Day 272: August: Osage County

"Thank God we can't tell the future. We'd never get out of bed."

Playwright Tracy Letts gained a modicum of notoriety for his first few plays including Killer Joe and Bug (both of which have been turned into films by director William Friedkin). It was his 2007 Pulitzer Prize winning play August: Osage County that skyrocketed him to the upper echelon of contemporary playwrights, particularly here in Chicago where he's worked on and off with Steppenwolf Theatre almost since its inception. A film version of August: Osage County presented numerous challenges to whomever decided to film it, seeing as how the entire show takes place in one three-story house, but hopes were high when it was announced that Letts himself would handle adaptation duties, as he did for the previous adaptations of his work. So how did he fare? Read on to find out...

Poet and teacher Beverly Weston (Sam Shepard) disappears from his home in Osage County, Oklahoma, prompting his cancer-stricken wife Violet (Meryl Streep) to call her family back home in hopes of finding him. Sisters Ivy (Julianne Nicholson) and Barbara (Julia Roberts) arrive first, the latter with her daughter (Abigail Breslin) and estranged husband (Ewan McGregor) in tow, followed shortly by Violet's sister Mattie Fae (Margo Martindale) and her husband Charles (Chris Cooper). Tensions are high from minute one due to Violet's current state which is heightened by her chemotherapy treatments and litany of prescription drugs she's taking to ease her suffering.

Beverly's body is found dead in his boat, bringing Ivy and Barbara's sister Karen (Juliette Lewis) and her fiance Steve (Dermot Mulroney) to town, as well as Mattie Fae and Charles' son Little Charles (Benedict Cumberbatch), gathering the entire extended family for the first time in years. Old secrets are exposed and dragged through the mud, as everyone has something to hide, and no one seems to be able to get anything past Violet, whose venom is as potent as ever despite her failing health. As the days drag on, they are all forced to confront the issues plaguing them, whether they want to or not.

The biggest problem with August: Osage County is that it feels like a film more produced into existence than directed. It fails to have a strong identity at its core, mainly due to the almost lackadaisical direction from veteran television director John Wells, a man with only one feature credit to his name. He seems to just sort of turn the camera on and allow the actors to do the work for him, and though every single performance is very good and the script is as sharp as it was on stage, it fails to make much impact as a film because it feels too much like a ship without a captain. It's wholly reminiscent of a similarly wayward film, Shakespeare in Love, that was overrated due to a great script and cast. Though Bug and Killer Joe are not likely to top anyone's list of their favorite films, they stand out because their fantastic scripts are met beat for beat with the firm hand of a director rejuvenated by great material. 

The decision to open up the world of the play and set a number of sequences away from the Weston homestead proves to be a mixed blessing. Though some scenes like a trip to the liquor store and a doctor's office make the film come alive, other scenes like an impromptu chase through a field as well as the final scene of the film reek of an inauthenticity that the rest of the film admirably shirks. Again, I lay most of this at the feet of Wells who fails to do anything interesting with these scenes, along with a downright maudlin score by Brokeback Mountain composer Gustavo Santaolalla. For a film that crackles with tension when it's forced to focus on some dynamite dialogue exchanges set inside the home, these scenes are burdened by a gloss of the prototypical Hollywood awards bait veneer that executive producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein bring to the very worst of their films. 

The performances, however, elevate the otherwise shoddy craftsmanship on display around them, and will likely cure these multitude of sins for the average filmgoer. Meryl Streep proves once again why she is perhaps the greatest screen actress of her generation with a performance that holds nothing back and screams to the back row of the balcony. She does some of her best work in this film, thanks in no small part to a character that is so well written and realized by Letts. Julia Roberts also turns in a performance that shows why she became a movie star in the first place. Devoid of any vanity, she manages to create a finely tuned character that is better than almost the whole of her career combined. In a cast full of standout performances, they manage to shine the brightest.

The rest of the ensemble is fantastic as well, with Margo Martindale, Chris Cooper and Julianne Nicholson being the other standouts. Make no mistake, however, there is not a mediocre performance to be found here, and everyone does a fantastic job with an excellent script. Letts is a savvy enough writer to know what works best on film, and pares down his sprawling stage play into a lean two hour film that only drags because of the lack of momentum created by the director. It's not hard to imagine how incredibly satisfying the entire film could have been had someone like William Friedkin directed it, particularly with his predilection for pushing actors to their breaking point.   

Stronger direction could have pushed this film into the stratosphere, but as it stands now, it feels like a film that wants to be great and does its damnedest to make you think it's great, but doesn't rise to the level of its actors or its script. It's a lifeless film that flounders because it has no spark to it and nothing for an audience to cling to. A cheap camcorder bootleg of the original stage production would likely seem like a more vibrant film than this one does, and that's a real shame because it's got an amazing script and some ace performances. It's a true testament to the power of great casting that this film manages to be as good as it is, because it works almost wholly in spite of its director.

GO Rating: 3/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

2014 Golden Globe Predictions

I've made a strange habit of posting an entry for the last two years where I predict the Golden Globe winners in the film categories, and I might as well continue. Below you'll find my predictions for the show, along with who I feel deserves the award alongside who I think the eventual winner will be. The Globes air this Sunday the 12th, and I'll update with how I did after the awards. I'll also be liveblogging by thoughts during the show itself over on Facebook, so make sure you're over there during the show to participate.

Best Picture Drama: Will Win: 12 Years a Slave/ Should Win: Gravity

Best Picture Musical/Comedy: Will Win: American Hustle/ Should Win: Her

Best Actor Drama: Will Win: Chiwetel Ejiofor/ Should Win: Chiwetel Ejiofor

Best Actress Drama: Will Win: Cate Blanchett/ Should Win: Judi Dench

Best Actor Musical/Comedy: Will Win: Bruce Dern/ Should Win: Oscar Isaac

Best Actress Musical/Comedy: Will Win: Meryl Streep/ Should Win: Amy Adams

Best Supporting Actor: Will Win: Jared Leto/ Should Win: Barkhad Abdi

Best Supporting Actress: Will Win: Lupita Nyong'o/ Should Win: Lupita Nyong'o

Best Director: Will Win: Steve McQueen/ Should Win: Alfonso Cuaron

Best Screenplay: Will Win: Her/ Should Win: Her

Best Animated Film: Will Win: Frozen/ Should Win: Frozen

Best Foreign Language Film: Will Win: Blue is the Warmest Color/ Should Win: N/A

Best Original Score: Will Win: 12 Years a Slave/ Should Win: Gravity

Best Original Song: Will Win: Let it Go/ Should Win: Let it Go

Update: To recap, I went 6 for 14, my worst score yet. That wily HFPA definitely threw some curveballs my way this year, and I just don't know what to expect at The Oscars. Nominations come out on Thursday, so we'll see what happens.

