery. I was especially impressed by certain scenes that featured the emotional and physical trauma that Northup experienced during his twelve years as a Southern slave. 

For me, one of the most powerful scenes featured Northup's initial experiences at the Washington D.C. slave pen, where one of the owners resorted to physical abuse to coerce him into acknowledging his new identity as "Platt". Other powerful scenes include the slave mart sequence in New Orleans, where fellow slave Eliza had to endure the loss of her children through sale. I found the revelation of Eliza's mixed blood daughter being sold to a New Orleans bordello rather troubling and heartbreaking. Northup's encounter with Tibeats struck me fascinating . . . in a dark way. But the film's most powerful scene - at least for me - proved to be the harsh whipping that Patsey endured for leaving the plantation to borrow soap from a neighboring plantation. Some people complained that particular scene bordered on "torture porn". I disagree. I found it brutal and frank.

I have to give kudos to the movie's visual re-creation of the country's Antebellum Period. As in any well made movie, this was achieved by a group of talented people. Adam Stockhausen's production designs impressed me a great deal, especially in scenes featuring Saratoga Springs of the 1840s, the Washington D.C. sequences, the New Orleans slave marts and of course, the three plantations where Northup worked during his twelve years in Louisiana. In fact, the entire movie was filmed in Louisiana, including the Saratoga Springs and Washington D.C. sequences. And Sean Bobbitt's photography perfectly captured the lush beauty and color of the state. Trust the movie's producers and McQueen to hire long time costume designer, Patricia Norris, to design the film's costumes. She did an excellent job in re-creating the fashions worn during the period between 1841 and 1852-53.

Most importantly, the movie benefited from a talented cast that included Garrett Dillahunt as a white field hand who betrays Northup's attempt to contact friends in New York; Paul Giamatti as the New Orleans slave dealer Theophilus Freeman; Michael K. Williams as fellow slave Robert, who tried to protect Eliza from a lustful sailor during the voyage to Louisiana; Alfre Woodward as Mistress Shaw, the black common-law wife of a local planter; and Bryan Blatt as Judge Turner, a sugar planter to whom Northup was loaned out. More impressive performances came from Paul Dano as the young carpenter John Tibeats, who resented Northup's talent as a carpenter; Sarah Poulson, who portrayed Edwin Epp's cold wife and jealous wife; and Adepero Oduye, who was effectively emotional as the slave mother Eliza, who lost her children at Freeman's slave mart. Benedict Cumberbatch gave a complex portrayal of Northup's first owner, the somewhat kindly William Ford. However, I must point out that the written portryal of the character may have been erroneous, considering Northup's opinion of the man. Northup never judged Ford as a hypocrite, but only a a good man who was negatively influenced by the slave society. But the two best performances, in my opinion, came from Lupita Nyong'o and especially Chiwetel Ejiofor. Nyong'o gave a beautiful performance as the abused slave woman Patsey, whose endurance of Epps' lust and Mrs. Epps' wrath takes her to a breaking point of suicidal desire. Chiwetel Ejiofor, whom I have been aware for the past decade, gave the definitive performance of his career - so far - as the New Yorker Solomon Northup, who finds himself trapped in the nightmarish situation of American slavery. Ejiofor did an excellent job of conveying Northup's emotional roller coaster experiences of disbelief, fear, desperation and gradual despair.

But is "12 YEARS A SLAVE" perfect? No. Trust me, it has its flaws. Many have commented on the film's historical accuracy in regard to American slavery and Northup's twelve years in Louisiana. First of all, both McQueen and Ridley took historical liberty with some of Northup's slavery experience for the sake of drama. If I must be honest, that does not bother me. The 1984 movie with Avery Brooks did the same. I dare anyone to find a historical movie that is completely accurate about its topic. But what did bother me was some of the inaccuracies featured in the movie's portrayal of antebellum America. 

