'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.

Captive Audience

There are people out there who do not think that Captain Richard Phillips is a hero. After the events which saw his ship, the cargo-hauling Maersk Alabama, captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia and Phillips additionally being taken hostage when the four pirates were forced to abandon the ship in a lifeboat, a soon-to-be rescued Phillips was hailed as heroic, facing the worst that the third world had to offer and coming out alive. But while feature film Captain Phillips, from by Green Zone and The Bourne Ultimatum director Paul Greengrass, was getting ready for theaters, many people spoke out about their perception of recklessness in Phillips. This came most notably in a lawsuit from over half of his Alabama crew, claiming that the erstwhile hero knew well and good that the ship would be traveling through pirate-infested waters and did little or nothing to minimize the potential for its capture until it was too late.So how will this film portray him? Will he be shown as a hero or an idiot? Would we even get an answer to that question anywhere in Greengrass' film?

Yup, Hanks' return to "Oscar Season" is about upon us.

As Captain Phillips is ostensibly based on Phillips' own book "A Captain's Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALs, and Dangerous Days at Sea", the former option seems to be the most likely. After all, it would hardly be sporting to take the base source of your material and dump it in the trash. Sure, World War Z did it, but that was based on a work of fiction, and had special effects to take your mind off the wasted potential.When presenting real life situations, it's often better to stick to the known facts, although a good director will weave in elements of fantasy to make the narrative more entertaining to audiences (Argo is a perfect example). Such seems to be the case with this movie, in which Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) sails his cargo ship around the Horn of Africa, only to see the Alabama hijacked by Somali pirates led by Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse (Barkhad Abdi). With most of the crew hiding and military assistance too far away to be of immediate help, the only man standing between four desperate men and the safety of the men under his command is Phillips.

Thankfully, this is not a romantic comedy.

Fortunately (and we shouldn't be surprised by a professional like Greengrass) the film is nowhere near as sycophantic as it could have been. Richard Phillips is definitely not portrayed as an heartless or reckless, but a smart man dedicated to doing his job as it is presented. The movie shows that he is aware of the potential pirate threat, and he did actually take steps to try and prevent such hijackings from taking place. Greengrass seems to state that such an attack would have been inevitable, given the circumstances, which was almost certainly Phillips' opinion. However, that doesn't mean he thinks Phillips is all that great a guy; as a Captain, he's more than a bit of a taskmaster, and doesn't exactly have the best people skills when it comes to the crew; his confrontations with the crew are essentially one-sided, and are moot as he's chief on the boat. It makes for an orderly ship, but not one in which the crew will appreciate the man in charge. At first glance, casting Tom Hanks in the role of such a relatively gray character seems a bit strange, but while the actor is perhaps better known for his "good guy" persona in charismatic role, we often forget how multi-talented Hanks actually is. Just look at The Road to Perdition or Cloud Atlas if you need any reminding; Hanks is not only a better actor than you might think, but here puts forth one of his most compelling performances in decades. Everybody knows he won an Oscar for playing Forrest Gump, but not many remember that he also won for Philadelphia for playing an everyman. It seems unlikely at this point (it's still to early to know who will be in the Best Actor conversations just yet), but it's possible he could win another one here. If he misses it, it certainly won't be for lack of trying.

...And then there's this guy.

But the real treat of Captain Phillips might be Abdi as the leader of the pirate crew. Making his theatrical debut, the Somali-American actor is given a lot of support and material from Greengrass available to him, and he makes the most of the opportunity presented. It helps that the role is not entirely villainous; in fact, Abdi plays a character strikingly similar to that of Phillips, a man under scrutiny from his superiors to complete a given job. Granted, his (probably not chosen) career is piracy, but the similarities between Phillips and Muse are made apparent from the get-go, and make for great interactions between the two. Additionally, Abdi proves elegant in his speech; though he often repeats the same line ("Everything gonna be okay"), the way in which his inflection changes perfectly matches the tone for the scene. Though on looks alone he'll never be leading man material, Abdi proves a fantastic surprise this year.

How thoughtful to provide showers out here.

And it helps that Greengrass is at his artistic best. Captain Phillips' narration is so smooth and full of suspense that it doesn't matter that we know how it all ends. Phillips is captivating, perfectly paced and without the missteps of the director's previous effort Green Zone, which glossed over character development and regressed into an action-packed farce of its original intentions. Yes, there are moments that feel a little forced, from an opening scene between Phillips and his wife (played by Catherine Keener) about how different the world is today, to a late-film conversation between Phillips and Muse in which the hostage suggests to his stonewalled captor that maybe kidnapping isn't the best alternative. Muse's response? "Maybe in America." The audience is well aware by this point under just how much pressure Muse is, so reiterating the point that there are people worse off in the world than us is a bit of overkill.