Day 271: The Legend of Hercules

"It's a boy sire. A fine, large boy."

Mythical figure Hercules doesn't exactly have the most prestigious history on film with his screen exploits ranging from the absurd yet entertaining Steve Reeves films of the late 1950s to the absurd yet entertaining Hercules in New York that launched the acting career of Arnold Schwarzenneger. Even Walt Disney Animation's 1997 Hercules film is one of the weakest efforts of their 90s renaissance, meaning that the demigod has a less than stellar track record on film.

The announcement of dueling Hercules films in 2014 was greeted more or less with apathy from the moviegoing public, if for no other reason than the fact that the one everyone was looking forward to was being directed by Brett Ratner. The first film out of the gate this year though is director Renny Harlin's The Legend of Hercules, which the trailers led people to believe would be nothing more than a $70 million write down for Summit Entertainment. Could it rise above those awful trailers and actually deliver something worthwhile? Read on to find out..

The film opens with what sounds like a toilet flushing, but actually turns out to be a siege of the city of Argos led by King Amphitryon (Scott Adkins). After defeating the king of Argos in hand to hand combat, Amphitryon takes over rule of the city, expanding his empire much to the chagrin of his wife Queen Alcmene (Roxanne McKee). Alcmene, against the wishes of her husband, calls on help from Zeus to teach her husband a lesson, and is told by a prophet that she will bear the child of Zeus that prophecy has foretold will end Amphitryon's reign of tyranny. After being impregnated by the wind, Alcmene gives birth to a baby boy that Amphitryon names Alcides, but whom his mother calls Hercules.

Now a man Alcides (Kellan Lutz) finds himself falling for Princess Hebe (Gaia Weiss) of Crete, and in a constant rivalry with his older brother Iphicles (Liam Garrigan). After defying his father and brother, Alcides is sent to fight alongside eighty other soldiers, commanded by Sotiris (Liam McIntyre), and when word reaches that he has been killed in battle, Amphitryon pledges that his surviving son Iphicles will marry Hebe. Alcides survives however, and is sold into slavery, taking the name Hercules and becoming an ace combatant alongside Sotiris, the only other member of the army who survived. Together, they pledge to return to Argos and reclaim Hercules' birthright, fulfilling the ancient prophecy.

Just writing all that was exhausting, and it only covers about the first forty minutes of the movie. To say that this film moves at a snail's pace is an insult to the rapid speed with which those mollusks travel. The film is absolutely interminable and has absolutely no momentum to it whatsoever, making it quickly devolve from so bad it's good to so bad it's unwatchable. The first ten minutes are a laugh riot of overacting and shouting, most of it courtesy of Scott Adkins who mistakes speaking loudly for emoting. Once the film jumps forward to cover the adventures of the adult Hercules played by Kellan Lutz, all of the air is sucked out of the room and it's a long, slow slog through a dozen tropes and mimicries of much better films. 

Renny Harlin could never be accused of being a master action director, but he's managed a handful of competently made films like Cliffhanger and The Long Kiss Goodnight. Here he seems content to crib from films as diverse as 300 (slowed down then sped up shots), Lawrence of Arabia (an interminable sequence in the desert, shot and scored like borderline plagiarism), Goodfellas (dolly shot around characters having a conversation), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (every arena fight sequence), Gladiator (every arena fight sequence), Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus (every arena fight sequence) and every film that's ever featured a reluctant hero rallying his troops with a speech that sums up what they're about to fight and possibly die for. It's not that this film merely has no identity, it's that it wants to simultaneously be a dozen other films, and fails to focus on anything for more than five minutes, proven by his proclivity for cutting away to the same establishing shot of the castle at Argos anytime the story moves back there.

It doesn't help matters that he cast a lead actor with all the charisma of a wet dish rag. Kellan Lutz may get teenage girls all hot and bothered in the Twilight movies, but his patented inability to emote or deliver lines with any conviction behind the words makes him a laughable leading man. He creates a vacuum at the center of this film with his stupid metrosexual stubble that either can't or just plain doesn't grow into a full beard over the course of the month in which this film takes place. I felt legitimately bad for Liam McIntyre who plays most of his scenes opposite this chiseled mass of machismo because the poor guy is acting his little heart out and getting nothing back from his co-star. Pardon the football analogy here, but Kellan Lutz is the Ryan Leaf of action movies.

As for the rest of the cast, it's a mixed bag of people trying too hard or not at all, and I don't blame anyone on either side of that divide. Adkins all but foams at the mouth with every line delivery, trying his damnedest to get this thing cooking, but it's all for naught. Liam Garrigan looks like a low rent Jude Law who watched Joaquin Phoenix's performance in Gladiator and said to himself "screw it, I'll just do that." My favorite performance in the film by a mile comes courtesy of Jonathon Schaech, another actor who has matinee good looks but a dearth of talent to back them up. Here he's outfitted with ridiculous cornrows and an accent that sounds like a piss poor Bela Lugosi impression, which are both so wildly misguided that you can't help but laugh along with a guy who's clearly messing with the audience. 

The biggest issue with the film, as if to suggest there might be only one, is the PG-13 rating. The absolutely bloodless violence makes the film even worse somehow, as the comically absurd cutaways from various stab wounds and decapitations make the film somehow more inept that it already was. I'm no gore hound, believe me, but I'm even more turned off by a director's obvious attempts to secure a PG-13 rating for a film no one was going to go see in the first place, let alone teenagers who'd rather buy a ticket for this and sneak into Wolf of Wall Street to see Leo snorting coke out of a hooker's ass. It's a cop-out on top of an already poorly made film and it only makes the whole thing seem worse as a result.  

Had anyone involved in the making of The Legend of Hercules just stopped for one second to consider the possibility that a few tweaks could have made this a camp classic, the film would be infinitely better than it is in its current state; I mean, a woman gets impregnated by the wind for Christ's sake. Instead it manages to be the worst film in a genre full of filmmakers falling all over themselves to create the next 300, which I hate to say wasn't a very good movie in the first place. As it stands now, however, I cannot recommend this even as a guilty pleasure because there's absolutely nothing pleasurable about it. It's a cheap looking, vapid, soulless film that demonstrates nothing other than it's own inability to have something new, different or original to bring to the table. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but at this point, it would be impossible for Brett Ratner to direct a worse film than this one.

GO Rating: 1/5

Day 270: Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones

"You guys ever feel like someone is watching you?"

When Paranormal Activity became a word of mouth phenomenon in 2009, horror fans everywhere rejoiced that the torture porn craze which swept the nation for the latter half of the decade had finally seen its reign as the go-to horror sub genre came to an end. Unfortunately, the increasingly dumb sequels and litany of found footage horror films that followed in its wake made this new phenomenon seem as tired as the old one, and the filmmakers' fundamental misunderstanding of what made the atmospheric horror films of old such a success in the first place. They began to replace suspense with nonsensical jump scares designed to startle audiences rather than scare them.

