The Haunted Mansion Needs A New Movie - Movie Musings

Here's why the Grim Grinning Ghosts of Disney's Haunted Mansion deserve another shot in Tinseltown.

Saving Mr. Banks - Review

Saving Mr. Banks... also known as "Walt Disney Pictures Presents Disney's Tribute to the Magic of Disney." All joking aside, when I heard about the premise behind Saving Mr. Banks, it was hard not to be a little interested. The idea of a film that details the making of one of cinema's greatest musicals, Mary Poppins, was interesting enough, but for a film to explore the cultural influence and mindset perpetuated by the Disney corporation has all kinds of possibilities. I won't say that I didn't have my doubts, as there are few companies as protective of their properties as Disney, and anything that could be considered derogatory to the "Disney Image" generally gets nixed. Still, the Mouse House has been slowly transitioning to more adult fare, and has taken more chances since Bob Iger took over as CEO. Plus, with a cast consisting of Emma Thompson, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, and Tom Hanks as Walt Disney himself (the first time an actor has ever played the guy in a feature film), I knew this was a film I absolutely had to see at least once. So is Saving Mr. Banks the whimsically sanitized self-congratulatory tribute of the Disney image of which we were all afraid or is the film Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious?

The film stars Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers, author of the acclaimed "Mary Poppins" children's books. The year is 1961, and for nearly 20 years, Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) has been attempting to obtain the film rights to the novels so that he can adapt them to the big screen. The curmudgeonly uncompromising Travers, however, has continually refused Disney the rights, as she will not let him turn her beloved Mary Poppins into "one of his silly cartoons." However, once the royalties stop, and Travers finds herself pressed for cash, she reluctantly makes a trip to L.A. to hear Walt Disney's pitch... albeit with a laundry list of conditions: No animation, no musical numbers, no Dick Van Dyke, and the list goes on. Disney clearly has a far different vision of the movie, and makes it his mission to not only obtain the film rights but also see a product that will please Travers but also fit the Disney image. Despite the vigorous efforts of Walt Disney, the dedicated screenwriter Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford), and the musical talents of the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak), Mrs. Travers continuously shoots down their ideas and stubbornly refuses to hand over the rights. It isn't until Walt Disney calls back to his own childhood when starts to make a connection with Travers, digging into her tumultuous upbringing that not only led to the inspiration for Mary Poppins, but ultimately made her the person she would eventually become. Can Disney and Travers find their common ground or will the two push one another to their limits?

So... I'll be first to admit that I didn't exactly go into this film with super high expectations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expected the movie to be bad per se, and as I mentioned before, the concept was quite intriguing. I just had doubts that Saving Mr. Banks could rise above the supposed Disney-fied schmaltzy and whimsical overtones being projected by the trailers. Now, while I will say that some of my concerns weren't totally unwarranted, Saving Mr. Banks is good... really good actually. I'm not saying the movie is perfect (it's not), but despite it sometimes falling victim to one too many of it's whimsical trappings, it typically manages to overcome most of its schmaltz to deliver a touching, charming, and relatable tale complete with top-notch performances, poignant themes, and beautiful camerawork. It's a charming biopic with interesting moments of character study, illustrating the inspiration behind an artist's work and one's emotional attachment to their creations. It also doesn't hurt when the movie is just plain beautiful to look at. From the detailed production design to the gorgeous cinematography, it's one of those films where almost every shot could be copied, framed, and hung on the wall. Plus, it doesn't hurt to intersperse your movie's musical score with samples from the super catchy songs of Mary Poppins (as Mary Poppins said, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.") . That said, I can't quite call the film a masterpiece, and I don't expect to see it included among Disney's true classics (like Mary Poppins for instance), but it's a solid flick that delivers most of what it promises. If there's any truth to the Oscar buzz surrounding the movie, I can't say that I have any objections.

Saving Mr. Banks is one of those odd films that cuts back and forth between two separate stories, much like The Godfather Part II. The "main" story centers around the aforementioned development of the Mary Poppins film, but occasionally the story breaks away to flashback scenes of Mrs. Travers' childhood in Australia and the events that inspired her to write the Mary Poppins stories. This is an interesting method of storytelling that you don't often see in feature films, as it is often tricky to execute. For starters, by doing this, you're essentially making two completely different movies, with contrasting styles, tones, and vibes. I'm not saying that kind of thing can't work, but it takes a talented filmmaker to make it work without seeming disjointed or imbalanced. In this case, the two stories generally come together... for the most part. I found myself feeling much more invested in the Travers/Disney stand-offs and film development scenes than I did Travers' backstory. Now, don't get me wrong, both segments are quite good... well-acted, beautifully shot, and strongly directed, and maybe it's just because I'm a die-hard film buff that I gravitated toward the Hollywood scenes, but the two drastic differences in style and tone can, at times, be a bit off-putting. The Hollywood/London scenes are played pretty straightforward, basically as a relatively down-to-Earth character drama/biopic that indulges in the occasional schmaltzy scene. The Australia flashback scenes, on the other hand, pile on the whimsy. On top of that, these scenes come off as a bit more derivative, mainly in how they're about Travers' relationship with her troubled, though loving, father (played by Colin Farrell) and the struggles that often plagued her family. Now, once again, I must stress that these scenes are well done, but they can't help but come off as a bit predictable, overly-whimsical, and a touch too far removed stylistically from the "main" plot. Still, in the end the movie does come together despite a few minor speed bumps.

