'Saving Mr. Banks' from Himself

You wouldn't be wrong to look at Disney and assume that they run the planet at this point. Over the years, they've been amassing huge tracts of business landscape. They own animation juggernaut Pixar. They own and operate ABC and a host of other television programming licenses (including 80% of ESPN). They bought Marvel Entertainment, bringing an entire stable of profitable superhero franchises under their already-sizable roof. And this time last year the company purchased legendary studio Lucasfilm from science fiction scribe/legend George Lucas. That's right; Mickey Mouse owns Star Wars.

Naturally, this is an exciting time to own stock in the corporation (The Lone Ranger notwithstanding), but it's not hard to look back about fifty years, when Disney only SEEMINGLY ran the planet. It was the 1960's, when the company was much, MUCH smaller, but the affect it had on modern culture was never in doubt. Disneyland was one of the world's top tourist destinations, and every movie coming out of Disney's celebrated studio was an instant gold mine. Walt Disney himself was a beloved public figure, despite the allegations of racism and antisemitism that arose during what has become known as the Golden Age of Animation.

Get used to this face... Apparently Mrs. Travers wore it a lot.

And that's a life worth exploring on film, even if only in the minimalist, somewhat pandering efforts of Saving Mr. Banks. The movie recounts the untold story of Disney's (Tom Hanks) twenty year effort to adapt his daughters' favorite novel - "Mary Poppins" - to the big screen. Only one obstacle stands in his way: author Pamela "P.L." Travers (Emma Thompson), who is only agreeing to the deal on the basis that she has final say on the production. As heads collide, Travers reminisces to her early years in 1900's Australia, and her memories of an alcoholic, yet loving father. Gradually Disney begins to truly understand what it is that makes this novel and the character of Mary Poppins so special to this British author, though their difficulties make the production of one of cinema's most endearing family classics very, very hard to get done.

I think they hired Hanks just to deflect any controversial asides.

This feel-good picture comes from John Lee Hancock, and upon reflection it makes perfect sense that the director of The Rookie, The Alamo, and The Blind Side was on hand to crank up the inspirational vibe on this motion picture. The characters are all good folk, trying to get things done, and learning a bit about one another in the process. And in Thompson's case, that's worthy of some serious Oscar consideration; her performance as the successful, eccentric and somewhat protective author is right to draw raves, as she takes on a character that a lesser actor would have made either cringe-worthingly annoying or mind-numbingly sappy. Credit where it's due, some of that brilliance does come from the screenplay - co-penned by TV writers Kelly Marcel (Terra Nova) and Sue Smith (Mabo) - which features a wealth of witty dialogue, plenty of heartfelt moments and quite a bit of genuine emotional inflection. But it's Thompson who makes the role special, taking someone who could easily have been portrayed as a shrew - or worse, a villain - and making her sympathetic to everyone in the audience.

Much music was made on that piano, and... other stuff...

And it's not just Thompson that shines, as most all the cast put forth some of their best efforts to date. Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak light up the screen as the renown songwriting duo of Richard and Robert Sherman, who created such classics as "Chim Chim Cher-ee" and "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", while West Wing and Cabin in the Woods fans will recognize the charming Bradley Whitford as Mary Poppins screenwriter Don DaGradi. Paul Giamatti turns in his casual "lovable schlep" as Travers' unwitting but friendly personal driver, certainly not a bad deal. And of course Tom Hanks is having a stellar year; between this and his excellent work in Captain Phillips, it's officially a comeback year for the veteran leading man. Casting him as Disney is a no-brainer, as there isn't an audience out there that cannot be pleased by Hanks' cool demeanor and earnest expressions. But the scene-stealer in Saving Mr. Banks is undoubtedly Colin Farrell, who appears in Travers' flashbacks as her troubled father. Again, it's a role (lovable drunk) that could so easily have been botched by a no-name performer, but Farrell really draws the audience in and allows us to get into the soul of his character. In return, we get to appreciate some of the best work from one of the industry's more under-appreciated actors working today.

Wait, when did this become Heidi?

Unfortunately, despite some stellar acting and more than a few feel-good moments, Saving Mr. Banks is far from a perfect product. Thompson's jokes almost always work, but the screenplay doesn't really allow anyone else (with the occasional exception of Disney himself) to get a jibe or zinger in. And when they do, well, they're usually not all that good. It's all about the interactions between the two main stars, and while the actors who play those secondary parts ARE quite good, they can't quite overcome the limitations of the script. There's also a distinct sense of whitewashing when you see the movie. Even if I hadn't been told about some of the egregious lies the movie would have you accept as fact (despite it said that she'd only published the one book, Travers actually had written quite a few books between "Poppins" and the movie's production, and she actually HATED the movie itself) I wouldn't say I could have been surprised. It's a movie BY Walt Disney Studios CONCERNING their parochial namesake; of COURSE there's going to be more than a bit of image massaging going on. The creative changes do make sense, but my issue has more to do with the blatant nature of Hancock's ham-fisted direction than it does with eschewing historical accuracy. Frankly, if Hancock was a better, more subtle director, he might have made this film into something truly exceptional.

