Oscars 2014 - My Picks and Predictions

Normally every year, I'm pretty good about posting my picks and predictions for the annual Academy Awards at least a few days before the show... I kind of dropped the ball on that this year. Unfortunately, both life and time got the best of me and I've fallen a bit behind with my usual Oscar viewings/posts, though I did see all the Best Picture nominees, as well as all the nominees for the acting categories and a few others. So, while this post won't be as comprehensive as they usually are, here are my picks and predictions for this year's Oscars.

Best Actor in a Leading Role
Christian Bale in "American Hustle"
Bruce Dern in "Nebraska"
Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Chiwetel Ejiofor in "12 Years a Slave"
Matthew McConaughey in "Dallas Buyers Club"

It still astounds me that a thuddingly mediocre film like American Hustle was showered with so much praise from critics and the Academy. I mean, Christian Bale was good in it, but nowhere near as good as Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips, Robert Redford in All Is Lost, Michael B. Jordan in Fruitvale Station, or Joaquin Phoenix in Her (and I'm sure there are a few I'm probably forgetting). Granted, this was a crowded category this year and there was bound to be a few snubs, but Bale is definitely the weak link in the category (and make no mistake, I do generally really like Christian Bale). The buzz surrounding the picks this year, however, have been pointing to McConaughey as the likely victor. It's just a performance and role typically awarded by the academy, a previously heartthrob-turned-serious actor giving a deeply committed performance, and who lost considerable weight no less, in a true story role about a bigot-turned-hero to the battle against AIDS (ie a film that tackles some hot-button issues). Is it Oscar bait? Yeah... for the most part... but I won't say that McConaughey isn't genuinely great in the part, and the film is a generally solid movie that serves a good purpose. My personal choice would be either Leonardo DiCaprio or Bruce Dern, but Bale excluded, these would all be worthy victors.

Who Will Win: Matthew McConaughey
My Pick: Leonardo DiCaprio

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Amy Adams in "American Hustle"
Cate Blanchett in "Blue Jasmine"
Sandra Bullock in "Gravity"
Judi Dench in "Philomena"
Meryl Streep in "August: Osage County"

I'm about to type something that I never thought I would ever say, type, or even imply. I'm wondering if I might come to regret this later on, but right now, if I'm going to be totally honest, objective, and un-biased, this is how I truly feel. So with that said............ Sandra Bullock should win the Oscar. I know! I know! It's not that I dislike Sandra Bullock, as she has been in some films I've liked, but nearly every time she's broken away from her usual shtick (the cute if not a bit klutzy but lovable romcom leading lady), the results have usually been awful. Yes, that does include her Oscar-winning role in the very overrated sports drama, "The Blind Side" (she was just okay in that). So yeah, while that might make her the least deserving two-time Oscar winning actress ever, I won't deny that she was genuinely excellent in Gravity. Taking on such a physically and emotionally demanding role, mainly in front of a green screen with few other actors to act off of... yeah that would be a challenge for everyone, but she nailed it! Probably won't matter though, as Blanchett seems like she's got it this year. The only thing keeping me from calling her a sure thing, however, is the recent controversies surrounding Woody Allen, and if that does cost Blanchett the award, it will probably end up going to Amy Adams (the only one of these actresses who has not won already). Still, if you want the safe bet, go with Blanchett. Also... why the Hell was Emma Thompson not nominated for Saving Mr. Banks??? If they had replaced Meryl Streep from the seriously overrated and actually pretty bad "August: Osage County" with Thompson, this would have been a perfect lineup.

Who Will Win: Cate Blanchett
My Pick: Sandra Bullock

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Barkhad Abdi for "Captain Phillips"
Bradley Cooper for "American Hustle"
Michael Fassbender for "12 Years a Slave"
Jonah Hill for "The Wolf of Wall Street"
Jared Leto for "Dallas Buyers Club"

Pretty good choices this year... except for Bradley Cooper. Could we have replaced him with Daniel Brühl from Rush or Tom Hanks from Saving Mr. Banks? Oh well, can't win them all. This award seems to have Jared Leto's name all over it as the AIDS-positive transgender woman in Dallas Buyers Club. There has been some minor controversy regarding whether an actual transsexual actress should have been cast in the part, but since Leto has been racking up pretty much all the other awards for this role, he's the likley contender. I'm okay with that, Jared Leto has always been an underrated actor and I'm glad he's finally getting some recognition. Personally, I'd love to see Barkhad Abti win this one, as his debut performance as the complicated and threatening Somali pirate leader in Captain Phillips was nothing less than captivating. If Leto doesn't win, he'd be the most likely to sneak in and take the award.