The only potential upside to these films was the extremely low risk factor for making them. Studios could give a filmmaker four or five million dollars and turn a substantial profit, so it paved the way for filmmakers to try new and innovative things with the genre. While some have been successful (see Josh Trank's Chronicle for a perfect example of this), most have continued to play it safe even with the lowered risk involved. With only one feature film to his credit, director Christopher Landis seemed like a prime candidate to do something original within such confines.

So, could his new film Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones be the film that breaks the mold, or would it end up just another failure on a road littered with them? Read on to find out...

----

Jesse (Andrew Jacobs) has just graduated from high school, and has gathered with several friends, including his sister Evette (Noemi Gonzalez), his best friend Hector (Jorge Diaz), and the class valedictorian Oscar (Carlos Pratts) to celebrate. During this party, it is established that Anna (Gloria Sandoval), the woman who lives below Jesse, is into some weird stuff, and the partygoers can hear moaning and other strange noises coming from her apartment. Hector and Jesse get into all manners of shenanigans with Hector's video camera, videotaping all of their exploits for no apparent reason. One evening, they are stunned to discover police taking away the murdered body of Anna, and are further shocked to learn that their friend and classmate Oscar is the one responsible for her murder.

Not long after this, Jesse wakes up to discover a strange bite mark on his arm, which somehow gives him superhuman strength. I think so anyway, I'm not really sure. The film's mythology is so convoluted, I'm not sure if there's a correlation between the bite mark and his feats of strength which follow, but the basic premise is that Jesse is now marked, and they come to find out that Oscar was marked as well, and they must unravel the mystery of what it means to be marked before it's too late.

I must confess some ignorance up front in regard to this series. I have only seen the first Paranormal Activity film, and thinking that this was a standalone effort, I didn't feel the need to watch the other films before seeing this one. That was a mistake, as the mythology of this film is tied to the earlier films, and was clearly not devised until after the success of the first film. The same demon that possessed Katie in the first film is the same demon that possesses the characters in this film, I believe, but since that whole backstory wasn't fleshed out until the second (or third or fourth) film, I was a bit lost during all of this. It's not required that you see the other films to understand this one, but there are clearly bits of information that were doled out elsewhere that would have come in handy.

Overall, the film is pretty lame. It makes the mistake of thinking that a sudden jolt after several seconds of silence is scary, when it's actually just a cheap and stupid scare tactic used as a poor substitute for building actual suspense. I fully cop to jumping several times during the film, but there was nothing memorable about the scares. One was a firecracker going off after you thought it was extinguished, one was an arm coming up out of a trap door after several seconds of a girl staring into it; in other words, cheap scares masquerading as horror. There was also a half-hearted attempt to be clever by using an old Simon electronic game in a nod to the original film's Ouija board scene, but even that came off as imitation more than homage.

The performances are fine in the film, particularly considering these are mostly inexperienced young adults with little to no acting experience. Nothing earth-shattering, but they all play their parts well, which isn't surprising considering they were more or less raised on these films and know exactly what's expected of them. Considering that Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat from the first film have still not broken out (five of Featherston's eleven credits are Paranormal Activity films) this is also likely the last we'll see of any of them anyway. Not to be too mean, but films like this are hardly a launching pad to a long career, just ask Heather Donahue.

And speaking of The Blair Witch Project, what made that film effective, and what other filmmakers have failed to capitalize on in its wake, is that it scared the audience by never showing them anything. The mind can drum up horrors that have no budgetary constraints, and for all the missteps Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez have had since that film, they at least knew that fundamental truth, making their film ten times scarier as a result. Creepy girls with solid black contact lenses and naked old ladies just aren't scary, sorry Christopher Landis. Give me a bandana full of teeth or possibly entrails (or who knows what exactly, since we never got a clear shot of them in Blair Witch), or a guy standing silently in a corner with his back to us, because those were scary moments that were set up early in the film and paid off at the end. This is just slapdash nonsense that attempts to be clever by carrying over convoluted backstory from the other Paranormal Activity films.

Fans of the series will likely enjoy this film, as they'll probably appreciate it on a deeper level than someone who is ignorant to this series' charms, a category which I can comfortably place myself in. If you're really hard up for horror, this is pretty much your only option at the moment, but considering the myriad phenomenal films that came out at the end of the year, many of which have yet to open in wide release, I can't in good conscience recommend this film. It does what it sets out to do, but when you've set the bar so low, that's not exactly challenging. Perhaps the studios will one day realize the truly low risk there is in throwing a talented filmmaker five million bucks to make something new and original, but even then, they'll package it and build a mythology around it and fence everyone in, dooming themselves to constantly repeat the past as they will clearly never learn from it.

[Images via 1-3, 4, 5]

Day 269: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

"Beautiful things don't ask for attention."

After close to twenty years in perpetual development hell, Ben Stiller recently rescued an adaptation of James Thurber's short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty by agreeing to star in and direct the film. With only four feature directing credits to his name, he seemed like an odd choice to helm such an ambitious film, but his most recent directorial effort, Tropic Thunder, showed that he could handle a large scope picture well. So would he deliver on the promise shown on that film, or would this be a fumbling misstep? Read on to find out….

The story opens on Walter Mitty (Stiller), a negative assets manager for Life Magazine who has a serious problem with daydreaming. He frequently zones out and imagines himself a hero, which in reality he most certainly is not. He's a meek individual who just wants to ask out a woman named Cheryl (Kristen Wiig) that works at the magazine with him, but can't bring himself to do so, opting instead to "wink" at her on an online dating site to set up a "Pina Colada Song"-style meet cute. Instead, his crippling social anxiety and frequent daydreaming have put him at a major disadvantage.

When a strangely bearded man (Adam Scott) arrives at Life Magazine as part of a corporation that has acquired the magazine, he informs everyone that Life will be folding it's print edition, and that the next issue will be their last. Everyone is awaiting the arrival of a negative of a photograph taken by renowned photographer, and Walter's friend, Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn) which he has said shows off "the quintessence of Life," and that they intend to use as the cover for the final issue. When Walter cannot find the negative among the roll that Sean sent, he decides to embark on a journey across the world to track down the elusive O'Connell and retrieve the negative. 

To say that The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a deeply flawed film is an understatement, however, it is not without its charm, particularly in light of its many flaws. Tonally the film is all over the map, spreading out from Walter's elaborate fantasy life which shades the first half of the film, making it impossible to settle in to any sort of rhythm. It was obviously intentional, but the script does the film no favors by going to such extremes to convey his daydreams that it removes any sort of grounding for the film. Thankfully as the film progresses and Walter begins his journey to find Sean, his daydreams cease, and the film becomes infinitely better as a result.