Ah, the days when everyone wore ties...

As it stands, Saving Mr. Banks is certainly a serviceable, solid, and even quite sweet film. If you were looking for something to take your family to over the Christmas break, it's one of the stronger options out there, though Frozen is still the clear front-running option. While there's no getting past the fact that Banks is a flawed motion picture, it's got an abundance of charm and sufficient talent in front of the camera - especially in its two leads - to carry itself quite effortlessly into the hearts of any audience. Excellence it could have reached, especially in regards to its love letters to fathers, but for a sycophancy that ironically advocates forgiving troublesome dads without acknowledging it's own parent's missteps. Still, Thompson is looking at a well-deserved Oscar nomination (if not a win), and there ought to be a good deal of fun had at the movies should you decide to make this your destination.

She Blinded Me with Magic

Even after the final installment was released this past fall, the "Twilight Effect" remains in play. What began as an attempt to follow up on the success of the Harry Potter franchise with a more romantic-based supernatural story has inspired dozens of literary and a few film clones, each one hoping to match the popularity of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series, which has grossed billions worldwide. Now that the atrocious vampire/werewolf/boring-as-hell-human romance has reached its conclusion, studios are desperate to recoup some of the money that that supernatural romance genre has brought in. Unfortunately success has been directly inverse to quality. The Twilight flicks were just horrible; even fans of them won't champion their storytelling, visual effects or even acting. But despite their collective ineptitude, the series became a major financial success, while far superior titles like I am Number Four floundered to find an audience.

You might not find a more cute couple in 2013.

The same is sadly true for Beautiful Creatures, a good movie based on a popular teen fiction series that failed to make much of an impact over President's Day weekend. Based on the books by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl, the story tells of a normal boy named Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich), who feels trapped in the tiny, ass-end-of-nowhere town of Gatlin, South Carolina. His biggest hope is to go to college far away and escape this small town, but meanwhile he still has two more years of high school to get through. As he is about to start his junior year of high school, he runs into the new girl in town, Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert), who bears a striking resemblance to a faceless girl he has been seeing in recurring dreams. As Ethan pursues her companionship, he learns of her dark secret; she's a Caster, gifted with magical abilities but soon to undergo the "Claiming", in which her soul will be claimed either by the powers of light or dark. She's afraid of becoming a Dark Caster, and doesn't want to hurt Ethan if that comes to pass. But he refuses to give up on her, and the pair seek out a way to guarantee that she will not follow the dark path. But an evil sorceress (Emma Thompson) will stop at nothing to guarantee Lena's descent into darkness.

To beat evil curses, nothing beats checking out your local library!

There are a few reasons that Beautiful Creatures is far better than many supernatural romances. One is the excellent setting. The tiny (and fictional) town of Gatlin is precisely the kind of place you would expect nothing of value to happen. It's the place of small minds, religious zealotry and book banning, and director Richard LaGravenese (who also adapted the screenplay) manages to emulate this prohibitive environment without condemning the entire population to stereotypes or cliches. Instead the characters actually feel like real-life people, from the bible-thumping conservatives to the rebellious teens trying to expand their horizons to the small-minded folk caught up in reenacting the minor Civil War battle that took place nearby. Setting a supernatural plot in this location is borderline genius, and while the heavy southern accents can get a bit distracting at times, they also add to the film's charm.

As Inspector Gadget might exclaim: Wowsers.

And charm is Beautiful Creatures' main draw, especially when it comes to young leads Ehrenreich and Englert. Both have emerged onto the scene recently, and the pair have both supreme acting talents and excellent onscreen chemistry. Ehrenreich narrates large parts of the story, and is a natural showman in that regard, expressing both drama and humor with equal aplomb. Englert meanwhile manages to thread that line between spooky and charming with apparent ease. They alone would be worth the price of admission, but they are have the benefit of being surrounded by a bevy of talented support staff, including Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson, Viola Davis and Emmy Rossum. Each has their own addition to make to the story, and while some characters were not as thoroughly explored as I would have liked (perhaps intended for use in sequels), there really isn't a weak member of the bunch. Unfortunately, what ARE a little weak are some illogical plot threads that result from some rushing (seriously, the whole thing was an hour and a half. You couldn't pad the story a little more?), and while the ending isn't TOO pat, the flimsy switcharoo that ultimately saves the day definitely comes off as somewhat trite.

