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.

Inside Out - Review

Who ever thought those little voices in your head could be so adorable?

Cinderella - Review

Oh hi there Disney, we haven't met in a while, so what do you say let's take a look at another one of your movies? Today it's Cinderella, the second of a series of proposed live action remakes/re-imaginings of classic Disney animated films. The first to hit theaters was last year's Maleficent, an ambitious though heavily problematic revisionist take on the classic Sleeping Beauty villain. Maleficent wasn't without it's moments (here's my full review on it), but it didn't come together all that well, and it certainly didn't bode well for the upcoming live action Disney remakes. Next is Beauty and the Beast... one which I REALLY hope will turn out well, since the animated Beauty and the Beast is, in my opinion, a strong contender for the greatest animated film of all time. But for now, we have Cinderella... a story that hasn't exactly been a stranger to remakes. In addition to the Disney's animated classic, there's also a plethora of live action films based on or inspired by the classic fairy tale. Still, a good story is a good story, and there have been some interesting movies to made out of it. So, with that being said, here's Disney's newest take on Cinderella.

The plot follows... okay seriously? Do you really need me to explain the plot of Cinderella? Is there anyone who isn't familiar with it? I mean, when the phrase "A Cinderella Story" enters our lexicon as a common-known saying or expression, there's really no excuse for not having at least a cursory knowledge of the basic plot details. For those who aren't familiar, here's a quick rundown. Cinderella is a beautiful and extraordinarily kind young woman who tragically lost her mother as a child and her father only a few years later. She lives under the control of her vicious stepmother, Lady Tremaine, and her two bumbling but equally nasty stepsisters, often performing the entirety of the housework and taking abuse from her evil step-family. Then comes her Fairy Godmother, the handsome Prince, the royal ball... blah blah blah, you know the drill.

Now unlike last year's Maleficent, which basically re-tooled Sleeping Beauty almost from the ground up (namely by turning one of Disney's most evil and ruthless villains into a misunderstood anti-hero), Cinderella is much closer to a straightforward remake of the 1950 animated classic. Mostly anyways, it's not a musical, it does go a bit deeper into Cinderella's backstory, and it doesn't have any talking animals (well... kinda but not really). For better or worse, this is about as as old-fashioned as they get. That does come with both it's benefits and downsides. Now, I think the original 1950 Cinderella is a very good movie, though not without a few problems. The nice animation, memorable concept, and classic characters (namely the iconic villain) helped elevate it's flaws... such as the prince being a blank slate of a character and a story that... while not bad, isn't without some unfortunate implications. The idea of a character continually serving her abusive family while waiting for someone or something to take her away from her situation isn't exactly one that's aged well from a feminist perspective. Those that were expecting this new Cinderella to address this issue in a similar way that Maleficent did to Sleeping Beauty... well, don't expect many changes.

Damn it! Why is it every time I review a Disney movie it usually turns out to be half movie review and half discussion on ethics or social matters... seriously Disney, why are you such a magnet for controversy? Anyways, this new Cinderella does attempt to address a few of those aforementioned issues, albeit not nearly to the extent as Maleficent. The characters are still basically the same familiar characters as before, though somewhat more fleshed out. We see a bit more interaction between Ella (Cinderella's birth name) and her birth parents, giving a little more dramatic heft to their untimely deaths. It also spends more time emphasizing Ella's innate kindness and devotion to family, a trait instilled by her parents and partially why she is willing to put up with her step-family's abuse. It's a small change compared to the original, but it is something. They also delve a little deeper into Lady Tremaine's, or the evil stepmother, innate wickedness. It's stated that she deeply loved her first husband and was mortified when he passed. The main reason she married Ella's father was for reasons of financial dependence, even though neither of them really loved each other. The prince also gets a few scenes before the ball... hey, compared to the blank slate that was the animated counterpart, that's a definite step up. Everything else is basically the same... bumbling step-sisters, the Fairy Godmother, pumpkin carriage, glass slipper, and you know the rest.

