Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

3/5

Disney's Saving Mr. Banks is an expectedly heartwarming story about the creation of the Mary Poppins movie. Walt Disney (Hanks) has been trying for decades to woo P.L. Travers (Thompson) into giving them the rights to adapt her Mary Poppins books for the silver screen. Due to recent financial difficulties, she finally agrees to meet with the Disney songwriters (Novak, Schwartzman, Whitford) as long as she gets the final say in what ends up in the film. Upon first blush, she appears to be a crotchety old fart with a bug up her butt; she is senselessly rigid and unreasonable in her demands. But as the movie progresses she opens up, first to her chauffeur (Giamatti) and then to Disney himself. We discover what her childhood was like, why she wrote the Mary Poppins stories, and why she clings so closely to the words she put on the page.

Immediately after exiting the theater, I remember thinking how life-affirming and rewarding the movie felt. But looking back, it seems extraordinarily Hollywood-ized. Disney is basically advertising itself, which heavily limits how much we might believe that this was "based on a true story." If you've seen the trailer, there really is nothing particularly surprising about Saving Mr. Banks, from the saccharine atmosphere to the predictable storyline. After all, the ending "reveal" is so obvious they made it the title of the movie.

But the movie is not about twists and mysteries; it's about characters and their motivations. And there again the movie stumbles. Travers feels like an obstacle the entire time, who is eventually overcome by American bravado and intelligence, instead of a complex character with nuance and subtlety. Instead of framing the movie as a character study, Hancock directs it so conservatively that it loses the depth that Thompson worked so hard to infuse in her character. There is so much more to P.L. Travers than her childhood, but that is all we get to see. The movie rides on her ability to generate empathy within the audience members, and Hancock shoots himself in the foot by making her the enemy at the outset.

Now, that's not to say that this isn't an entertaining or enjoyable film. It very much is. It's delightful and funny too. And it will have you reaching for your tissue every once in a while. But it doesn't feel honest to me. It feels deceptive and inauthentic. And it's such a shame because so many fine actors deliver impeccable performances here. It's a good movie, but not as good as it could have been.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140373/

The Hangover Part II (2011)

3/5

The Hangover Part II has been much maligned for being exactly the same as the first one. And yes, the plot structure is almost identical. But even after the novelty of the mystery framework wears off, it's just as eminently watchable. The movie remains hilarious because it delivers memorable characters in ridiculous, over-the-top scenarios. It was funny the first time and it's still funny the second time. As far as raunchy wedding comedies go, I thought Bridesmaids was a better movie overall, but this series loves to go to places you never imagined, way over the lines you were hoping it wouldn't cross, and it does so in an inviting, charismatic way. I can't wait to watch the third one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411697/

The Ides of March (2011)

4/5

George Clooney's The Ides of March is a well-made, high-quality political thriller. Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is running for president with campaign managers Paul Zara (Hoffman) and Steven Meyers (Gosling). Although Morris seems like an ideal candidate, problems start cropping up when his opponent's campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti), tells Steven some damaging news in strict privacy. Things get even more complicated when Steven gets romantically involved with a young intern (Wood) who has a few secrets of her own.

Technically, the film is impressive. The Ides of March showcases just about the finest ensemble cast in recent memory, perhaps ever. Although Gosling is billed as the lead, each of the supporting cast delivers stand-out performances so good that it makes Gosling's acting look simple and immature in comparison. While the script has sharp dialogue, it ultimately lacks the originality and creativity to make the story stand out. Clooney's directing, on the other hand, has matured significantly since his debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Instead of flashy filmmaking, he goes for simple, understated techniques to enhance the overall experience. Subtle moves, like close-ups that build tension by gradually getting tighter, show his command of cinematic technique. All the individual parts come together to make a cohesive whole, but nothing jumps out to make me sing its praises. This is a solid film that does one thing well, but there's nothing revolutionary going on here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/

Duplicity (2009)

4/5

Tony Gilroy's Duplicity is an immensely fun, thoroughly intelligent con movie that far exceeded my expectations. Despite the growing pile of negative reviews, I had relatively high expectations. Why? Because I like Michael Clayton (another cerebral spy thriller written and directed by Tony Gilroy), Clive Owen (especially in Children of Men), and con movies (except bad ones like House of Games). The plot follows Clive Owen and Julia Roberts as two ex-spies working intelligence for two competing cosmetics companies, chaired by Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti. Their jobs are covers to hide the fact that they are trying to steal insider information and sell it for millions. Can they trust each other to do their part, or will one of them leave the other behind and keep all the money?