If your girlfriend starts doing this, run.

Mediocre endings aside, I rarely had a dull moment sitting through Beautiful Creatures, a somewhat short entry into what could have been an enticing franchise had it not completely flopped. We may never know how the story would have turned out (at least on screen, the books are already available), but I definitely think that if you wasted your money on Twilight, the least you can do is give this much better movie a legitimate shot. The leads are charming, the humor and story work on multiple levels, and even the effects are far superior to almost everything else released so far this or last year. Far better than perhaps it should have been, Beautiful Creatures comes in at #4 for 2013. Enjoy it when you can get the chance.

Home of the Brave

As many of you know, I've finally thrown myself into the richly-detailed world of animated movies. I'd long considered the genre to be kiddie fare, only to realize of late that the BEST animated films can appeal to smart adults as well as their progeny. In the past year I've seen such great titles on the big screen, from Gore Verbinski's Rango to Aardman's Arthur Christmas and even The Adventures of Tintin, which was Steven Spielberg's best film in years. Monday marked a huge milestone for me however, bigger perhaps than actually witnessing what I considered to be the best film of 2011 (The Artist) win the Best Picture Oscar: I finally took a chance to see a Pixar film on the big screen. After catching and thoroughly enjoying classics like Toy Story, The Incredibles, Up and Wall-E in years long past their theatrical runs, Brave represents just the second time I've taken to see a title from the animation studio juggernaut in over a decade, since 2001's Monsters Inc.  

Brave certainly has a lot to live up to. In its history, Pixar has created not just some of the best animated films of all time, but indeed some of the most iconic MOVIES of the modern era. Sure, the film had its growing pains; original director Brenda Jackson, who had conceived and done much of the work on Brave and in fact based much of the story on her relationship with her daughter, was released by Pixar and parent company Disney for "creative differences." However, this is hardly an unprecedented occurrence. Jan Pinkava was released while making 2007's Ratatouille, and Toy Story 2 underwent a large number of controversies in production, stemming from differing opinions between Pixar and Disney. Both today are considered great films, with Toy Story 2 holding the domestic box office record for Pixar films until Toy Story 3 came out in 2010. So I don't worry if Chapman's dismissal clouds your hopes and expectations for Brave, as this is simply business as usual. As for the movie itself...

Stay in your seats; Mr. Anderson is about to tell a story.

In the wilds of what is ancient Scotland, four major clans come together in the spirit of tradition. The three lesser groups journey to the castle of King Fergus (Billy Connolly) of Clan DunBroch to present their first-born sons, in the hopes of currying favor and marrying their son to his daughter, Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald). But Merida, despite the constant training and education by her mother Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) in the ways of being a lady and a princess, has other ideas. A tomboy and fiercely independent, happier with a strong sword than a pretty dress, Merida defies tradition and strikes out on her own, hoping to find a way to change her fate. But when she finally gets her wish, it is like nothing she could have expected or wanted. Now, with war looming on the horizon, it may take everything she has to save both her waylaid fate and her father's kingdom.

"Go ahead, punk. Make my day."

If Brave feels somewhat familiar, it's because this film is Pixar's first attempt at a fairy tale, long a staple of the Disney machine. In fact, you could easily draw parallels to Disney's last animated adventure, Tangled, though that was almost more of a parody of a fairy tale than an actual retelling of the Rapunzel story. Brave's story is an original one, woven with magic, swords and arrows, curses and monsters. Still, the main reason you'll love Brave is the character of Merida, which is a good thing since the film rarely takes a break from following the determined teenager. The perfectly-built character exudes a lot of Game of Thrones' Arya Stark; strong-willed, she rejects the gentler demands of being a) a girl and b) a princess. As a character she's closer to her warrior father, who is gruff and strong, than her more delicate and intelligent mother. Kelly Macdonald's voice is perfect in creating Merida's mixture of enthusiasm and relative naivete, and while she is not really as multi-dimensional a character as you hope she'd be, she is more than enough to carry a film of this degree.

They're not the Addams Family, but they'll do.

