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/

Anna Karenina (2012)

3/5

Joe Wright's Anna Karenina is a stunning reinterpretation of the Tolstoy novel. No, I haven't read the book, but I imagine it doesn't all take place within a theater. And I'll bet money that it doesn't contain some of the most gorgeous, luscious cinematography ever laid to film. So for that, I must give Joe Wright credit, as he has once again constructed a visual masterpiece. But unfortunately that is where the accolades must end.

I really didn't think there was much here. It's not deep, it's not profound. It's not even a love story. It's basically a story of a selfish person with no self-control in a society whose rules are not so different from our own. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but I imagine it's not as famous as it is unless it contained a little more depth than what I was able to extract here. The acting, the story, and the pacing all failed to impress me (although getting such a behemoth of a book down to 130 minutes is an achievement in itself). While I was able to enjoy the beautiful set pieces and costumes, the astounding cinematography, and the clever directing, that is not enough to carry this movie to the great heights it hopes to achieve. For that, I guess I'll have to read the book.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781769/