Who Will Win: Jared Leto
My Pick: Barkhad Abdi

Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Sally Hawkins in "Blue Jasmine"
Jennifer Lawrence  in "American Hustle"
Lupita Nyong'o in "12 Years a Slave"
Julia Roberts in "August: Osage County"
June Squibb in "Nebraska"

This award has come down to a two-way race between Jennifer Lawrence and Lupita Nyong'o. While Lawrence is good in American Hustle, I'm really hoping she doesn't win this year. I like Jennifer Lawrence, don't get me wrong, but there was never a point in American Hustle where I felt her performance was even remotely Oscar worthy. Lupita Nyong'o, on the other hand, gave such an emotional, heartfelt, and tragic performance in 12 Years a Slave, that it was impossible to not be moved by such dedication. For such compelling work in such a heartbreaking film, I'm going to be pissed if she doesn't win. Fortunately, it seems like Nyong'o is going to be taking the award anyways, so that would be just fine by me.

Who Will Win: Lupita Nyong'o
My Pick: Lupita Nyong'o

Best Director
David O'Russell for "American Hustle"
Alfonso Cuarón for "Gravity"
Alexander Payne for "Nebraska"
Steve McQueen for "12 Years a Slave"
Martin Scorsese for "The Wolf of Wall Street"

There was once a time I thought David O'Russell was one of the most promising filmmakers working today... I no longer subscribe to such sentiment. It's not that he's a bad filmmaker, it's just that for a director who once showed promise by taking chances with risky ideas or at least putting interesting spins on well-established tropes, his last two films have been hurt by tonal inconsistencies, questionable storytelling, and an willing embrace of the overdone Hollywood cliches he once managed to avoid or subvert. Fortunately, four out of five of these directors are very well deserving of this award, though it will probably go to Alfonso Cuarón. My personal choice would either be Martin Scorsese or Steve McQueen, but Cuarón's sure hand as a director and incredible vision was ultimately what made Gravity such a success. So yeah, that's totally fine with me if Cuarón wins.

Who Will Win: Alfonso Cuarón
My Pick: Martin Scorsese

Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Dallas Buyers Club
Jackass Presents Bad Grandpa
The Lone Ranger

There has been a bit of commotion and tons of jokes surrounding the fact that a Jackass film was nominated for an Oscar. I'll admit, just saying that is kind of hilarious. That said, and I swear this is dead serious, I think it should win. Dallas Buyers Club would seem like the likely victor, as it's the sole prestige film nominated in this category, but the aging effects used to turn Johnny Knoxville into an 80-year-old man were damn good and even Oscar-worthy. Of course, I have to ask.... WHAT THE HELL IS THE LONE RANGER DOING ON THIS LIST??? Jackass has taken most of the heat for this category, but the Lone Ranger is the true wtf nominee. I mean... giving Johnny Depp the means to go redface is offensive and disgusting, and even if that wasn't bad enough, I don't see how smearing war paint and putting a dead bird on his head equals Oscar nominee. Ugh! Honestly Academy, couldn't you have nominated The Hobbit instead? That film's makeup was way more impressive... and far less racist too.

Who Will Win: Jackass Presents Bad Grandpa
My Pick: Jackass Presents Bad Grandpa

Best Film Editing
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
12 Years a Slave

As an editor myself, I always insist on commenting in this category. As far as snubs go, I would have liked to have seen Rush or Her on this list instead of American Hustle or Dallas Buyers Club. Though it seems like this award is going to go to Gravity (as will most of the tech awards). I'd prefer to give it to Captain Phillips personally, but Gravity is just fine too.