So... after all that, did I enjoy the film? Actually... yes... quite a bit even! It would be more than a bit generous to call the film a masterpiece or to say it will have the same cultural impact as the animated version, but as far as new iterations of a story as overdone as Cinderella go, this is a very well-made and often entertaining version. The film was directed by Kenneth Branagh, the Shakespearean-trained actor and auteur of both the stage and screen. His directorial filmography of mostly Shakespeare adaptations was always impressive, but he proved to be a surprisingly adept choice for blockbuster fare when he directed 2011's Thor. He instills the film with all the visual bravado you've come to expect from his work, with top-notch production design, sweeping cinematography, elaborate costumes, and creative effects (even if the cgi isn't always perfect). The old fashioned overtones I mentioned earlier really do take shape through the visuals, as the overall look of the film is heavily reminiscent of the kind of sweeping romance films from the golden age of Hollywood, albeit with the modern special effects. If nothing else, the film is a nice visual spectacle that stands a good chance at picking up some Oscar nods for some of the technical categories.

The film's other best factor is the game cast. Lily James equips herself well as the title character, both instilling Cinderella with a natural sense of grace and elegance, while also handling the dramatic moments as well. Richard Madden piles on the charm to solid effect as the Prince, even if he still feels a few scenes short of a perfectly-developed character. Helena Bonham Carter appeared like she was having a blast as the Fairy Godmother. Her role was essentially a cameo, but she runs off with one of the film's most memorable scenes. Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger have a fun chemistry as the bumbling stepsisters, Derek Jacobi has a few memorable scenes as the King. To no big surprise, it's Cate Blanchett who pretty much steals the show as Lady Tremaine. The Wicked Stepmother role was always going to be the most show-y role in the film, and there's no doubt that Blanchett pretty much owns every glorious scene-chewing moment of the iconic character. Other heavy-hitters such as Stellan Skarsgård, Nonso Anozie, Hayley Atwell, and Ben Chaplin all have their moments as well. The film has a very solid cast, and there's no denying that a lot of the film's success is due to the talented performers.

So overall, Disney's attempt to turn their animated classic into a 21st century live action blockbuster is, for the most part, a success. I won't say that the film is perfect, but it's old fashioned charms are hard to resist and it works pretty much where it needs to. If it is still playing in a theater near you, check it out.

I give Cinderella 4 stars out of 5!

Big Hero 6 - Review

Is it just me, or does Baymax remind you of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?

Maleficent - Review

Oh Disney... we meet again. I feel like the last few times I've reviewed a Disney film, I spent more time talking about the company itself than the film I was reviewing. I admit that's probably not the best approach to reviewing movies, but the choices they've been making the last few years have been drastic... at least compared what they normally. For a company with such an infamous reputation for guarding and protecting their beloved properties to re-invent itself so drastically, it's hard not to notice. Whether they're making biopics portraying their founder as somewhat morally grey (Saving Mr. Banks), adding undertones of sexual repression to their animated fairy tales (Frozen), or using their superhero franchises as a means to critique American politics (Captain America: The Winter Soldier)... you got to give them credit for taking chances. With Maleficent, the first of a proposed line of live action re-imaginings of Disney's animated classics (Cinderella, Beauty & The Beast, and Cruella Deville are supposedly on their way), they did something that I would have never EVER predicted. Not only did they take Sleeping Beauty and dramatically alter the tone, subtext, and characterizations of it's beloved classic... but they basically turned it into a Rape/Revenge horror film... no really! Okay, well given this is a Disney film, most of the alleged "rape" of  is generally implied, though they are some pretty strong implications. Still, if Disney ever decided to make their own version of "I Spit on Your Grave" or "Kill Bill", I imagine it would look something like Maleficent. Still, ambitious ideas aside, does Maleficent live up the hype and the daring premise?