I was also a huge fan of Emma Thompson as Queen Elinor. As the film is primarily about the relationship between Merida and Elinor, it's nice to see that Elinor is just simply her mother. She's not an evil, child-hating, Munchausen syndrome-suffering, supernaturally beautiful (or conversely, hideously deformed) step-mother, but just a plain old Mom, like yours or mine. She loves her children, wants what's best for them, and there is no malice in any single one of her actions. Yes, Elinor's overbearing nature and natural adherence to tradition is partly what sets this whole mess off, but it's refreshing for once to have a strong woman who is in fact being strong-willed and intelligent in her stance and not just being an obstinate bitch, which is what usually happens in Hollywood flicks.

Left to right; Moe, Larry and Curly.

The rest of the characters are no slouches, and while Billy Connelly slays as Merida's father King Fergus, and strong voices are offered by Julie Walters, Kevin McKidd, Robbie Coltrane and Craig Ferguson, I often found the best roles in the film were played without a single sound. Chief among these are Merida's younger triplet brothers, who steal every scene with their mischevious antics. They make for a nice change from the dramatic story, though they are far from alone in that distinction. Coltrane's Lord Dingwalf has a silent partner of his own, a brutally strong warrior who doesn't speak a word, not because he can't, but because through even limited actions he doesn't have to. Even Merida's horse Angus has personality to spare, and the animation is so strong that Angus can look not like a cartoonish variant of a horse but the real deal, and still emote more than some big-time live actors.

Would you look at that... her hair is INCREDIBLE.

It's that attention to detail that makes Brave, like every Pixar film before it, absolutely gorgeous to behold. It's not just the lusciously-flowing locks of Merida that are deserving of your attentions, but also the great and bountiful vistas, which do a wonderful job of setting the stage for the story to come. This studio is no stranger to visual wonder - check out any of their films in the past decade and marvel at their accomplishments. With computers as complex as they are now, you have to wonder how images such as these will be rendered a decade from now, and in what detail. It's a shame though that Brave's visual opulence must make up for a cliched and simplistic story, one that doesn't quite pull as elegantly at your heartstrings as the best Pixar has had to offer. Perhaps this is why the studio wanted Chapman off the project, after similar fairy tales had failed to impress at the box office. I didn't think things were TOO bad, but I'm only seeing the final product, not what was there before.

These boots are made for walkin'...

That isn't to say that Brave is all beauty and no brains, just that it turns out to be SLIGHTLY more beauty than brains. It carries easily the weakest story Pixar has thrown out in a long time (I haven't seen either Cars films, so I'm not counting them) and while Brave is STILL the #4 movie of 2012, its final landing spot is disappointing in that I was sure it would be competing for #1. Brave remains a gorgeous, tender, and at times expertly told story, but on very rare occasions it manages to dredge up the absolute worst aspects of the Disney Princess genre. It's a small quibble, and doesn't detract from the enjoyability of the final product. But when one has been weaned on purified excellence, you can't help but feel let down when one great instance fails to live up to all the wonder you have previously beheld..

A Black Man Cometh

Right now we seem to be living in an era of Hollywood nostalgia. Everywhere you turn is a remake of a classic film, an adaptation of a popular book or television show, or a new sequel to an old franchise. The latter has had the least success in theaters recently with relaunches such as Scream 4 and American Reunion failing to live up to the box office standards of their predecessors. After a year in which the domestic box office sank 3.8 percent and ticket sales dropped 4.7 percent to their lowest levels since 1995, it’s obvious that those in power are afraid to deviate from the “tried and true” methods that had allowed them to achieve market dominance in the first place. The rise of the sequel/prequel is the most obvious example of this fear of change, and we entered 2012 with 27 franchise titles awaiting release, including The Dark Knight Rises, Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt 2, and The Hobbit. Most of those are sequels from recent films, with Prometheus (a sorta-prequel to Ridley Scott’s Alien) being one of the obvious exceptions. This week marked the release of Men in Black 3, a sequel ten years in the making. MIB3’s release is not only interesting in that it is another long-awaited entry to a popular franchise, but for being the first major film appearance of star Will Smith in more than three years.

"Woah, where was I for the last three years?"

From 1995 through 2008, the actor formerly known as “The Fresh Prince” was arguably the most popular man in Hollywood. A fan favorite, everything Will Smith touched turned to gold, with fourteen films that he headlined accumulating worldwide grosses of over $100 million, four of which (Independence Day, I Am Legend, Hancock and the original Men in Black) grossing over $500 million. He was also a critically-acclaimed performer, using his easy charm and relentless dedication to earn Oscar nominations for his portrayals of real-life figures Muhammad Ali and Chris Gardner. Strangely, Smith decided to step away from the bright lights after his late 2008 film Seven Pounds, presumably to focus on raising his family. His return is a boon to a flagging industry, and it’s good simply to have a proven star back on the big screen.