Who Will Win: Gravity
My Pick: Captain Phillips

Best Original Song
"Happy" from "Despicable Me 2"
"Let It Go" from "Frozen"
"The Moon Song" from "Her"
"Ordinary Love" from "Mandela: The Long Walk to Freedom"

The buzz surrounding this category has mainly been centered around the previously nominated "Alone, Yet Not Alone" nomination being revoked. I personally could care less, it wasn't a very good song anyways and I've heard the film in which it was featured is supposedly awful. Not that it had much of a chance anyways, since "Let It Go" is going to win this award. Frozen's big musical number and song has struck such a chord with critics and audiences that there's little chance of it not getting the Oscar. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Who Will Win: "Let It Go"
My Pick: "Let It Go"

Best Animated Feature
The Croods
Despicable Me 2
Ernest & Celestine
Frozen
The Wind Rises

I didn't do a very good job this year seeing 2013's animated fare. It wasn't a great year for animated features to begin with, despite a few hidden gems. The one I'm most disappointed to miss was The Wind Rises, the final feature to be directed by Japanese animation legend Hayao Miyazaki. With an extensive filmography of incredible anime features, it's admittedly pretty sad that his long and amazing career has come to an end. I haven't seen The Wind Rises yet, so I can't comment on it, but I might write a review down the road when I do finally see it. The only films I saw this year in the category were The Croods and Frozen, and between the two, Frozen is clearly the better film. I might change my opinion later on when I see the rest of these flicks, but at the moment, I'm set on Frozen winning the award... which it probably will.

Who Will Win: Frozen
My Pick: Frozen

Best Visual Effects
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Iron Man 3
The Lone Ranger
Star Trek Into Darkness

If it's a technical award, there's a strong chance that Gravity will win it. Would have preferred to see Pacific Rim on this list instead of the reprehensible Lone Ranger, but these choices are overall pretty good I suppose. Doesn't matter though, Gravity is going to win this award, I'll be shocked if it doesn't.

Who Will Win: Gravity
My Pick: Gravity

Best Picture
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Nebraska
Philomena
12 Years a Slave
The Wolf of Wall Street

I know I skipped a ton of categories, but time's a factor and I don't have much to say about the rest. So, here's the Best Picture lineup. It seems like it's come down to a two-way race between Gravity and 12 Years a Slave... though many are speculating that The Wolf of Wall Street and American Hustle are strong contenders for an upset. I'll admit, it's a tricky one to predict this year, and there's no obvious victor in sight. 12 Years a Slave would seem to be the more "Oscar-ish" film to win such an award, but Gravity has struck such a chord, that we might actually see an effects-driven blockbuster take the prize (that rarely happens). If you want to play the odds, 12 Years a Slave is the safest bet, but don't be too surprised if the presenter announces Gravity as the winner. For me, The Wolf of Wall Street is who I'm rooting for, but 12 Years a Slave or Gravity would suit me just fine... so would Nebraska or Her as well... actually if any of these films won instead of American Hustle, I'd probably survive. Seriously though American Hustle... please Academy don't give the award to a shallow Goodfellas-wannabe, especially where there's an actual Scorsese film among the nominees.

Who Will Win: 12 Years a Slave
My Pick: The Wolf of Wall Street

Below are a list of my predictions, though not necessarily my personal choices, in the previous categories as well as the awards I didn't mention. Who will win? We'll find out tonight!

Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave
Best Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey
Best Actress: Cate Blanchett
Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto
Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o
Original Screenplay: Her
Adapted Screenplay: 12 Years a Slave
Animated Feature: Frozen
Foreign Film: The Great Beauty
Costume Design: American Hustle
Makeup: Jackass Presents Bad Grandpa
Production Design: The Great Gatsby
Editing: Gravity
Cinematography: Gravity
Sound Editing: Gravity
Sound Mixing: Gravity
Visual Effects: Gravity (Like I said, if it's a technical award, go with Gravity)
Original Song: "Let it Go"
Original Score: Gravity
Live Action Short: The Voorman Problem
Animated Short: Get A Horse
Documentary Feature: The Act of Killing
Documentary Short: The Lady in Number 6