"Congratulations! You won!"

Despite these minor nuisances, they don't take away from the the sheer success that Captain Phillips is on the big screen. Excellently acted, perfectly assembled and more tense than you would ever expect, Greengrass has created one of the year's best movies, while not taking sides in the controversies surrounding the story. While it's not as good as Argo, it takes up that title's mantle as the "based on a true story" spectacular for 2013. Whether or not you consider Richard Phillips a hero, this interpretation of that fateful 2009 event is definitely worth a couple hours of your time. To miss out on this would be doing yourself a disservice as we approach the end of the year.

Open Letters Monthly: Cloud Atlas

It's the film that launched a thousand differing opinions. If there's one thing people can agree on when it comes to Cloud Atlas, it's that it is something different to everyone who watches it. Based on the similarly-polarizing novel by David Mitchell, the movie uses actors in multiple roles thanks to unhealthy amounts of makeup and prosthetics, telling an expansive story throughout time.

In six different eras of human history (and future), mankind is striving to redefine itself. Cloud Atlas takes us from a sailing vessel in the 1850's to a post apocalyptic future where there are staggeringly few of us left. In each time, we are introduced to amazing people - from a young composer to an investigative reporter to a cloned slave - destined to amazing events, connected in unique ways through the timeline. Do they have the strength to overcome their obstacles? Will they be able to influence the coming era?

Cloud Atlas is directed by Tom Tykwer and Lana and Andy Wachowski, and stars and ensemble cast of Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, Bae Doona, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Ben Whishaw, James D'Arcy, Susan Sarandon, Keith David, Zhou Xun and David Gyasi.

Click here to read the complete review at Open Letters Monthly.

Crowned

Lately I feel like I've been watching more and more romantic comedies than usual, whether released in 2011 or not. It wasn't until this year, with my increased focus on the blog, that seeking more varied styles of film has been among my goals, especially when it comes to my charts for worst films of the year and Hello Mr. Anderson's inaugural Awards post, which will be held at the end of every year that this blog remains active. I'm still fine-tuning the details, but I should have plenty of time to work those out by the time it rolls around. Stepping back to the topic of romantic comedies, however; much of the time I'm not seeing such a film because I want to, but because it exists. I was completely unaware of When Harry Met Sally's awesomeness until The Opinioness brought it to my attention. You've Got Mail and A Good Year were recently introduced to me (and subsequently enjoyed) by my friend Anne. I even saw this years' No Strings Attached and will see Friends with Benefits and Crazy Stupid Love, films I might have skipped in years past, and I've rarely looked forward to these or ANY RomCom in the past. That's what makes Larry Crowne so different. When trailers first appeared for the latest film starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, a strange thing occurred; I began to look forward to it. Despite my assertions that films of the like are often derivative, fantastical and illogical, in the end that doesn't necessarily make for a bad film, especially when the main goal of the theater is to transport the viewer to somewhere they've never before been. The trailers for Larry Crowne didn't convey any sense of a different direction, but a sincere charm is what roped me in, guaranteeing that it would be part of my viewing schedule this summer.

Hello, my name is Tom, and I'm addicted to being in romantic comedies

Larry Crowne (Hanks) is a veteran retail store employee who we meet the day he is fired from his job at the big-box store U-Mart ("Shop Smart. Shop U-Mart"). U-Mart has released the former Navy cook because of a lack of formal college education, which comes at a terrible time as Larry is still recovering from his failed marriage and was already struggling to repay the mortgage on his house. Assisted by his friends and neighbors, Larry enrolls in college attempting to get himself back on track. Meanwhile, Mercedes Tainot (Roberts) is a college professor with an emotionally-absent husband (Bryan Cranston) and uncertainty that she makes any difference in the lives of the students who attend her classes. More and more she goes into work with a sense of dread, and doesn't look forward to a single one of her classes. As the two struggle to redefine themselves, a chance student-teacher relationship begins to assist both of their tribulations, and lead them to happiness.

Where Hanks would be if he wasn't the least bit charming

Once again, we have a situation in which Hanks stars in a film that is almost indistinct from his prior work. One of the few differences is that Hanks also expands his workload, not only completing his second feature film as a director (the first being 1996's That Thing You Do), but also co-writing the screenplay with Nia Vlardos (whose Big Fat Greek Wedding was perhaps overrated but still a lot of fun). As Hanks has the experience in romantic comedies to know exactly how to create standard fare, it's perhaps surprising that the final product exceeds any of my early expectations. As a storyteller, he shows us that he knows how to properly pace his tale, not rushing a single thing in order to give the audience instant gratification. The eventual connection of Larry and Mercedes is slow and not always moving forward, and never does the budding romance feel stiff or unlikely. Sometimes it even moves BACKWARD, seriously forcing the audience to consider that perhaps things will not turn out the way they had expected.