As for the script, it's easily the weakest element of the entire film, which is baffling considering how many hands it passed through during its long development process, but ultimately Steve Conrad's version suffers from a case of not knowing what it kind of film it wants to be. Take the two most convoluted daydreams from the early goings, one of which is a pavement chewing fight between Stiller and Scott's characters, and the other a baffling parody of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. These both go to such extreme lengths to convey the depths to which Walter's mind journeys when he zones out, but they play more like the inner life of some sort of madman, never mind a nice guy who feels more at home in fantasy than reality. 

Walter's journey to Greenland, then Iceland, and various other parts of the globe is a much more grounded film, much easier to grab a hold of, and much more in line with the kind of film Stiller is trying to make. There are some nice bits in the early going, and thanks to the top notch work of cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh, the film always looks gorgeous whether scaling mountains in Afghanistan, or discovering the dreary basement in which Walter works at Life Magazine. The film looks amazing, and that goes a long way towards rectifying many of the film's other significant flaws.

Stiller the actor has always suffered from a similar syndrome that the script does, not knowing when to be serious and when to be funny, and always seeming to throw that balance out of whack by wanting to do one or the other at the wrong moment. Here he manages to give one of his best performances, grounding the character in such a way that makes him relatable in spite of his borderline psychopathic delusions. The script's other major flaw is that it makes the character of Cheryl a little too perfect, in spite of a second act development that tries to overcompensate for this character flaw, and Wiig does a fine job playing this ideal woman. She's incredibly natural and in the moment at all times, but the script does her no favors.

Sean Penn is as reliably stoic and mysterious as ever, and Adam Scott relishes the chance to play a mustache twirling villain, but again, is done no favors by a script that prefers to have him be a totally irredeemable black hatted antagonist rather than an actual human being. The rest of the supporting cast is good as well, including a persistent eHarmony representative played by Patton Oswalt and an underused Shirley MacLaine as Walter's mother. And speaking of eHarmony, I realize that this is a Hollywood production, and that means that product placement pays some of the bills, but the bizarre choice to make Papa Johns and eHarmony integral parts of the plot was a bit jarring as well. 

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is clearly designed to be Stiller's magnum opus as a director, and while he does admirable work both in front of and behind the camera, it's too flawed for me to call it a total success. It is an easy film to like however, and wears its heart brazenly on its sleeve, making it a nice diversion for two hours, but it's deeply imperfect script makes it impossible for the film to be a true success. Many people will love the film, and I can easily see myself revisiting the film in a year or two and still being wooed by its many charms, but it has so many shades of wasted potential that I can't call it an unmitigated success. 

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

The 10 Best & Worst Films of 2013

It's that time of year again, and I present for you my 10 Best & Worst films of 2013, along with Honorable Mentions for films that just missed the cut on my best list. I've linked to my original review on all of these, so click on the title to read the full review, but I've also written a new paragraph on each film. Enjoy, and please let me know what you think in the comments section below…

Best Films of 2013

Honorable Mention (in alphabetical order):

About Time
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Lords of Salem
Mud
Parkland
The World's End

10. Philomena

The heartbreaking true story of a woman (Judi Dench) who had her child taken away from her at a young age and the journalist (Steve Coogan) who attempts to reunite them in the interest of writing a book is given a tremendous amount of levity thanks to a witty script by Coogan and Jeff Pope and the workmanlike direction of Stephen Frears. What could have been a maudlin trek across the UK & US is instead a delightful little ditty about faith, love and the power of humanity over institutions. Dench gives a career best performance, ably supported by a fantastic Coogan, and this odd couple proves to be one of the most genuinely satisfying pairings of the year.


9. American Hustle

While it would be easy to dismiss David O. Russell's latest film as Scorsese-lite, in a year that saw the master himself fall victim to his own visual excess, American Hustle comes out on the other side of things a much more wholly satisfying film. Anchored by a trio of phenomenal performances from Christian Bale, Amy Adams & Bradley Cooper, this film plays as fast and loose with storytelling conventions as it does with the facts it's based on. The film's tagline read: "Everyone Hustles To Survive" and that sums up everything you need to know about this film, and the true magic of it lies in watching every character trying to get one over on every other character until you don't know whom to believe. It may not be as thoroughly satisfying as last year's Silver Linings Playbook, but it proves that Russell can effortlessly mold his style to fit any story.


8. Pacific Rim

The most satisfying genre experiment since last year's The Cabin in the Woods, Pacific Rim succeeds on so many levels because it knows exactly what kind of movie it is. Yes, it's the "giant robot versus giant monster" movie that the trailers promised, but the way it gleefully borrows from other high profile genre flicks ensures that it never falters into the realm of parody and keeps things firmly focused on being a loving homage to the films that inspired it. Of all the big budget spectacles released this year, this was the most fun because it delivered on exactly what it set out to do in every way possible. Guillermo DelToro's decision to abandon The Hobbit may have doomed those films to the disappointments they've turned out to be, but thank goodness he did because it gave us Pacific Rim.


7. Fruitvale Station

The final 24 hours in the life of Oscar Grant (Michael B. Jordan) make for one of the most touching and unnerving films of the year with Ryan Coogler's Sundance sensation Fruitvale Station. The film never succumbs to the temptation to portray Grant as anything other than what he was, a flawed individual trying the best he could to stay on the right side of life. The more heavy-handed moments of the film such as Grant attempting to rescue a dying dog become an afterthought when held up to the genuinely moving scenes where he attempts to connect with his mother, his girlfriend, and particularly his daughter, and it makes his fate all the more tragic as a result. As controlled and assured a debut film as I've seen in a long time, Fruitvale Station demands your attention and earns your respect.


6. The Way, Way Back

Any criticisms that are leveled against Nat Faxon & Jim Rash's directorial debut The Way, Way Back are at least mildy warranted as the film breaks no new ground and paints almost all of its characters as either mostly good or mostly terrible. However, the honesty with which is portrays these situations is perfectly tuned to the mind of a fifteen year-old boy who likely sees the world in such absolutes. It's an endlessly charming film that features the always delightful Sam Rockwell doing some of the best work of his career as a suspended adolescent, and also manages to wring a thoroughly and wonderfully dickish performance from eminently likable Steve Carrel. The losers and outcasts of the world have a film that will speak volumes to them, and it features what is easily my favorite final shot of 2013.


5. Gravity

Without a doubt the most thrilling ninety minutes I spent in a movie theater all year (or 270 considering I saw it three times), Gravity is the kind of film that Hollywood constantly tries to make, yet almost always fails. A big budget thrill ride that grabs hold of you and doesn't let go, the film makes incredible use of technology to aid in the storytelling, and shows what visual effects are truly meant to do: bolster a great story and not detract from it. While I have a hard time defending the script's flaws, it serves its purpose admirably and keeps things constantly moving forward. Sandra Bullock's lead performance might be the best of her career, and the film's true message about overcoming tragedy and finding the will to live shines through the imperfect dialogue. A spectacle best experienced on the largest screen with the best sound possible.