Harold Ramis, 1944 - 2014

Sad day today, Hollywood lost another true talent and dare I even say legend. Harold Ramis, the actor, writer, and director who had a pivotal role in developing (or in some cases creating) comedy classics like Ghostbusters, Groundhog Day, Caddyshack, Animal House, Meatballs, Stripes, and others has died today at the age of 69. I know I don't normally do these blog tributes very often, but Harold Ramis is a special case. Not only was he one of those rare exceptions of Hollywood figures who not only made me laugh time and time again, but since Ghostbusters was such an integral part of my childhood and upbringing (and a movie that even after seeing it 100+ times is just as entertaining as ever), Ramis' passing managed to hit me pretty hard. Whether it be the awkward antics of Dr. Egon Spengler in Ghostbusters, the existential hilarity he brought to Groundhog Day, or just his spot-on comedic timing in Stripes... he was a true comedic genius.

If there's one silver lining to this sad news, it's that he has left behind quite a legacy, and if nothing else his talents and spirit will live on in his array of hilarious movies and shows. RIP Mr. Ramis.

Top 10 Best Movies of 2013

Alright! This post is also way overdue. Nonetheless, here are my favorite films from 2013.



Agree or disagree with my list? Leave a comment and let me know.

Top 10 Worst Movies of 2013

Alright! This is long overdue, but here are (in video form) my choices for the Top 10 Worst Movies of 2013!



Stay tuned for my choices for the Best of 2013 and more video reviews.

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!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Review

Ugh! I really need to post these reviews sooner. This film has been in theaters for over a month now and I've waited too long for this post this thing... oh well. Now it's time for Part II of the super-popular Hunger Games series, based on the equally-popular young adult novels by author Suzanne Collins. Can't say I have personally bought into their hype... mainly because I was one of the few movie-goers who considered the first film an overrated letdown. Back in March of 2012, I wrote what was arguably my most controversial review, giving the first film only 2 out of 5 stars with a relatively scathing send-up. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what this series is at least trying to do, the first film had some ambitious ideas (for a young adult series anyways), a strong female lead helming a generally solid cast, and one or two stand-out moments. Unfortunately it was let down by questionable direction, derivative story elements, hit-and-miss pacing, underdeveloped characters, terrible camerawork, sub-par special effects, and bland action. After two repeat viewings plus reading the first novel (which, by the way, is just okay) to see if there was something I missed, my opinion hasn't changed. I can't quite call the film terrible... but I was not impressed. I knew this would be a controversial opinion, as was soon proven by the abundance of hate mail I received, but I stand by it. So yeah, can't say I've been looking forward to it's sequel, Catching Fire, but I was willing to give it a shot, namely because of some new and more promising story elements plus a new director who actually knows how to direct action. Now after finally seeing the thing, here are my thoughts...

The film takes place one year after the events of it's predecessor. After winning the 74th annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have been touring the twelve lower-class Districts in the upper class Capital's mandatory "Victor's Tour." Both Katniss and Peeta reluctantly continue to stage their "love story relationship" for the masses, despite Katniss having a real love, Peeta genuinely having feelings for Katniss, and that many District residents never bought into the charade in the first place. Fearing an uprising, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) threatens Katniss into continuing the act, meanwhile scheming against her to destroy her influence among the District residents. He plans to do so at the 75th Hunger Games, where instead of kids/teens fighting to the death, instead recruits previous Hunger Games victors and pits them in a sort of Tournament of Champions to the death... Katniss and Peeta included. Now, they all must re-train, make friends, make enemies, and fight for their lives.

So right up front, is the film good or is it another let down? Well, unlike the time I saw the first movie, in which I pretty much disliked from the get-go, I've been feeling more conflicted about Catching Fire. I'll admit that there are some parts of this film I genuinely liked, though there were more than a few bits that left me saying, "Really... that's it?" In the end, it ultimately culminates to be a generally decent film, but I'm still not quite sold on the series as a whole. I will say this much, I actually really liked the basic set-up. The first act gets you hooked, the stakes are higher, the satire is better developed, and the way in which the games were set up this time around had some real promise. Unfortunately, it all culminates to a disappointing finale plus some lingering problems from it's predecessor that still haven't been resolved. Ugh... I hate it when that happens. It's not like I went into this film with high expectations or anything like that, but I was genuinely surprised to see just how, despite an abundance of storytelling issues, I found myself invested in the premise... until we actually got to the games themselves. That almost makes me even more upset than I was about the first flick. Sure I didn't like the first one, but it never did much to get me interested in the first place, so I didn't feel that "let down" per se. Catching Fire actually got my hopes up for a bit and then just shot them down... damn!