Fortunately, any issues regarding the story, direction, or tone were easily pushed aside due to the film's absolutely stellar cast. Emma Thompson's portrayal of P.L. Travers is easily one of the best performances of 2013. To nobody's surprise, she does a solid job with the strict, no-nonsense, and more-than-a-little abrasive aspects of Travers' persona, but the way in which she conveys the character as one who seemed to have gone through Hell and back is commendable. She may not be the most "likable" character you'll ever see, but in the way Travers is depicted, it's obvious that she has a soul, and despite her innate stubbornness, it becomes obvious that it's only because these characters and stories have a very personal connection to both her past and her family. Thompson conveys every one of these aspects in a performance that's subtle, moving, and all-around brilliant. As for Tom Hanks as Walt Disney... it's Tom Hanks people, do I even have to mention that he's awesome. I'm actually a bit surprised to see that Disney wasn't sanitized nearly as much as I expected. To get this out of the way... there's no mention of the rumored sexist, racist, or anti-Semitic qualities that may or may not have been present in the real Walt Disney (though we'll probably never know for sure), but the movie does portray him as a bit stubborn, somewhat egotistic, and slightly cut-throat (though, to be fair, I think you have to have most of those traits if you're going to succeed in business the way Disney did), though generally genial, friendly, and very passionate about his work. The interactions between Thompson and Hanks were my favorite parts of the film, as their conversations ultimately becomes a battle of the egos, with two very stubborn yet determined individuals attempting to find a middle ground so that they may produce a satisfactory product without ripping each other's heads off. Thrown in a strong supporting cast consisting of Colin Farrell (who really should be getting more praise for his role in this than he has lately), Bradley Whitford, B.J. Novak, Jason Schwartzman, and Paul "I'm Not Capable of Giving a Bad Performance" Giamatti, and you've got yourself a winner.

As mentioned, Saving Mr. Banks isn't perfect. Despite a far more honest and risky tone than I originally had expected, the inevitable Disneyfication of leads to a few too many whimsical oddities and historical inaccuracies that do bring down the film somewhat, but the excellent cast, endearing nature, and charming tone make it hard to resist. There's actually something about this film that I find kind of funny. I remember earlier in 2013, my inner hipster was really excited to see the film "Escape From Tomorrow" (the indie horror/thriller secretly shot in Disney World) because of it's alleged anti-corporate take-down of the Disney image/mindset, only to be disappointed when the final product turned out to be a messy, unfocused, and fairly trivial satire. As for Saving Mr. Banks, the movie I was expecting to be a sanitized, sappy, self-congratulatory schmaltz-fest, ending up winning me over with it's honest, loving, and sentimental nature. Maybe there's something to be said about the infamous Disney formula, sure it might be contrived and manipulative, but it's hard to fault a system that's been so endearing to millions of people for the last 90 years........ or maybe I'm just a sucker. Either way, Saving Mr. Banks is good, check it out!

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Escape From Tomorrow - Review

I've mentioned in previous reviews that I don't get as hyped about upcoming releases as often as I used to. That's not to say that there aren't films I get excited about or that my passion for the medium has diminished, it's just that in an era of 24/7 media coverage, gossip, rumors, and other behind-the-scenes production news plus a noticeable lack of originality or creativity has made it harder and harder to get hyped. Of course when the film, Escape From Tomorrow, stirred a bit of controversy at Sundance this year, it managed to pique my interest. For starters, the film had a pretty awesome concept, a surreal David Lynch-inspired horror/thriller about a man having violent and freaking hallucinations while vacationing with his family at Disney World. However, it was the manner of which it was filmed that really got me... most of it was secretly filmed guerrilla style at Disney World with neither the consent or permission from Disney... that is freaking insane! I'm not coming at this like I'm anti-Disney or anti-corporation (because I'm not either of those). I've been to both Disney World and Disneyland, and have many fond memories of those trips. It's just the fact that writer/director Randy Moore actually had the audacity to take on one of the biggest and most protective companies on the planet is a pretty incredible feat. Not to mention, the fact that a film like this got made and released is an example of some of the most creative and challenging out-of-the-box filmmaking that has been mostly absent from cinema in recent years. So yeah... this was an awesome idea and ballsy concept, but is the film itself any good?

