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/

Captain Phillips (2013)

4.9/5

Paul Greengrass's Captain Phillips is a superbly-crafted thriller. Based on a true story (similar to his previous work United 93), it somehow manages to keep you in suspense, on the edge of your seat in anticipation, uncertain of its conclusion. The movie follows the titular character, in a stellar turn by Tom Hanks, as his boat gets attacked by Somali pirates. I won't give away any more details in the hopes that you get to enjoy all the surprises from the very beginning, but suffice it to say the entire 2 hours are enthralling. You will exit the theater with white knuckles from gripping the armrests so hard.

Owning the Shakicam documentary-style footage (which I tend not to be a fan of in general), Greengrass provides an authentic texture to his film. It put us in the action without making us nauseated. And nothing feels staged or scripted (except for the car ride in the first 5 minutes of the movie). We are swept along, in seeming real-time, as the terrifying, bewildering events unfold. Hanks gives a spectacular performance, running the gamut of emotions, allowing us insight into his ingenuity, courage, and humanity. Although we only see his character for several hours, we understand his whole being, every aspect of what makes him the man that he is. That is no small feat, but Hanks makes it seem natural, expected, easy.

I watched the closing credits still reeling, vividly aware of the magic that had been created on screen and shared with the world. I was awash with sundry sensations: relief, pride, anger, hope. It took me several minutes for my pulse to normalize, to digest everything I had just witnessed. And I remained in awe even after that, because it is simply that good. Captain Phillips is a stunning example of why we go to the movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535109/

Cloud Atlas (2012)

3/5

Cloud Atlas is an ambitious project for even the most visionary directors. It tracks six separate storylines that connect and intersect in moods and themes. Directed by three people, the Wachowskis and Tykwer attempt to use the same actors across time and space to link the storylines. That unnecessary dedication to a concept is perhaps the reason for dressing its white actors up in "yellowface" to make them look Asian, which is off-putting and unsettling to say the least. Ignoring that, the movie still has its imperfections and failings.

Although the movie intercuts six stories remarkably well, it feels lopsided and uneven. The stories are given equal weight even though some are far less interesting than others. While the book tells the various fictions sequentially, the movie unifies them into a singular, simultaneous narrative. I'm not sure it was the right decision, as it comes with numerous compromises, but it shows that the directors care about the story enough to attempt to adapt the ideas instead of the words.

As the movie ended, I wasn't sure what I got out of it. Its self-importance was lost on me. I felt like the movie is engaging and compelling for its storytelling, but not its story; its filmmaking, but not its content. It's appealing but empty, exciting but unsatisfying. It was made to be bold, not to be felt. I can't imagine anyone going into the theater will go out feeling anything but disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/

Toy Story 3 (2010)

4.9/5

Toy Story 3 is another spot-on piece of entertainment to come out of Pixar. The plot follows the toys' attempt to escape the prison-like Sunnyside daycare center after being mistakenly discarded as trash while Andy moves his stuff for college. The new toys were far more interesting than those in the second one and the recurring toys were given even more texture and complexity. The incinerator scene was both harrowing and heartwarming, and surprisingly draining emotionally. The second half of the film is directed effortlessly as a prison escape, and there are thrills and creativity aplenty. The inventiveness of the animators allows them to envision an alternate world for the toys with its own set of rules (especially with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head) that feels completely believable and fresh. And just as you think there is no way the toys will survive, the writers blindside you with a surprise you never could have expected.

The concept of abandonment makes its somewhat tired presence here once more, but a few more interesting thematics crop up as well. The toys could easily represent parents who must be there for their kids at every waking moment, even when the kid grows apart with teenage rebellion or adult maturity. If so, the daycare allegory doesn't really follow. It feels like a closer approximation of heaven and hell. And what would donation represent? I see some very intriguing potential here, but I'm not so sure it was fully thought-out.