New York gets a much-needed renovation.

When I first heard that Men in Black 3 was coming to theaters, I admit that my first thoughts were skeptical ones. While I loved the first Men in Black, both a critical and commercial success back in 1997, its sequel five years later was a mess. This practically put a kibosh on any future franchise hopes, despite the good will built up by the first film and the popular animated series that had followed. After the recent failures at reinvigorating long-dormant series, I had no reason to believe that MIB3 could be anything more than a nostalgic cash-grab, but as I learned more about the story I was quickly brought over to the other side. When veteran Men in Black (a top-secret agency who keeps aliens a secret, for those not in the know) Agent K (the eternally dour Tommy Lee Jones) becomes the victim of a time-travel paradox, the only man who doesn’t remember that K died over forty years ago is his partner, Agent J (Smith). J resolves to use an illegal machine to go back in time and fix the problem, and restore his friend to the land of the living. To do so, he must team up with the K of the past (Josh Brolin), and track down and stop the vicious Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement). Boris is out to not only kill K, but prevent a global defense net that K was going to deploy from coming to be, opening the door for an alien invasion that Earth has absolutely no chance of repelling.

The Mad Men audition nobody saw...

It was the inclusion of Brolin that really drew me to MIB3, as the trailers seemed to show the actor perfectly mimicking the mannerisms and personality of a young Jones. Brolin, who’s had a long career but seemed to finally break out in 2007 with No Country for Old Men, has enjoyed a string of praise for his roles in W, Milk and True Grit. These films helped cement his place in cinema as a strong supporting actor, and that talent is on full display here. Brolin separates himself from the rest of the cast – including a strong return by Smith – in his performance as Young K, taking over the reins from Jones with apparent ease. It’s a shame that the entire concept of his appearance means that Brolin will be unlikely to appear in any more sequels, as it will be difficult to enjoy when we know that we were missing. Smith proves he still has the cocky charm to carry a film on his back, and doesn’t appear to feel any poor effects from his acting hiatus. It’s a good thing Jones’ role was reduced, as he looks even more tired than usual (and you know he’s getting too old for this shit), which is a giant flag that the series would be running out of time even without a great opening weekend. Other great additions to the cast include Flight of the Conchords’ Clement, who appears to have graduated from the Hugo Weaving/Tim Curry school of movie villainy; Emma Thompson and Alice Eve as MIB’s new head Agent O and her younger incarnation, respectively; and Michael Stuhlbarg, who plays an alien with the ability to see all potential timelines as one.  Stuhlbarg especially stands out, and alongside Brolin brings the whole experience to a level beyond what the film SHOULD have been able to do.

"I'm just going to ask you once: Are you a Communist spy??"

It’s not just the return of Smith that makes MIB3 so special, but those behind the scenes as well. Director Barry Sonnenfeld, Executive Producer Steven Spielberg and producers Walter F. Parkes and Laurie MacDonald all return, and their contributions do a great job of replicating the combined environments of real life and cheesy science fiction that made the first film such a crowd-pleasing hit in the first place. Screenwriter Etan Cohen helps keep the story fresh, introducing the time travel concept that is the film’s central plot device while simultaneously exploring K’s back-story in a way that doesn’t involve numerous, angst-riddled voiceovers. Some of the series’ minor staples, including the knowledge that the more “eccentric” celebrities out there are actually aliens in disguise, are downplayed somewhat in this go-around, though seeing Lady Gaga on MIB’s watch list does garner a few chuckles. But while the film does have some inspired moments (including having SNL vet Bill Hader play renowned artist Andy Warhol as an undercover Agent W), MIB3 does its best when not trying to do too much, and allowing the natural charisma of Smith and crew to do more with traditional humor.

The much-anticipated Bieber cameo.

After so long an absence, it’s almost guaranteed that this will be the final entry in the proud Men in Black franchise. That’s a shame, as there is a lot here to suggest that the series could build up steam under the right circumstances. Jones would almost certainly have to go, but finding someone who matches Smith’s irreverent on-screen attitude would be nearly impossible, even if they hadn’t already statistically eliminated Brolin from the running. Still, if this is the end for J, K and the rest of the alphabet, at least the MIB name can go out on a high note. It may not be as entertaining or as unique as the original, but Men in Black 3 still manages to combine the right amounts of action and humor that can make for the perfect summer film, making it the #5 film of 2012. As for Will Smith’s big screen comeback, I can’t imagine a more appropriate return for the actor, and hope that all his future big-screen work can be this entertaining for however long he decides to keep the fires going.