The plot and its twists are a bit complicated, but fun to figure out and relatively easy to understand if you pay attention. The characters are all written with a uniqueness and clarity that make them both singular and memorable. (Giamatti's character is hilarious, reminiscent of an unholy union between Steve Ballmer and Steve Jobs). The dialogue is written with equal skill, infused with wit and elegance, and spoken with honesty and precision by the actors. While I am not a fan of Julia Roberts (nor was I back when she was younger, less wrinkled, and just as big-mouthed), I thought her acting was as good as that of the other stars. The rest of the technical aspects were more than competent, although not particularly noteworthy. All in all, Duplicity is a stellar example of classy entertainment, one that I highly recommend for anyone who is looking for a comic caper flick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135487/

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

3/5

Shoot 'Em Up is everything you'd expect from a movie with a title named after a video game genre. I enjoyed every moment of this movie and cracked up the entire time. Like Hot Fuzz, it spoofs the ludicrous situations that appear in action movies by creating even more ludicrous situations. They took the time and effort to come up with some truly ingenious fight scenes. It is a laugh a minute, with one hilariously impossible scenario following another. There are numerous references and in-jokes for audience members who know the actors and their previous films--which I loved--but they weren't carried far enough or made obvious enough, as they were in Hot Fuzz. In fact, the more I write this review, the more I realize that this is really just a worse version of Hot Fuzz. It exists solely to spoof and so does not have a life or energy of its own, and will thus fade into obscurity instead of remain in the minds of its viewers like Hot Fuzz.

The plot is obviously worthless, and explaining the overly convoluted plot actually gets in the way of the good stuff, like bad jokes (eat your vegetables) and preposterous action sequences. And some of the dialogue was actually too bad to the extent that you couldn't even laugh at it. Much of the movie felt uneven. The characters were laughable, as intended, but their absurdity still seemed forced. At 80 minutes it was a good length, but still extended maybe 15 minutes past what I would consider the perfect length for this movie before the audience gets tired of its antics. All in all, this is a very enjoyable romp through an otherworld, and highly highly recommended if you just wanna turn off your brain and watch some senselessly cool crap.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0465602/

Deconstructing Harry (1997)

4/5

Deconstructing Harry is a hilarious foray into a neurotic writer's life and mind. Harry Block travels to upstate New York where he's going to be honored by his old college. On the way, he gets a chance to reflect on the choices he's made, both in his writing and in his life. His stories and the characters that inhabit them stem from real people and real events, which has often caused anger and resentment by those whose secret and personal lives he's put on display through his work. I love this movie because it is both meaningful and entertaining. I found myself laughing the entire time. But it also made me think about this writer's life, how he took advantage of it, and what his creations (or are they merely alterations?) mean to himself and to others. Deconstructing Harry is an absolutely wonderful and delightful fantasy about real life that is witty, nostalgic, and philosophical all at once. I loved the acting by all parties and especially enjoyed spotting soon-to-be-famous actors in small roles (Tobey Maguire, Paul Giamatti, Jennifer Garner, etc.). I am in love with the way he made Robin Williams (and himself, later) blurry and out of focus while the rest of the scene was crisp and sharp. I wish I knew how he did it. You can see Allen's creativity positively brimming and overflowing in this movie (although not as profusely as in Annie Hall).

I fail to understand the purpose of the neurotic editing, except perhaps as a banal and gimmicky way of putting the director's own flightiness and anxiety into his work, as Harry Block replicates his life in his writing. Using this editing style to start the movie was extremely off-putting. Some scenes feel rather pointless, without adding much to the table in terms of plot, humor, or pathos. Also, most of the movie is told from Harry Block's point of view, and as such takes on a cynical and misogynistic quality, which obviously may not be for everyone (take his version of Hell, for example). Otherwise, though, a thoroughly fantastic movie that I enjoyed and appreciated from start to finish.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118954/

The Illusionist (2006)

3/5

I saw The Illusionist with Sameer and my brother last night and was very entertained by it. However, I did have some complaints. It builds itself off of one big mystery. The rest of the movie is relatively pointless in that you could have seen the movie without the other parts and left the theater feeling exactly the same. There is no point to watching it more than once; the mystery is solved and that's about all this movie has to offer. Also, magic tricks in a movie just aren't that exciting. I especially disliked the use of in media res (starting in the middle of the action and then explaining how you got to that point). It didn't actually serve any purpose and merely justified sloppy (technique-wise) voiceover narration.

The "big mystery" itself was really refreshing and intriguing; I found myself guessing and just not finding the answer. Acting by Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti was superb as always, but they didn't particularly stand out in their roles for this movie compared to other projects they've done. Jessica Biel was mediocre; neither laudable nor laughable. The cinematography was pretty good, but I was vexed by Burger's choice of some queer angles. One thing I really like seeing was Paul Giamatti's teeth when he solves the big mystery. That almost made me happier than finally having the mystery solved.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0443543/