About as miserable a look as Roberts is likely to pull off

Once again, this RomCom is an actor's film, its actual quality paling in comparison to the level of charm the characters manage to exude. Hanks of course is king of the hill when it comes to this quality, especially important as he enters his elder years. Proving that talent is indeed worth more than good looks, Hanks succeeds in a film genre where younger, more chiseled actors are more valued in this day and age. Crowne is an immediately likable, socially-awkward man, with his only criticism being how Mercedes can so slowly become infatuated with him. This might have been Tom Hanks underestimating Tom Hanks, but since it works for the story this is hardly major folly. Roberts is an actress who has perhaps coasted on the success of her hits. Certainly not without talent, Julia Roberts has had some monumental roles in her career (Erin Brockovich, Closer), but she uses the rest of her time to make forgettable films such as last year's Eat Pray Love. The role of Mercedes Tainot is much closer to the latter than the former, but - like Hanks - she has the experience to pull it off with charm and grace. Secondary characters are once again not as original as they could be, but for the most part they do manage to flesh out the story outside of the main character plot-line. Gugu Mbatha-Raw is the best of the bunch as Talia, a young college student who befriends Larry and helps him become more "cool", by helping him connect with others, redecorating his house and essentially giving him a complete makeover. She, more than perhaps Mercedes, is the reason for Larry's transformation over the course of the film, and while her character is never fully realized, that's more fault of the script than the performance.Other good performances include Cedric the Entertainer as Larry's wealthy self-employed neighbor Lamar,  and Wilmer Valderrama as Dell, Talia's protective boyfriend. The cast isn't universally well-used, however, as talented actors Bryan Cranston and Taraji P. Henson do their best but are ultimately undervalued in the film. This is made up to a degree by Larry's fellow classmates, who are personalized and adorable that you can't help but like them, and George Takei, who succeeds in being for film in 2011 what Betty White was in 2010.

Somehow not UFC's next championship match

Larry Crowne touches on several topics relevant to today's world, including unemployment, financial difficulties and the importance of obtaining a higher education. These are very important and help move the story forward, but unfortunately they don't have as much impact as Hanks might have intended. Sure, we see Larry scrounging, selling off his possessions and even investing in a motor scooter to save on gas money, but the negative aspects of becoming suddenly jobless feel less tragic than they should here. This topic was much better realized in the George Clooney vehicle Up in the Air, and every film aiming for that message essentially feels redundant of that under-appreciated title. How long will it be before Hollywood abandons these motivations is unknown, though it will likely be this way until an end to the current economic recession has been confirmed.

How these two could muster a mere $13 million opening weekend?

The best thing about this particular romantic comedy is that the actual romance takes a back seat to the surprisingly strong character development. The plot isn't solely about getting these two characters together, though that is part of it. The point of the story is for these two characters to get to a place where they are as happy with their lives. Even if they don't end up together (though really, is there any doubt?), that isn't the important part. That's what Larry Crowne does so well, making the characters' fates and happiness  more important than their Facebook relationship status. It does fall into some serious romantic comedy cliches, but Larry Crowne is far better than most reviewers would have you believe, and that negative publicity has already made for a poor box office opening for either of its major stars. Maybe people are waiting for this one to come out on DVD, and maybe you should do that too. I however loved the film from beginning to end, and wouldn't suggest for a second that it was not worth watching if you're even remotely into the entire romantic comedy experience.

A 56K Movie for a 56K World

I will be catching up on the newest film releases before too long, with Larry Crowne and Horrible Bosses anxiously awaiting Mr. Anderson's approval. But this past week seeing a new film in the theaters hasn't been an option, and so now is the time for a new Hello, Mr. Anderson segment, which for now we'll call the Recommendation Pile. Today we set the WABAC machine to the glorious film Renaissance of the late '90's with the Internet-influenced You've Got Mail, recommended to my by my friend Anne, who has a penchant for the romantic comedy. Ah, 1998. I was a junior in high school back then, dreaming of the day that the Internet would be a true powerhouse. Before Twitter, before Facebook and before even MySpace, the world wide web was controlled by a vast soulless being referred to as America Online, or AOL. Evil it may have been, but AOL was the first choice for many technology users eager to keep in touch with distant relatives and friends without paying through the nose in long-distance charges (another cringe-worthy plague of the time). For a nominal fee, you could browse the web (such as it was) and chat with friends over a 56K modem, while AOL's popular e-mail system became a pop culture icon all on it's own, with the catchphrase "You've got mail" prevailing as one of the best-recognized sentences of the time, remaining well-known even today. AOL's popularity was so great that it really was no surprise that it spun off into the Hollywood mainstream. Reuniting Sleepless in Seattle stars Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan was a no-brainer, and while the film received less-than-stellar reviews, it was a monumental success. Another big step for AOL, which would go on to become one of the most successful and well-known companies of the new Millennium.