The story begins in the land of the Moors, a magical forest populated by fairies, mystical beings, and other supernatural creatures. The Moors, however, borders a human-ruled kingdom, and tensions between the two realms have become tense. Despite the increasingly violent actions of the human kingdom, a powerful fairy known as Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) protects her fellow fairies. This all changes, however, when a former friend Maleficent, a human named Stefan (Sharlto Copley), betrays her by removing her wings and leaving for dead in an effort to become King. As Stefan takes the throne, Maleficent's heart turns to stone, making herself a dark queen of the Moors and vowing revenge on Stefan. With a hardened heart and a taste for revenge, Maleficent places a curse on Stefan's newborn child, Princess Aurora, so that when she turns 16, that she would fall into a deep sleep in which she would never awaken. To ensure the curse would be carried out, Maleficent watches over the young Aurora, and in the process, discovers something she didn't expect...

Okay, so like I said, turning Maleficent into what is essentially "I Spit on Your Sleeping Beauty" was a risky, daring, and audacious move by the Mouse House. Even more than that, they basically completely changed everything from Sleeping Beauty from the ground up. I knew Maleficent was going to be depicted as a more sympathetic character this time (as compared to her animated counterpart where she was basically evil just because she liked to be evil), but the fact that they basically turned her into a sympathetic anti-hero while making the previously "good" characters like Stefan into the villains was something I would have never expected. Seriously, Stefan is one of the most vile, sleazy, and despicable characters I've seen in a LONG time... family film or otherwise. The three fairies, assigned to protect and look over Aurora are also made into complete buffoons. Seriously, the movie basically made them into the Three Stooges with wings. And like I said, it's Maleficent who is the sympathetic and relatable character that we root for and want to see succeed. She can be evil (which, given the circumstances are kind of understandable) but there's no denying the movie makes her the hero. I don't know if this was necessarily the best direction in which to take this movie, but I have to give them credit for taking a such a chance. I'm just amazed that Disney, who has been infamous for their over-protective nature of their properties, gave the green light to this. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Unfortunately... risky concepts aside, the film is kind of a mess. Parts of it work in spades and I won't say that there are some truly stand out scenes. The first 30 minutes of the film is where it truly shines with some impressive visuals, a great sense of wonder, and a truly gut-wrenching and heart-breaking opening. It sets the stage perfectly and makes for a great start. It's when the second act roles around where things start to fall apart. This is where the film somewhat abandons a lot of the setup and takes to re-enact scenes from the original Sleeping Beauty. They admittedly do a pretty good job re-enacting a lot of those scenes, but they feel more like filler than anything. They don't really work with the overall narrative, as they open up some gaping plot holes, slow the film down, and presents some kind of iffy subtext that can't be explored properly by the constraints of a family film. The fact that Maleficent starts to come around after watching Aurora growing up is kind of sketchy in the sense that... well, given the rape-inspired context, I'll let you fill in the blanks. I'm not saying that kind of a topic shouldn't be explored, it's just too dark of a subject to explore properly in a Disney Family film (despite the incredible dark subtext present already). By the time the third act roles around and the Sleeping Beauty re-enactments are finished, the film picks up again somewhat. It finds itself getting back into the story it originally was trying to tell and does a decent job wrapping it up... even if the ending feels a bit contrived. As mentioned, there are parts of Maleficent's story that couldn't have been better, but a clunky second act really did kind of ruin what could have been a great film.

Like the story, everything else is kind of a mixed bag. Oscar-winning art director and visual effects artist Robert Stromberg makes his directorial debut with Maleficent. As expected, he brings a creative visual aesthetic to the look of the film. The Miyazaki-inspired look of the forests of the Moors is both as beautiful as it is creative. Solid production design and costumes are all present here as well (can't say that they didn't totally nail the look of Maleficent). The effects themselves, however, are hit and miss. There are some high points, some of the forest creatures are pretty solid and that dragon at the end was pure awesomeness. The cgi, however, for a lot of the characters (namely the three guardian fairies) looked unfinished and completely unconvincing. Some of the action scenes are shot a bit too erratically as well, and leave more than a bit to be desired. Fortunately, the film finds it's true strength in it's cast. Angelina Jolie is so impeccably cast as Maleficent that she almost makes me want to ignore the rest of the film's faults... almost. I knew she was going to kill it with Maleficent's evil nature, but the vulnerability and soul she brings to the character in the more subdued and heart-wrenching scenes could not have been better. There is no doubt in my mind that she was born to play this character, and I can't imagine anyone that could have done it better. Sharlto Copley really piles on the sleaze as King Stefan, and really does contribute to the character's innate nastiness. Elle Fanning finds true grace as Sleeping Beauty herself, Princess Aurora, and continues to prove that she is one of the most talented young actors working today. It's the cast that almost salvages this film and keeps it somewhat afloat... even if the story kind of kills their efforts.