4. Frozen

Easily the best Disney film not made by Pixar since 1991's Beauty and the Beast, Frozen is a gorgeously rendered tale of sisterly love that subverts the Disney formula as much as it embraces it. While it does have some fantastic set pieces and wonderful songs that bear the Disney hallmark, it's the emotional core of sisters Anna & Elsa that grounds the film and gives it an immediacy that is conspicuously absent from the rest of the Disney canon, particularly of late. When older sister Elsa finally comes to terms with who she is and what she can do with this knowledge in her show stopping number "Let it Go," the film goes from another cute Disney film to an amazingly bold and brash statement about being yourself in spite of what anyone else thinks. The film speaks deeply to those who are listening, and it succeeds beyond your wildest imagination.


3.  Inside Llewyn Davis

The Coen Brothers have never concerned themselves with commercially viable properties or leading characters, and they strike gold with their latest film, Inside Llewyn Davis. This story of an early 60s folk singer struggling to survive after a series of personal and professional tragedies might sound like one of the hardest films to connect with of all time, but Oscar Isaac's phenomenal lead performance coupled with some of the best shot compositions of the Coens' career makes this film instantly unforgettable. There's no uplift to be found here, but much like its main character, it refuses to sell out or take the easy road to success. It's a film that sings for the idealistic artist within all of us.


2. Nebraska

Having spent his last two films outside his home state, Alexander Payne returns home for his sixth, and probably best feature film Nebraska. The story of an adult man (Will Forte) trying to connect with his senile father (Bruce Dern) by driving him to Nebraska to claim a million dollar prize the son knows to be a hoax is a beautifully rendered character study of places and people that never change. It's broadly drawn at times, but never short on honesty in any of its comedic set pieces. The bickering family members and feuds that never die ground the film in such a way as to make it palpable to anyone who's lived through small town life, and the film's remarkably simple score by Mark Orton is one of the year's best. A true gem of a film that pulls no punches.


1. Her

Honesty is a rare commodity in life, and it's even rarer on film. Therefore, when a film comes along that portrays love and all the myriad messy emotions that come along with it, it's cause for celebration. No film in this year, or honestly any year since 2004's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, has dealt with love in a more open, raw and realistic way than Spike Jonze's latest film Her. It's surprising to find such honesty in two "high concept" films, but I find the conceit in both films to be used as a gateway to talk about such difficult subject matter in such plain terms. While you could easily dismiss this as the film where Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with his computer operating system voiced by Scarlett Johansson, to do so would be folly. Phoenix's Theodore Twombley is a man opening himself up in a way he was never able to with another human, and Johansson's Samantha views the world in such a simple and beautiful way that it renews all the hope and wonder that has gone long dormant in a soul as damaged as Twombley's is. Love is complicated and messy and can lead to heartbreak, but it's never looked more wondrous than it does in Her, easily the best film of 2013.

The Worst Films of 2013

10. Star Trek: Into Darkness

The desire to appease fans has never backfired more spectacularly than it did in JJ Abrams' second attempt to update Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek for the ADD generation. Filled with more misfires, miscalculations and misunderstandings about what made Star Trek so great in the first place, Into Darkness brings the rebooted crew into contact with a rebooted version of their most famous solo nemesis Khan, played ably enough by Benedict Cumberbatch. The film's third act is its worst, but the first two are no picnic either, as they fundamentally betray almost everything that made these characters work so well in the first place. Abrams is off to put his stamp on George Lucas' most famous creation next, and I can only hope that in his absence, this series can right the ship and get things back on course, and maybe, I don't know, trek the stars this time. 

9. Carrie (2013)

One of the most laughably awful films of the year, Carrie was a misfire from the word go, and saved only by a batshit crazy performance from Julianne Moore. Updating one of Stephen King's most famous works for a new generation turned out to be a terrible miscalculation as no one showed up to see this thing. Sometimes it's best to just leave well enough alone, and considering Brian DePalma's original is far better than just "well enough," sometimes it's best to just stay home and hope they stop making films like this. 


8. Planes

Spun off from Cars, arguably the weakest franchise under the Pixar umbrella, Planes was a shamelessly manipulative Disney product that had no reason to exist and failed to even deliver on the severely lowered expectations that greeted it. When a film devotes an entire subplot to a character capitalizing on their friend's success by merchandising their likeness to the high heavens, you know you're in for a bad time. Planes would best be confined to afterthought status, but its surprise success has already spawned a hastily thrown together sequel for next summer. 


7. Movie 43

There is no more basic requirement for a comedy than to deliver a punchline and Movie 43, a pathetic attempt to gather together megastars into a sketch comedy film, fails to do this at every turn. In a film with a dozen odd sketches, only two feature actual punchlines, and the rest just hope that the shock of seeing stars like Hugh Jackman with a pair of testicles grafted to his throat will be enough to carry these limp premises for more than thirty seconds. I would legitimately love the sketch comedy film to become a viable entertainment source once more, but if this is the best we can hope for, I'd rather just watch Kentucky Fried Movie over and over until it's not funny anymore. 


6. Only God Forgives

Riding high on the success of 2011's Drive, Only God Forgives was one of the most highly anticipated films of 2013, but instead we received a glimpse inside the mind of psychopathic director Nicolas Winding Refn. While the film looks gorgeous and its commitment to its awful characters is admirable, it's a dirty, disgusting film that expects us to bask in its filthy glow for ninety-odd interminable minutes. Ryan Gosling's stoic schtick has worn completely thin, and this year marked a low point for his career (see my number four coming up in a minute). This might be the most gorgeously awful film ever made.


5. Man of Steel

A film that I was almost indifferent towards when I initially saw it, Zack Snyder's Man of Steel grew on me over time in all the wrong ways. The more time I spent away from the film, the more I began to hate it. It's another case of a writer and director not understanding their character, and hoping that the guise of "he hasn't become the Superman we all know and love" is enough to carry them through their colossal misunderstanding of who this character has been for close to eighty years. It's as pessimistic a blockbuster as I've ever seen, and it's reliance on destruction and 9/11 related imagery is shameful.


4. Gangster Squad

What could have been a "so bad it's good" genre picture turned into a pandering and shameless attempt to try and pull a fast one on its audience. Loading up the cast with respectable actors was a step in the right direction, but director Ruben Fleischer and writer Will Beall's film isn't smart enough to honor genre conventions and settles instead on ripping them off wholesale in hopes that no one will notice. It's a ridiculously terrible film that deserved to be ignored, and thankfully was.