Definitely NOT 1998's Hollywood "it" couple

A remake of the 1940 film The Shop Around the Corner and directed by Nora Ephron, You've Got Mail makes for an unsteady romantic comedy by casting America's Sweethearts as booksellers who fall in love over the Internet but can't stand one another in real life. Joe Fox (Hanks) is a gregarious businessman who helps run his family's business, the mega-bookstore franchise Fox Books. Kathleen Kelly (Ryan) is an old-school book lover who runs the small bookstore she inherited from her mother called The Shop Around the Corner. Now Fox Books happens to be opening around the corner from Kathleen's independent store, threatening her business and instigating the feud between her and Joe. Little do either know that they are already friends, digital pen pals on AOL who constantly check their in-boxes for the latest letters from the other.

By this time I think they've forgotten that Joe Versus the Volcano even existed

If you ever want to see a typical romantic comedy, this will tide you over as much as anything else. Despite its at-the-time innovation of moving anonymous correspondence from the medium of paper to that of electricity, You've Got Mail feels dated after a decade on the shelf, and the fault doesn't entirely lay with the technology used. The entire film is exercise in contradictions; big vs, small, independent vs. corporate, proud vs. humble and real-life vs. online are all examples the film gives to express a simple premise: opposites attract, or that's at least what you are led to believe. To be fair, that might be a slight oversimplification of the matter at hand. The characters are fairly simple and instantly recognizable, yet easy to root for. The connections bringing them together are tenuous at best, and yet the ensuing romance somehow works. The story told is as cliched as it is somehow charming, finishing the Holy Trifecta of romantic comedy lore. There's really no reason that You've Got Mail should be as good as it is. The film just does what few titles can, believing in its story and seeing it through to the likely conclusion.

Some women never outgrow the whole "princess" thing...

As for the actors involved, you couldn't get much more obvious than superstars Hanks and Ryan. After achieving super-stardom together with Sleepless, the pair reconnecting in You've Got Mail was a major selling point to see the film. The reasoning for casting this pair was evident: romantic comedies are these stars' specialty, and the two's prior success paved the way for a seriously contrived box office win. Hanks carries his usual mix of charm and good nature, which has long made up for the fact that he's not the most handsome leading man. That he plays a romantic who's something of a douche with a heart of gold is a decent twist from his usual pure good guy persona, but not so big a stretch as to be un-Hanks-ian. Ryan will probably never attain the commercial success she received in her heyday, but You've Got Mail allows the former star to deliver in her usual cherubic girl next door, complete with off-center grin and enough cuteness to make a Care Bear retch. It's not her best role (hey, it's not ANYBODY'S best role) but it is the type she plays exceedingly well. Sadly, behind the lead pair are a bunch of forgettable secondary characters, rote caricatures who don't steal the spotlight but garner more attention than they probably deserve. It's handful of talented performers who share this distinction, as Greg Kinnear, Jean Stapleton, Parker Posey, Dave Chappelle, Heather Burns, Steve Zahn and Dabney Coleman combining to form less than the sum of their parts. The best is Kinnear, whose leftist, underdog-rooting journalist at least has a few good scenes. Still, nobody can steal the spotlight from Hanks and Ryan, which in this case is a very good thing.

Ooh, a murder mystery! That would be new!

While I have to admit that I liked You've Got Mail, my reaction to seeing the film was more despite its flaws than because of anything it does particularly well. Nora Ephron manages to create a completely uninspired story with big name stars, only to end the movie on a note that can only be described as PERFECT. For the first time in recent memory, I can honestly say that the best part of a film was that it ended and for that to be a compliment of the highest order. I'll likely never see it again, but I can think of worse romantic comedies released this year (I'm looking at you, Ashton Kutcher), and Hanks and Ryan really do make all the difference in making You've Got Mail likable. Does that mean you should see it? It's no When Harry Met Sally, but what is? For a traditional couples rental, you may find yourself enjoying this much more than you expect to. At the very least, you can hearken back to our earlier years and wonder how we ever got by before cable modems and DSL.