Okay, so I mentioned that there were some lingering issues from the predecessor that still plagued this sequel. As I mentioned in my review of the original, I was never a fan of how it chose to frame the "good" and "evil" characters. By this I'm referring to the fact that the "good" characters are portrayed as these working class, traditional, or salt of the Earth-like normal folk while the "evil" Capitol citizens are all portrayed as goofy, campy, foppish, and dressed in these over-the-top outfits. Out of all the hate-mail I received, those bits of criticism were probably thrown back in my face the most. I've tried to wrap my around why this kind of storytelling might work, but I'm sorry, no matter how I look at it, I still think it's an incredibly cheap and lazy way to portray it's characters. Not only does it fail to bring any real depth to the characters, but it's just a cheap way to divide the line between good and evil. Plus, the way it portrays "normal" or "down to earth" characters as good while the those portrayed as flamboyant or goofy as evil (or at least misguided) has some really unfortunate implications on how we as people view society. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's there.

As I did mention before, there are some things in the flick that I really did enjoy. The whole setup and first act are good... damn good actually. Okay, well the political and social aspects of the flick still feel more than a bit flawed, but the way in which it continues the story and attempts to further explore it's themes and messages was commendable. The whole "Tournament of Champions" concept, unfortunately, did basically serve as a means to just re-tread the basic plot of it's predecessor, but Katniss competing with a bunch of seasoned veterans at least served as a logical means to raise the stakes. Plus... I really dug the tributes this time around, and how each of them had some unique personality trait or skill. One of my biggest complains with the previous film was how most of the tributes were basically just personality-deprived victim fodder for the games, with even less character than you're typical slasher flick line-up. Here, that's different... you have a tribute that files her teeth into sharp fangs to bite her target, there are two tech-wizards that kill people with science, there's a mute old lady who rides on the back of her younger male companion, and the list goes on. The film also scores hugely once again thanks to the efforts of it's stellar cast, namely Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence was solid in the previous flick, don't get me wrong, but she totally hit it out of the park here, delivering an even more moving and intense performance as Katniss, capturing the trauma of someone who experienced great pain but with the strength to push through whatever challenges come before her. If nothing else, between a great cast and a stellar first act, I found myself hyped to see what would happen next. Unfortunately, what would come next was not nearly as awesome as I had hoped.

If there was one thing that actually did get me kind of excited about Catching Fire, it was Francis Lawrence directing. While Lawrence is by no means a great director, he's at least shown that he has a good eye for directing stylized action scenes, as evidence by two of his previous films, the underrated Constantine and the overrated I Am Legend (not a good film, but not without it's stylish moments). Once the film actually gets to the Games... I couldn't have felt more let down. Most of the said tributes bite it off screen, and don't really get to show off their special skills/traits. Plus, it ultimately culminates into a predictable pattern consisting of an obstacle followed by a chase. The obstacles range from a poison fog, killer baboons, crazy birds, and a few others, but generally come off as uninspired. I suppose these scenes are a step up from the first, namely how this time there's not as much shaky cam and they at they least came up with obstacles slightly more creative than the poorly rendered Zuul dogs from the first. At the very least, the film ended on a pretty exciting cliffhanger that I have no doubt will get all the fans stoked for the next one. Granted, there was one big character reveal/twist that was hardly a surprise, but that's a minor gripe I suppose. Still, with all the hype and great buildup in the first half, I expected way more than what we got in the finale.

So overall, how was the movie? As I mentioned before, it's a decent film.... not great but not bad. I'm not going to say that I've become a fan of this series, but I will give it credit for at least delivering some strong moments and ambitious satire even if the writing is still flawed and the third act was the very definition of anti-climactic. Still, I'll take what I can get, and what we got here was, at the very least, watchable. I'll take that over the mediocrity of it's predecessor any day.

My Score: 3 out of 5