This movie is tough to rate. On the one hand, the storytelling and technical precision make this a splendid film to enjoy. On the other hand, I miss the refreshing, eye-opening take on our world that the first one presented. I wish this one had blown me away with its thematics as much as it did with its visuals and storytelling. But maybe I'm being too hard on it and expecting too much from it. It really is a joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435761/

Toy Story 2 (1999)

4/5

Pixar's Toy Story 2 is a well-made family film, but nowhere near as fresh or inventive as the first one. The plot follows toy cowboy Woody (Hanks) as he is stolen by Al the Toy Collector (Knight) to be sold to a museum in Japan as part of a collection known as Woody's Roundup Gang, which includes cowgirl Jessie (Cusack), steed Bullseye, and prospector Stinky Pete (Grammar). Buzz (Allen) and the gang go on a mission to save him, but Woody must decide if he even wants to return to a child he knows will grow disinterested in him over time or go to the museum to be eternally revered by kids behind a glass display case.

The major new theme in this film is the idea that it is better to be loved and forgotten than to never have been loved at all. However, the idea of abandonment has already been addressed in the prior film, and much more poignantly so. In that movie it was a frightening possibility that Woody fought tooth and nail to overcome, while here it is just a hint of a prospect. Much of this film I thought was a reiteration or reaffirmation of the first one, albeit wrapped up in a splendidly entertaining package. I wasn't a huge fan of the new characters that were brought in, but I did enjoy getting to know Hamm (Ratzenberger), Rex (Shawn), Mr. Potato Head (Rickles), and Slinky Dog (Varney) a bit better. They were far more fleshed out and interesting in this movie. All in all, this is an enjoyable follow-up to the first one, with a haunting and mesmerizing song by Sarah McLachlan, but a bit of a letdown considering how stunning and original the first one was.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120363/

Toy Story (1995)

5/5

Pixar's Toy Story is not the same movie I saw so many years ago. I remember much of the storyline (because of course the plot is still the same), but watching it from a more mature perspective opened my eyes to a lot of what I had either missed or ignored. The plot follows a collection of young Andy's toys who are constantly threatened to be replaced at every birthday and Christmas. Andy's favorite cowboy Woody (Hanks) is one such victim, being forsaken for the year's coolest space ranger Buzz Lightyear (Allen). Jealous, Woody plays a prank on Buzz that goes horribly wrong, the other toys band up against him for eliminating their new friend, and now Woody must save Buzz from the treacherous clutches of the evil neighbor Sid.

What surprised me on this viewing was just how dark this movie was. My understanding from IMDb's trivia page is that the producers wanted it to be edgy. They went down that path originally by writing Woody as an unlikeable sarcastic jerk (and there are some remnants of his unlikable qualities, despite Hanks's incredibly empathetic performance), but this final version is much more shocking. The toys in this world live to serve their master, to give him unconditional love regardless of whether he loves them back or throws them aside. These toys are voiced and animated as humans; how are we to respond when we see Sid explode army soldiers, rip off dolls' heads, and otherwise perform twisted chimeric experiments on the toys? The experience is surprisingly disturbing for a "family movie" and it is definitely edgy.

What stayed the same across these viewings was the animation, which is a real testament to the people working at Pixar. It's so easy for an animated film to look outdated 15 years in the future, but Toy Story does not endure such a fate. The animators took care to give it a unique aesthetic so that when you watch it 15 years in the future or 50 years in the future, you know it is meant to look exactly as it looks. It never becomes outdated, it only serves as a reminder of the style it helped create. The same can be said of the acting: the voice actors are recognizable even today, but they were chosen because of their acting ability, and that will shine through long into the future. They take you on a rollercoaster ride of emotions as you alternatively love and hate them, often from the subtlest of voice changes.

Toy Story is a fantastic movie that goes where few animated films have dared tread. Even today, 15 years later, it is rare to find as mature a family film as this one. Pixar has traditionally provided important adult thematics in films that appeal to younger audiences, and Toy Story is the start of it all. What an amazing and refreshing experience it is to watch this movie!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/

Angels & Demons (2009)

4/5

I did not expect to like Angels & Demons, because I hate the work of both Ron Howard (Cinderella Man) and Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), but I ended up enjoying it very much. The plot follows symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and his female compatriot (Ayelet Zurer) in the Vatican as a potential Illuminati threat to destroy the city becomes a reality. The plot is wholly convoluted and unnecessarily complex to an obscene degree; but if you suspend your disbelief, it entertains.