One scene featured Northup eating in a Washington D.C. hotel dining room with his two kidnapper. A black man eating in the dining room of a fashionable Washington D.C. hotel in 1841? Were McQueen and Ridley kidding? The first integrated Washington D.C. hotel opened in 1871, thirty years later. Even more ludicrous was a scene featuring a drugged and ill Northup inside one of the hotel's room near white patrons. Because he was black, Northup was forced to sleep in a room in the back of the hotel. The death of the slave Robert at the hands of a sailor bent on raping Eliza struck me as ludicrous. One, it never happened. And two, there is no way some mere sailor - regardless of his color - could casually kill a slave owned by another. Especially a slave headed for the slave marts. He would find himself in serious financial trouble. Even Tibeats was warned by Ford's overseer about the financial danger he would face upon killing Northup. I can only assume that Epps was a very hands on planter, because I was surprised by the numerous scenes featuring him supervising the field slaves. And I have never heard of this before. And I am still shaking my head at the scene featuring Northup's visit to the Shaw plantation, where he found a loaned out Patsey having refreshments with the plantation mistress, Harriet Shaw. Black or white, I simply find it difficult to surmise a plantation mistress having refreshments with a slave - owned or loaned out. Speaking of Patsey's social visit to the Shaw plantation, could someone explain why she and Mistress Shaw are eating a dessert that had been created in France, during the late 19th century? Check out the image below:



The image features the two women eating macarons. Now I realize that macarons had existed even before the 1840s. But the macarons featured in the image above (with a sweet paste creating a sandwich with two cookies) first made their debut, thanks to a pair of Parisian bakers, in the late 19th century, decades after the movie's setting. This was a very sloppy move either on the part of Stockhausen or the movie's set decorator, Alice Baker.

And if I must be frank, I had a problem with some of the movie's dialogue. I realize that McQueen and Ridley were attempting to recapture the dialogue of 19th century America. But there were times I felt they had failed spectacularly. Some of it brought back painful memories of the stilted dialogue from the 2003 Civil War movie,"GODS AND GENERALS". The words coming out of the actors' mouths struck me as part dialogue, part speeches. The only thing missing was a speech from a Shakespearean play. 

Not only did I have a problem with the dialogue, but also some of the performances. Even those performances I had earlier praised nearly got off tracked by the movie's more questionable dialogue. But I was not impressed by two particular performances. One came from Brad Pitt, who portrayed a Canadian carpenter hired by Epps to build a gazebo. To be fair, my main problems with Pitt's performance was the dialogue that sounded like a speech . . . and his accent. Do Canadians actually sound like that? In fact, I find it difficult to pinpoint what kind of accent he actually used. The performance that I really found troubling was Michael Fassbender's portrayal of the brutal Edwin Epps. Mind you, he had his moments of subtle acting that really impressed me - especially in scenes featuring Epps' clashes with his wife or the more subtle attempts of intimidation of Northup. Those moments reminded me why I had been a fan of the actor for years. But Fassbender's Epps mainly came off as a one-dimensional villain with very little subtlety or complexity. Consider the image below in which Fassbender is trying to convey Epps' casual brutality:



For me, it seemed as if the actor is trying just a little too hard. And I suspect that McQueen's direction is to blame for this. I blame both McQueen and Ridley for their failure to reveal Epps' insecurities, which were not only apparent in Northup's memoirs, but also in the 1984 movie. Speaking of McQueen, there were times when I found his direction heavy-handed. This was especially apparent in most of Fassbender's scenes and in sequences in which some of the other characters' dialogue spiraled into speeches. And then there was Hans Zimmer's score. I have been a fan of Zimmer for nearly two decades. But I have to say that I did not particularly care for his work in"12 YEARS A SLAVE". His use of horns in the score struck me as somewhat over-the-top.

Do I feel that "12 YEARS A SLAVE" deserves its acclaim? Well . . . yes. Despite its flaws, it is a very good movie that did not whitewash Solomon Northup's brutal experiences as a slave. And it also featured some exceptional performances, especially from Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong'o. But I also feel that some of the acclaim that the movie has garnered, may have been undeserved. As good as it was, I found it hard to accept that "12 YEARS A SLAVE" was the best movie about American slavery ever made.

"12 YEARS A SLAVE" (2013) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the historical drama, "12 YEARS A SLAVE". Based upon Solomon Northup's 1853 autobiography, ""Twelve Years a Slave" and directed by Steve McQueen, the movie stars Chiwetel Ejiofor: 



"12 YEARS A SLAVE" (2013) Photo Gallery