3. Evil Dead (2013)

It's perfectly fine to make a humorless remake of a film that had a sense of humor, but don't insist on paying homage to the original every chance you get. 2013's Evil Dead is a dour film with no sense of irony, fun or originality. If the people who made it had their wits about them, they might have tried to lighten the mood a bit, and I would have loved this film if it had a sense of humor about what it was. However, the film is just a violent mish-mash of nonsensical premises presented in the most serious manner imaginable, and if that concept frightens you, you're already more scared that this dreck is going to make you in its entire ninety minute running time.


2. Jobs

Jobs is world class dross; the kind of film that one might joke about making if they wanted to make a film so obvious and over-sentimental it wouldn't even be shown as a movie of the week on network television in the late 70s or early 80s. The film just doesn't pass muster. For a film that's about one of the true pioneers of the twentieth century, it plays out as a paint-by-numbers film so childish in its obviousness that it can't even be enjoyed as a guilty pleasure. Director Joshua Michael Stern is a filmmaker better suited to working in parody because he knows exactly what all the tropes of the genre are, he just can't help falling into them and drowning.


1. Spring Breakers

There is no film that I hated more in 2013 than Spring Breakers, and it might be one of my most hated movies of all time. I wish that I could tell you that it's really clever and subversive and thinks that it has a lot more going on under the surface than it actually does, but in actuality, it's one of the most vile and disgusting films ever made. It's the kind of film that likes to think that it's smart in the way that it plays on youth culture and hip hop videos and the notion of innocent girls trying to escape their normative upbringings, but it's an empty-headed, vapid, shallow film that takes no small pleasure in reveling in the very things it thinks that it's commenting on. To paraphrase Spinal Tap, "it's such a fine line between clever and uh… stupid" and this film has no idea where that line is.



[All Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 268: Inside Llewyn Davis

"I thought singing was a joyous expression of the soul."

Throughout their career, The Coen Brothers have proven themselves to be masters of whatever genre they choose to work in from murder mysteries (Blood Simple, Fargo) to broad comedies (Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski) and serious drama (No Country For Old Men, Miller's Crossing). Their latest film, Inside Llewyn Davis, tackles the folk music scene of the early 1960s, and looked to be another film in the vein of their musically influenced and infused O Brother, Where Art Thou? Could they prove to once again strike gold, or would this be a major misstep in an otherwise illustrious career? Read on to find out... 

Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is a struggling folk singer when the story opens in 1961 New York City. He has recently embarked on a solo career after previously playing as part of a duo, and finds himself struggling to make ends meet by playing dive bars and couch surfing, relying on the kindness of anyone he hasn't alienated to keep himself afloat. A pair of folk singers on whom he heavily relies for support are Jim (Justin Timberlake) and Jean (Carey Mulligan), but a dalliance with Jean has left them at odds with one another, and he exploits Jim's kindness to borrow money or sit in on recording sessions to make some quick cash.

When he gets wind that his manager may not have sent his first solo album to a club owner and record producer (F. Murray Abraham) in Chicago, Llewyn decides to travel to Chicago and try to have his music heard by this influential man in the folk scene. Llewyn hitches a ride with a strange pair of men (John Goodman & Garrett Hedlund) to afford the trip west, and hopes to land a gig in Chicago, but his own ego and stubbornness may be too big of a roadblock to even get him there, let alone land him a contract.

As they do virtually every time they make a film, The Coen Brothers prove to be such effortlessly amazing filmmakers that they ease the audience right into Llewyn's story with almost no exposition or wasteful set-up. The way they craft the story is impeccable, always driving the story forward and allowing the characters room to breathe and in turn allowing the audience time to discover the story for themselves. It is a gorgeously rendered film, particularly considering it's the first time they've worked with French cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, but it bears all the hallmarks of a Coen Brothers production from the intense focus on character to the colorful supporting players that flesh out the world to the almost "Homeric" nature of the story.

The character of Llewyn himself presents the film with a protagonist that is difficult to love, particularly because he seems like the sort of guy who has the drive of an artist unwilling to sell-out or compromise in any way, yet pessimistic enough to feel as though he could just chuck his entire career out the window and return to his former life as a merchant marine. His only happiness in life seems to come from the moments when he gets to perform his music, and the character comes to life in such a way that one can understand how much life and vibrancy he's capable of, but has been buried under a life filled with crushing disappointments. That he still clings to his artistic moral compass is what makes the dichotomy of his character all the more interesting, and while he's far from endearing, the heart that beats within him is enough to propel you forward on this journey with him.

Oscar Isaac has similarly scraped out a living as an underused and under appreciated character actor, and when given his moment in the spotlight, he doesn't squander it. His performance is revelatory, made all the more impressive by the fact that he does all his own singing and playing. He is phenomenally good, and doesn't succumb to the temptation to make the character lovable, which makes his performance that much better as a result. The rest of the supporting cast is fantastic as well, from bit players such as Stark Sands as a military man trying to break into the music business, to all of the aforementioned actors that populate this film. Ethan Phillips and Robin Bartlett also stand out as a wealthy intellectual couple that offer up their couch to the struggling artist whenever he needs it, and they capture the sort of character that they're playing incredibly well.

As for the music, it is equally amazing. Much like O Brother, Where Art Thou? you will find yourself wanting to own the soundtrack album by about halfway through the second song. Some of the songs are original compositions, and some are new arrangements of more traditional songs by music supervisor T-Bone Burnett, but they act as their own character in the film, filling the world out and making it feel as real and alive and vibrant as New York City must have felt at that very brief period in time between Elvis' domination of the charts and the upcoming explosion of the British Invasion. This film captures that time and place so incredibly well, it feels as if The Coen Brothers utilized a time machine to create this film.  

Inside Llewyn Davis is a pure Coen creation that radiates with life and captures a time to which we can never return. While many will find themselves at odds with the film's title character, those willing to understand his struggles and see past his frustrating exterior will discover a film and a character worth journeying alongside. At a time in their career when most filmmakers would play things safe and just begin churning out satisfying yarns, The Coens continue to surprise with every film they make, and their refusal to compromise is our reward. There are no easy answers in Inside Llewyn Davis, and frankly, you shouldn't want it any other way. 

GO Rating: 4.5/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Walking with Dinosaurs

"It's time to talk about the future…"

"You mean the Cenozoic Era?"

