There's a growing misconception among my circle of friends that I am anti-Disney, or at least I'm opposed to the "Disney Formula" or more particularly, the "Disney Princess Formula" i.e. the basic storytelling outline Disney has been using for most of their movies since... pretty much forever actually. Truth be told, I'm not against Disney as a company (well... not really anyways, but that's a rant for another day) or the Disney formula. I remembered when I reviewed Tangled a few years back, I even mentioned that I was genuinely shocked at how Disney managed to continue using the same formula nearly a century and has still managed to make it work after all these years. That said, while I am well-aware that the formula has led to some genuine classic movies, it hasn't led to too many breakthroughs in storytelling, Disney filmmakers have been a little too in love with it, and too many have been reluctant to break away from it's typical tropes. The last Disney Princess film was 2010's Tangled, and while the movie was good, it's reluctance to deviate from the formula was, among a few other things, what ultimately kept it from greatness, in my opinion anyways. All that aside, I can now say, with great excitement, that Disney has finally figured out an interesting direction in which to take it's beloved (and lucrative) Disney Princess brand with Frozen. Not only is it one of the best animated films to be included in the Disney Animation roster, but the way in which it harks back to the glory days of the Disney Renaissance while critiquing and embracing the formula's tropes is one of the best moves they've made in years. I'm not joking here folks... Frozen is just that good.
The film is a loose adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale, The Snow Queen (though I do mean very very loose). It centers around two sisters, Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell), both royal princesses of the Kingdom of Arendelle. Elsa was inexplicably born with the magical power to create and control ice. After almost inflicting Anna with a mortal injury, Elsa withdraws from the outside world as her ability becomes harder and harder to control the older she gets. Anna, whose memory of Elsa's powers were magically erased from her mind in order to protect her, grows up wondering why her sister (and former BFF) has distanced herself. The years go by, and the King and Queen die in a tragic accident (this is a Disney film after all), leaving the reluctant Elsa to take the throne as the new Queen, despite her fear of being revealed, or worse, losing control of her abilities. Her worst fears are realized on the day of her coronation when she accidentally unleashes a freak ice storm upon hearing of Anna's sporadic engagement to the previously unknown Prince Hans (Santino Fontana). She retreats to the mountains, unbeknownst to her that Arendelle has been covered in an eternal winter. Anna, determined to save both her sister and the Kingdom, takes to the mountain to find Elsa before it's too late.
I'll admit that, for most of Frozen's production, I wasn't exactly looking forward to it. That's mainly because the film was plagued a horrible advertising campaign. Namely every trailer, preview, or poster was centered around either the action beats or Olaf the Snowman (the film's main comic relief). It just seemed like the film was either an Ice Age knockoff or another ill-advised attempt for Disney to compete with Dreamworks more comedic/slapstick inspired animated fare. It wasn't until the film was finally released that I started hearing things like it was a welcome throwback to the Disney Golden Age, one of the best animated films in years, and a progressive step forward for Disney animation. Hell, some even said that it was Disney's best film since Beauty and the Beast (though not quite, imo Beauty and the Beast is still the gold standard of Disney animation). As I said before, despite the awful advertising, Frozen is not only a welcome return to form, but a good sign that Disney has started to figure out not only how to make films worthy of their classics and also how to take both the company, and their respective formula, into interesting new directions. Also, a bit of a side note, but it's kind of weird how Pixar has kind of dropped the ball the last few years while Disney has picked up the slack. Cars 2 was a dud, Brave was decent but flawed, while Monsters University was funny but totally uninspired and forgettable. On the other hand, Tangled was an enjoyable if unremarkable entry into the Disney Princess canon, Wreck-It Ralph was both hilarious and creative, while Frozen might very well become a new classic.