Just for the risky concept, talented cast, and creative efforts, I'm almost tempted to give Maleficent a passing review. The flawed story, hit and miss effects, and iffy direction however kind of ruin that. That said, for it's attempts at feminist deconstruction plus it's connection to it's classic animated counterpart, I imagine this one might live on a cult classic. If that does become the cast, I might have to re-visit it again sometime in the future. For now, however, it's just okay. I can't say for sure whether you'll like Maleficent or not, since I've heard strong opinions in both the pro and against camp... but I'm somewhere in the middle. Take that as you will.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Frozen - Review

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!

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!

The Lone Ranger - Review

Every once in a while, a film comes along with such inconceivably stupid, offensive, and horrendous ideas, that you ask yourself... is this a joke? The Lone Ranger is one of those films. I'm not saying that Disney's ill-advised reboot of the classic franchise was inherently a bad thing. Actually, I can think of many ways you could re-imagine The Lone Ranger for modern audiences. A movie about a former Texas Ranger who allies with a local Native, both of whom fight crime and evil while following a strict code of non-killing and using violence ONLY as an absolute last option could work. Plus, in an era of gritty and dark anti-heroes, borderline villains, and psychopaths, a movie with some uplifting qualities could have actually brightened up such a dour and depressing movie season. Now, after following the film's production plus seeing the trailers, I knew this movie wasn't going to be any good, but I'm genuinely shocked by just how terrible it turned out. How bad you ask? Let me tell you...

The starts off with John Reid (Armie Hammer), an idealistic lawyer who moves to Colby, Texas. After reuniting with his brother Dan, a Texas Ranger, John is recruited to join his brother and his band of Rangers to help take down the vicious criminal, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Despite John's strict non-violence and non-killing policies, he nonetheless joins the band because of his equally strong dedication to justice. After an ambush leaves all the Texas Rangers dead, with John on the brink of death, he is saved by an eccentric Native named Tonto (Johnny Depp), who claims that Reid is a spirit walker who cannot be killed in battle. Because his enemies believe him to be dead, Reid takes on the alias of "The Lone Ranger" and starts wearing a mask to conceal his identity. Reid and Tonto then agree to join forces to take down Butch and his band of outlaws. What follows is adventure of betrayal, deception, and thrills as both Reid and Tonto make a number of startling discoveries.

Okay, let's address the most glaring issue present in this turd of a film... Johnny Depp as Tonto. I honestly don't even know where to start with this. I mean... WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING JOHNNY!!! Better yet, what the Hell was Disney thinking? Surely, there must have been some point during the production of this film that someone must have said something along the lines of, "Geez, this might be a little... or rather, REALLY offensive." Simply the fact that a white actor is playing a Native character in the year 2013 is egregious enough (I know Johnny Depp claims to be something like 1/16 Native, but I'm sorry that's not enough), but it's made all the more shocking by just how this character has been re-imagined. Tonto here is portrayed an eccentric outcast who wears a dead crow on his head and claims to have some sort of mystical connection to spirits (it's later revealed that he might just be crazy... never was explained very well). Here's the thing about Tonto, he was never a very PC character to begin with. When actor Jay Silverheels played the character in the 1950s, he drew some criticism for being something of an insensitive stereotype. Tonto's stilted speech patterns (which by the way is still present in Depp's version) plus his clear role being second fiddle to the Ranger and less of an equal partner would definitely raise a few eyebrows today. That said, the fact that they had Jay Silverheels, a legitimate First Nations actor, playing such a prominent role in an era in which minorities rarely received such opportunities, was a step in the right direction. Johnny Depp's portrayal doesn't move the character forward, but rather takes a few steps back. Over the course of Depp's career, he has made a living taking chances with risky, innovative, and daring characters, most of which have payed off. Whatever Depp was trying to do here has clearly backfired, and is likely to be a stain on his otherwise mostly solid filmography. I can only hope the backlash surrounding this unfortunate casting decision will lead Hollywood producers to stop whitewashing minority characters.