Dinosaur films have a long, strange history and none of them have ever really captured what it was like to be alive as recently as 60 million years ago. Films like The Land Before Time and Disney's Dinosaur have attempted such a feat, but the anthropomorphizing of the creatures only crushes any hope of truthfulness. The creators of the tremendously successful BBC documentary series Walking With Dinosaurs had already turned their endeavor into a touring arena spectacle, so a feature film seemed like an easy leap for them to make. So could they distill the essence of what made those so lucrative into a ninety minute film aimed at children? Read on to find out…

Walking with Dinosaurs utilizes a framing device involving Karl Urban as a paleontologist working in Alaska on a fossil dig. His apathetic teenage nephew Ricky (Charlie Rowe) has tagged along but doesn't want to be involved, until a raven captures his attention, morphing into a prehistoric bird, voiced by John Leguizamo, that promises to make dinosaurs cool to a kid so consumed with technology. The bird tells of his adventures alongside a herd of Pachyrhinosauruses, namely the runt of a newborn litter named Patchi, voiced by Justin Long. 

The dinosaurs migrate south, live for several months and then migrate back north. This cycle goes on, and as Patchi grows, so too does his rivalry with his brother Scowler, voiced by Skyler Stone. When their father is killed by a fearsome Gorgosaurus, the brothers begin to look at the world in a different way, and also look towards a future when they will one day compete to be the new herd leader. There's also a love story between Patchi and a female from another herd named Juniper, voiced by Tiya Sircar. 

Walking with Dinosaurs is a downright baffling film. It looks as though it was made with a very serious mind towards telling a historically accurate dinosaur tale, as all of the dialogue is done through voiceover. The characters' mouths don't move, so I can only assume that the studio got wind of this borderline avant-garde silent film was going to be horrendously unmarketable, so they added voices for some characters, including Leguizamo's comedic narration, and then added in a bizarre grab bag of popular music ranging from Fleetwood Mac and Barry White to Matisyahu. It's a truly odd mix, and worked well enough for my seven and four year old daughters, but I was a tad bewildered by the film. I probably ended up enjoying it vicariously through my daughters, but could easily see anyone whose children find the film to be insufferable feeling the exact same way about the film.

I admire a lot of the things that the film does, like stopping the action anytime a new dinosaur is introduced to give its scientific name, the meaning of that name, and whether it's a herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore, but it also feels like a remnant of an earlier version of the film that didn't have the voiceover attached. I'm trying very hard to be polite about this all, but it truly feels like two different films for much of its running time. It's not a total failure, but it's not a complete success either, and just sort of bounces back and forth for ninety minutes. It's entirely reminiscent of the famous Simpsons episode where they add Poochie to The Itchy & Scratchy Show, and your children will either be decrying it as the worst episode ever or left wondering when they're going to get to the fireworks factory. 

In spite of all this, a smattering of set pieces worked incredibly well. A march of a herd of Edmontousauruses along a beach set to Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk" was incongruous, but oddly entertaining. Similarly a sequence late in the film where Patchi attempts to lead the herd off thin ice retained much of the charm that I think the filmmakers were intending to capture before the voices were put in, and the sequence worked incredibly well. I can't help but give the filmmakers credit for at least trying to elevate the form, but it feels as though some marketing visionary like Kenn Viselman (the man behind the dreaded Oogieloves experiment) got his grimy paws all over this thing.

The voice actors were all fine, though their dialogue was horribly tin-eared. Some of Leguizamo's antics played like gangbusters to the kids in the audience, like his extended riffing on the Gorgosaur's tiny arms, but most of it was jarringly incongruous in context. The animation was fantastic and blended seamlessly with what I believe to be actual landscape footage, but every film made almost exclusively in a computer in this day and age looks great. Ultimately I'm just left wondering at whose feet the blame will land for this film that is most assuredly a tug of war between a filmmaker's willingness to compromise and a studio's insistence that the film be more marketable to kids.

Walking with Dinosaurs is not a fiasco, but it comes awfully close on many occasions. Young kids under the age of ten will likely find a lot to enjoy, particularly dinosaur lovers, and who isn't at that age? Any older than that, and they'll just find the film to be insufferable, and adults without children in that same age range will feel likewise. I probably enjoyed the film more than I would have were my kids not with me, and while that's not enough for me to give the film a blanket recommendation, I also can't dismiss the fact that I did enjoy the film more than I thought I would. Anyone that does not fit into that very specific demographic, however, should steer clear and stick with the BBC documentary instead. 

GO Rating: 2.5/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 266: American Hustle

"That's the art of becoming somebody who people can pin their beliefs and dreams on." 

After his last two films The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook took the Academy Awards by storm winning three awards out of fifteen nominations, director David O. Russell became a major contender again after a number of years of false starts and a terrible reputation nearly sank him. With the fastest turnaround of his career, his latest film American Hustle comes just a year after his previous film, and has positioned itself to be another major awards contender. So could it possibly live up to the instant hype that surrounded its release, or is it a misfire from a director at the height of his creative power? Read on to find out...

Opening with a title card that reads "Some of this actually happened," American Hustle jumps out of the gate on fire, letting you know that while it's based on the true story of the Abscam stings that took down several corrupt politicians in the late 1970s, it's also going to be playing fast and loose with the facts. Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) is a con artist dabbling in a scam that bilks high risk investors out of thousands of dollars. His path crosses with that of Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) a woman who is drawn to his ability to smooth talk anyone, and it isn't long before she becomes his partner in crime. The two become lovers as well, despite the fact that Irving is married to Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) and remains devoted to raising her son as his own.

When FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) busts Sydney in one of their loan scams, he uses that leverage to enlist Irving's services to try and bust Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) the corrupt mayor of Camden, NJ. They devise a scheme using a fake Middle Eastern sheik whose money Carmine says he will use to rebuild the now fading gambling town of Atlantic City. DiMaso's brazen tactics put him at constant odds with Irving's more subtle grifting style, and the two are butting heads over more than just the con, as Richie seems to be growing closer to Sydney, and Irving finds himself forming a true bond of friendship with Carmine. It's a game of who's conning whom and everyone trying to get over on everyone else. 

The most immediate thing that stands out about American Hustle is how stylistically similar it is to much of Martin Scorsese's work, particularly once the mafia becomes involved in the story, but it hedges much closer to homage than outright mimicry. While it feels completely in step with Scorsese's Goodfellas, with its use of whip pans, multiple voiceovers, and frenetic editing, it also has an energy all its own, and marches to the beat of its own drum. The film initially took life as a screenplay by Eric Warren Singer titled American Bullshit, and while that feels like a much closer title to what the finished film is, it does bear a lot of the hallmarks of Russell's best work, particularly his use of handheld camerawork. It captures time and place so incredibly well, and you truly feel as if this could have been made in the late 70s, as the time period is as much of a character as the actors themselves are. 

The film settles into a steady rhythm almost immediately, and after the opening sequence, tells the story in a completely linear fashion which aids in its ability to keep you forever in the dark about who has the upper hand. It's 138 minute running time allows the narrative room to breathe, and gives the characters time to develop, which is a welcome change from the typical way that films continue to put character on the back burner to cram as much story as possible into their film. Viewers going into this film expecting a whiz-bang narrative that moves at a clip will be disappointed by the number of scenes that are devoted to sheer character development, but those willing to hang with it will find the way that the characters grow and change to be the most fulfilling thing about the story. Russell is one of the few directors in Hollywood that actors continue to line up to work with mainly for this reason. He gives them room to grow. 