Most of Frozen's success comes from one of Disney's most clever, inventive, and subversive screenplays years. Yes, it has a lot of the typical Disney tropes... the dead parent(s), love at first sight, the characters thrown in as goofy comic relief, etc. Fortunately, it does all of those elements really well, and manages to throw in some good twists, themes, and messages for good measure. Better yet, it feels very balanced, rarely letting any one story element overshadowing another (for instance, a lot of family films end up having the comic relief stealing the show). The main thrust of the narrative, as mentioned before, is the relationship between Elsa and Anna, and how their once-close kinship came to an abrupt end. Despite their royal upbringing, both Elsa and Anna lived mostly sheltered and isolated lives, and after the deaths of their parents, have grown into a state of semi-Arrested Development. Elsa is introverted and world weary while Anna has a mindset of childlike naivety. So in addition to the sisterly love themes, we also get a good dose of coming-of-age metaphors... nothing wrong with that. Frozen also has a good time poking fun at some of the overdone Disney tropes, namely "love at first sight", while never quite descending into full-on parody mode. Instead, the plot embraces it's rich Disney heritage but moves it forward (which is one of the themes of the movie.) Most of the comic relief comes from Olaf the Snowman and Sven the reindeer, and while I initially worried that they're shticks would wear thin quickly, I was won over by them thanks to some hilarious banter that never overstayed it's welcome. Frozen also throws in some nice third act twists, some of which were slightly predictable while others, I'll admit, caught me off guard. Elsa might actually be my favorite character of the year, namely in how her tragic backstory keeps you guessing whether she'll stay a decent person or give into her inner demons against a society that clearly doesn't want her. Ultimately, in the end, the main thrust of the narrative comes from the bond between Elsa and Anna, and that is where the film benefits the most. I won't say that I expected Frozen's story to be "bad" per se, but I'm genuinely shocked at just how much I came out loving it. It's a good sign that Disney is once again on the right path.
The cast is also another victory, with some of the better voice acting I've heard in recent memory. Kristen Bell's performance as Anna can't help but sound a little too Disney conventional at times, but the way in which she portrays Anna's spunky-yet-naive demeanor is quite entertaining. She brings a lot of energy to the role, resulting in a performance that's both cute, funny, and moving when it needs to be. Jonathan Groff does a suitable job as Kristoff, the mountain man who becomes a reluctant companion to Anna on her quest. It might have been nice to have someone with a little more gruff in his voice, but I don't have any major complaints. Santino Fontana, at times, comes off as a little too bland and conventional as Prince Hans... but when when the finale rolls around, it's then given a different context in a way I won't spoil that manages to work to the film's advantage. Josh Gad brings some welcome comedic moments as Olaf the Snowman. I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of the guy initially, but this film, among others, have started to make me appreciate his natural talents more than I had before. The standout, however, is unquestionably Idina Menzel as Elsa. Every line of dialogue and note sung is delivered with aplomb, totally selling her role as an unfortunate victim of circumstance teetering on the edge of keeping her soul or going full-on Carrie White. It's easily one of the best vocal performances in years, only second to Scarlett Johansson's turn of greatness in Her (but that's hardly a bad thing). I can't really sell her enough, and even if the rest of the movie was awful, I'd be tempted to give Frozen a recommendation just based on the strength of Menzel and the character of Elsa.
The technical elements of Frozen are pretty much slam dunks across the board. Disney continues it's long standing tradition of top-notch animation with some of their most memorable visuals in the last decade. The beautiful snowscape mountains couldn't have been rendered any more perfectly, plus I really dug the Norwegian influence in the look of the village and kingdom. Elsa's ice castle also has one of the most vibrant and interesting designs as far as animated locales go. Some of the character models for the extras or background characters come off, once in a while, as a little too Uncanny Valley-ish, but the models used to render Elsa and Anna are some of the most expressive and detailed of the entire Disney canon. They all are reminiscent of the Disney Renaissance-era 2D films, but with spot-on 3D updates appropriate for the modern digital age. Plus, throwing in some exciting and fast-paced action for good measure certainly doesn't hurt. The songs, once again, feel like a nice return to form. One of my main complaints against Tangled a few years back was the lack of truly memorable songs (not saying they were bad, just kind of forgettable). Granted, not all of Frozen's songs are huge hits, but Elsa's big epic musical number, "Let It Go" has recently become one of my favorite movie songs of all time (Disney or otherwise). When I first heard it, I liked it but was a bit put off by it's pop-ish sounding tone. That said, once you hear it set to a full orchestra with Menzel's absolutely incredible vocals, it soon becomes clear that this is a song worthy of not only the Disney Renaissance but the company's Golden Age of animation. Whenever I go see a film musical, there's always the hope that there will be at least one song that will totally knock my socks off, and while that doesn't happen often, "Let It Go" was one of those rare exceptions. In terms of pure visuals and technical achievements, this is one of Disney's best efforts.
Frozen has been in theaters for a while now, so I imagine anyone who wanted to see it probably already has. That said, if you're one of the few who hasn't made it out to the theater to see it yet, this is one that I just can't recommend strongly enough. If you have kids, I can all but guarantee that they'll love it, but the adults will find plenty to enjoy here too. No jokes here folks... Frozen is not only one of Disney's best films, but one of my favorite films of 2013.
My Score: 4.5 out of 5!
Friday, January 31, 2014
Saturday, January 11, 2014
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)