I really wish I could say that the Tonto issue was the film's only problem... unfortunately that isn't the case. Gore Verbinski is a good director, let's get that out of the way. Yeah, his Pirates sequels didn't really live up to the original, but Verbinski has enough stylish flair and eye for action to make films like the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Rango, or The Ring average out to be pretty good. His attempts to give The Lone Ranger that same dynamic look and energy as his previous hits was commendable, but sadly his efforts were in vain. The horrendous script did Verbinski (and everyone else for that matter) absolutely no favors. For starters, it pretty much spits on the legacy of The Lone Ranger, by trying to distance itself as much as it can from the previous shows. While I'm not necessarily against the way it re-imagined the property in such dark fashion (though I'm not on board with it either), it pretty much abandons the themes and ideas that defined the character in the first place. The Ranger here is less of a moral crusader for good, and rather re-imagined as a clumsy goof who gets by on dumb luck more than anything. Yeah, he still refuses to kill, but through a number of badly set up slapstick gags, he ends up doing just that anyways. The film actually centers more around Tonto than the Ranger as well. In theory that could have been an interesting idea, but because of Tonto's aforementioned character flaws, that didn't work either. The rest just doesn't work... the villains bare a striking resemblance to Barbossa's crew from the Pirates movies, the film never finds a consistent tone, and it's full of plot holes and inconsistencies that continue to add up. In short... kind of a disaster.

Acting wise... actually I don't have much to say on that front. When you're working with a script this bad, it's almost impossible to expect the actors (whether good or bad) to give a decent performance. Armie Hammer is probably the cast's most unfortunate victim as The Lone Ranger. While he's already got a few solid roles under his belt, the guy hasn't quite gotten out of his "up-and-coming" status, and missteps like this might really hurt his career. There were times I felt like he was trying, but more often than not, he looked incredibly embarrassed and uneasy in the role. Both he and Depp barely had any kind of chemistry as well, something that could have really helped elevate the film. William Fichtner was trying, I could tell, but with such a sloppy character, his strong efforts just weren't enough. It's too bad, because that guy is actually a pretty good actor, but his choice in roles really need some work. Helena Bonham Carter gives an enjoyable performance as the one-legged brothel madam who assists Reid and Tonto, but her character is so underdeveloped and pushed aside that I kept forgetting she was in the damn thing. The rest... well, there's not much else to say. None of the actors are particularly terrible (Depp excluded) but none are good enough to help this film in any way.

This is the point where I'm supposed to say something along the lines of, "At least the action was good." To that I say... yeah, it's okay. Gore Verbinski is good enough of a director to at least provide the film with a handful of passable action sequences. There was nothing that particularly stood out, but I can't say it looked that bad either. The opening scene had a half decent fight/chase that started the film with something of a bang. Unfortunately, after that, most of the movie is just Reid and Tonto bickering with one another. By the time the finale rolled around, that was the first time the film actually picked up a bit. It finally embraced some of the fun factor of it's source material, ending in an admittedly exciting action sequence. Unfortunately, by that point, the damage was done and I had totally stop caring. Those are really the only major action scenes over the course of the film's 2.5 hour runtime (by the way, the film is WAY too damn long), and even if they were incredible, I'd still be hard-pressed to give this film a passable score. If you're looking for your blockbuster action fix for the summer... find something else.

So that's The Lone Ranger... so far the biggest dud of the summer. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this piece of crap ended up becoming the worst film of 2013. I know it's been out for a while, and odds are it's not playing in your theater anymore, but if the opportunity to see it does happen to present itself... just keep on skipping it.

My Score: 1.5 out of 5!