Walt Disney World, a land built on imagination, has entertained millions of visitors since it opened in 1971... but does the so-called "Happiest Place on Earth" have a dark side? Tourist Jim White (Roy Abramsohn) is about to find out. On the last day of his Disney vacation with his wife, Emily (Elena Schuber), and two kids, Elliot and Sara (Jack Dalton and Katelynn Rodriguez), gets an unfortunate phone call from his employer telling him that his job won't be waiting for him when he returns home. To avoid ruining the trip, he keeps this news from his family. This, however, creates a strain between him and his two rambunctious kids and a wife who clearly doesn't think too fondly of him anymore. While spending the day in the park, Jim starts experiencing violent visions and hallucinations (or are they?) twisting the normally happy-go-lucky image of the park. He also starts oggling the scantily clad women that keep walking by, namely two very underage French teenagers with whom he keeps crossing paths. Things continue to go from bad to worse, and the day's events only become crazier and Jim starts to wonder if the park is as twisted as it seems or if he's just loosing his mind.

So I've mentioned that the concept is intriguing and the production was audacious, but gimmicks can only get you so far. From a completely objective viewpoint, how did the film out? Honestly, it's... pretty mediocre. It's by no means terrible, and I'm still blown away by the fact that a film like this even exists, but if I'm going to be totally honest, it is kind of a letdown. Theoretically, it all sounds pretty fantastic. The film has been compared to the works of many surreal filmmakers, namely David Lynch and his experimental classic, Eraserhead. Both featured similar themes and styles by both being shot in black and white, both dealing with themes of the horrors of parenthood and relationships, and both featuring a main character who is slowly loosing his mind. Whenever Escape From Tomorrow focuses strictly on the surreal horror and trippy visuals, it's pretty damn awesome. The black and white camerawork is a brilliant contrast to the typically hyper-colorized Disney landscapes, and works to the film's tone. Also just try to get some of the images out of your head, from the demonic transformations of the "It's a Small World" dummies or Epcot's Spaceship Earth dismantling and rolling over hundreds of people. Most of the movie was clearly set at Disney World (or Disneyland, they filmed at both locations), but some of it was filmed in a studio, in front of a green screen. Unfortunately, whenever that happened, it was painfully obvious. The screen keying could have been done much better, and some of the cgi throughout the film wasn't always on par. Considering the low budget, it's generally a pretty nice looking movie, but far from perfect.

Story-wise, the movie is a complete mixed bag. I've already mentioned how the premise kicks ass, and the way some of it comes together is kind of interesting. The way it kind of plays with Disney's perception of constant manufactured happiness and turns it on it's head is kind of clever. It has some intriguing insights into both the corporate mindset of Disney as well. I also got a kick out of the allusions to some classic Disney World urban legends. I won't spoil them, but the most memorable, in my opinion, has to be the one involving the Disney princesses (you'll know it when you see it). Unfortunately, the movie suffers from some noticeable pacing issues, even at only 90 minutes. For every interesting scene, there's another dull and lifeless one. It's hard to have any sympathy for these characters too. I'm not sure if we were supposed to relate to anyone, but when you get right down it, Jim is a neglectful father who spends most of his time checking out the nearby girls at the expense of his family. Not to mention, Jim's wife, Emily, is portrayed as cold, nagging, and bitchy... maybe justified given the quality of her husband's supposed character, but considering that none of these characters are particularly deep, interesting, or explored, they just come off as one-note and unlikable. Plus, the quality of the acting leaves A LOT to be desired. It's kind of understandable that the performances wouldn't be totally up to par considering the drastic way in which the movie was filmed, but even in the non-Disney world scenes, the actors are painfully flat. This ends up being Escape From Tomorrow's Achilles's heel, as the sub-par acting really takes you out of the movie and comes dangerously close to ruining it entirely. Basically, it's a film with some really clever ideas but only occasional success with it's execution.

I was initially curious as to why Disney decided to leave this one alone rather than pursue legal action, but now after seeing it, I can see why. The truth is, leaving it alone was the best way to go. Stirring up publicity for a pretty mediocre film (neither really good or really bad) would just draw more attention to the flick instead of letting it fade into obscurity. There's a possibility this one might survive as an underground cult classic, but even that seems like a stretch at this point. It's a creative idea and ballsy production that ultimately culminates into a very so-so final result. I'm kind of tempted to give it a recommendation just to support the low budget filmmaker and his clever methods, but I can't quite do that. If the idea sounds up your alley, maybe you can check it out on VOD (or theaters if it's playing in your area)... and you might appreciate it more than I did. For everyone else... it's a skip.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!