Christian Bale continues to prove that he is one of the most versatile actors working today, and those willing to follow him down the dark roads he likes to take will be rewarded with one of his best performances. Very few actors working today could pull off a role like this, and Bale does so with aplomb. Amy Adams is his equal in every sense of the word, staying lockstep with Bale throughout the film, and never letting her incredibly expressive face give away her character's motives. They make for a hell of a one-two punch, and their characters are fantastically and fully realized. Bradley Cooper continues to surprise me every time out of the gate lately, and he continues his growth into an interesting character actor yet again. He would be wise to follow the lead of his co-star Bale and take more risky roles like this one to create a hell of a well-rounded career. He most certainly has the chops for it, and his scenes with Louis CK, who plays his weary supervisor, are among his best.

Jennifer Lawrence is a fantastic actress, and she does an admirable job in this film and inhabits the role well, but she feels about ten years too young to be playing this role. I don't mean this as a slight as I was very impressed by her performance, as I am with virtually everything that she does, but she just doesn't have the city miles on her that this character needed to have. She just looks out of her element, despite her best efforts to play this character to the best of her ability. It's more a fault of casting than anything she did or any choices she made. The film's soundtrack also makes a few too many on-the-nose choices that are likely to take the audience out of the film's flow. It's not as egregious as last year's Flight, but the use of songs like Steely Dan's "Dirty Work," The Bee Gees' "How Can You Mend a Broken Heart" and Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" are too clever for their own good.

Make no mistake about it, American Hustle delivers, and is a fantastically made film that is sure to satisfy an adult audience looking for an adult film. I say that not as a slight against any other films, but in a society where adults are often pandered to with ham-fisted dialogue and broadly drawn characters, this is the kind of film that shirks all of those conventions and delivers a satisfyingly grown up film. Time will be kind to this film as it has a timelessness to it that has helped other films of its ilk, like Boogie Nights and the aforementioned Goodfellas, stand the test of time, and much like those films, it's also damn entertaining. American Hustle is one damn satisfying film. 

GO Rating: 4/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 265: Saving Mr. Banks

"Get on the horse, Pamela!"

With the fiftieth anniversary of Disney's Mary Poppins right around the corner, the time seemed right for a film about its creation and the notorious clash between the book's author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) and the king of twentieth century children's entertainment Walt Disney (Tom Hanks). Saving Mr. Banks is a Walt Disney Studios production (I doubt any other studio would allow a film to be made about their founder), so that raised a few eyebrows as to whether or not this would be a slanted look at the film's creation. Could the film stand on its own two feet, independent of any studio bias, or would it present the stranger than fiction tale without any predisposition? Read on to find out...

The year 1961 finds author Pamela Travers at the end of her rope following twenty years of hounding from Walt Disney to sign over the rights to her most cherished creation, Mary Poppins, for him to turn into a feature film. Mrs. Travers, facing dire straits financially, relents and agrees to fly to Hollywood and meet with Mr. Disney and his creative team, as he has granted her the unprecedented courtesy of script approval. Upon arriving in California, Mrs. Travers finds herself bombarded with the typical Disney warmheartedness and familiarity that she resents, coming from such a formal British society.

She begins to clash immediately with Disney and his team on virtually every detail of the film, wanting there to be no musical numbers, no animation, and even vetoing the use of the color red anywhere in the film. As Disney tries to crack the mystery surrounding Travers' over protection of her creation, the audience is treated to a parallel linear narrative that details her upbringing as a child in Australia with a father (Colin Farrell) who was given to equal parts whimsy and alcohol.

Since the audience knows that the film eventually got made, there's no suspense in whether or not she'll sign the rights over to Disney to make his film, so the only ace the film has up its sleeve is the how of it all, which proves to be the film's biggest liability. Telling the flashbacks to Travers' childhood in a straight linear fashion actually makes the film something of a bore as it guards its secrets as if it were protecting the formula to Coca-Cola. The hints that are dropped throughout the film's first ninety minutes turn things into something of a dull pastiche as there's no real cat to let out of the bag. It all just sort of boils down to a handful of emotional connections that the author has to her childhood rather than a series of incidents that lit her creative fuse. It's something of a bait and switch that really doesn't work the way they must have intended.

And the way they portray Travers is an absolute hatchet job. She is shown as a humorless old biddy that lives to shit all over everyone's ideas and is given next to no motivation for her prickly behavior. She was protective of her creation for a reason and the film's attempt to parallel her attachment to Poppins with Disney's similar attachment to Mickey Mouse rings a bit false. It's a case of history being written by the winners, and although the dialogue is quite snappy and incredibly well observed at times, the overall story that it's in service of is a letdown because it shows a woman being press-ganged by a bunch of well-intentioned, good natured folks who just want to make sure that everyone has a good time. It's pure Disney propaganda.

Thank goodness for Emma Thompson, though, as her characterization of this woman is an absolute marvel. She manages to be a delight in spite of the script's best efforts to ensure she comes off as the de facto villain. She shines through the material and proves that she can always make the absolute best out of anything she's given. Hanks is great as well, as you would expect from Tom Hanks, giving the perfect characterization for this film which is to make sure he seems jovial and empathetic without ever coming across as pushy. The rest of the supporting cast does solid work as well, with Paul Giamatti doing stand-out work once again as Travers' driver, and Bradley Whitford, Jason Schwartzman & BJ Novak also doing good work as the film's music and writing team.

Director John Lee Hancock's last film was the maudlin and absurdly overrated The Blind Side, which makes him the perfect choice for a script like this. He's basically never met a cliche he couldn't use and beat into the ground until it becomes utterly meaningless. It's one of the most overwrought directing jobs you're likely to see, and coupled with the film's score by the usually reliable Thomas Newman, it does everything in its power to ensure that you experience the exact emotions they want you to experience at the exact moment they want you to experience them. I truly, truly hate to do this, but they force everything down with several dozen spoonfuls of sugar.

Saving Mr. Banks isn't a total wash. It's anchored by a fantastic lead performance from Thompson who is ably aided by a stellar supporting cast, but it's almost all for naught as the film itself wants to be a homogenized, easily digestible sap-fest that is calculated to toy with your emotions. It's hard to dismiss it outright since it is lovingly made and does all that it can to please its audience, so it's a bit like kicking a puppy dog, but it feels more like a puppy dog bred in a laboratory to meet your every need. It's cute and distracting, but it's most assuredly the work of craftsman who want to ensure that it serves a very definite function. It's the very definition of hollow.

GO Rating: 2/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]