Like it or not, the story is where the movie really excels. The mysteries, the clues, and the suspicion abound in perfect proportion. As the movie progresses, the fear, the tension, and the uncertainty buid up to a climactic finale. The constant twists and turns are unpredictable, and they work. Technically, the movie was nothing to write home about. The acting is acceptable, the cinematography is mediocre, and the editing is average. Still, for its story and entertainment value, I cannot help but recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

2/5

The Da Vinci Code is a faithful adaptation of a trashy airplane novel. Sure, it works, but at what level? The plot follows Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as they try to uncover the mystery surrounding Tautou's grandfather's death in the Louvre. They soon realize that it is part of a far greater mystery involving the Holy Grail, the Priory of Scion, and Opus Dei. For those that care or know little about religion, this movie will surely bore you, as 90% of the time they are solving puzzles relating to ancient Christian cover-ups and lies. For those that hate the French, this movie will surely aggravate you, as 50% of it is in French. But for the rest, you might find it acceptable. After all, Hanks and Tautou are always excellent, and do their best with the somewhat lacking source material. While Howard's directing was expectedly subpar, it did provide some level of entertainment, albeit frustrating at some points.

After Howard and his incessant stylized flashbacks, mediocre cinematography, and terrible editing, the script was easily the next worst part about this movie. The writers were so faithful to the book that they decided to keep in all the bad parts. Novels must be adapted to work on the screen, not simply converted to the proper format. The first main problem is the pacing of the story. The book has about five different endings, which is bad enough in book form, but in movie form it just makes the last half hour drag painfully on and on and on. The second main problem is the atrocious dialogue. The plot elements themselves were quite silly and far-fetched, but interesting nonetheless. Still, I thought I would hate the movie based on all the negative reviews and anecdotal evidence I had heard about it, but I was surprised at how captivating it was. At least, how captivating it was late at night while simultaneously talking to friends online. I wouldn't go out of your way to check this out, but if you were excited about it at one point in your life, it might not hurt to catch it on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

4/5

Charlie Wilson's War is definitely one of Mike Nichols's finest films. Though on the surface it is an entertaining romp through an extravagant Congressman's fight to stave off Russians in Afghanistan during the Cold War, look deeper and you will find a relevant and timely cautionary tale on how the US handles foreign affairs. It urges us to hold our congratulations and anger; we don't yet know the full consequences of our actions. What is the final result? "We'll see."

The most impressive part about this hilarious movie is the acting. Tom Hanks is perfectly fluid, matching suavity with intelligence. He fully embodies his lovable character. Philip Seymour Hoffman is my favorite though. With a grimy demeanor, his sarcasm manages to piss nearly everyone off. But it just made me love him more. I actually thought Julia Roberts's character was worthless. She seemed like a minor character that was artificially blown up to match the star power of the actress.

I really disliked the war/fighting footage. It looked cheesy and fake and it was almost entirely unnecessary. I wish it had been completely cut out. Despite my complaint with the editing, I still found the pacing phenomenal. I was constantly and consistently entertained. This is in large part due to the wonderful writing--dialogue is something Nichols has always been able to direct exceptionally well. Taken as a whole, the movie is a wonderful joy ride with a message and it goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0472062/

The Ladykillers (2004)

4/5

The Ladykillers is a truly hilarious movie, both while watching it and while remembering it. Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, J.K. Simmons, and Marlon Wayans are unforgettable. Their characters are off-the-wall on paper, but portrayed with such vivacity and honesty to make them fleshed out and believable. The story (crime), the cinematography (crisp), and the dialogue (black comedy) is undeniably Coen. The brothers Coen have practically outdone themselves in shot composition and camerawork; every frame of this movie is utterly pristine, precise, and pretty.

Even so, the story wraps itself up a bit too nicely at the end. The introduction to the characters, while extremely funny, felt conventional and uninspired. The dialogue, specifically from Hanks's character, is extraordinarily fast-paced. It could be argued that this somewhat diminishes your enjoyment on the initial viewing but it also gives huge replay value as you get jokes you missed the first time. I honestly don't have many more cons about this movie. It is exquisite.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335245/

Road to Perdition (2002)

5/5

From start to finish, every frame of this film is jaw-dropping in its beauty. You will be stunned by the cinematography, which relegates the powerful script and precise acting to the back of your mind. Even so, it contains scenes of heart-stopping suspense to rival even Hitchcock's greatest works. It also manages to achieve a certain poignancy through Tom Hanks's quiet and restrained interactions with his son and equally quiet and restrained interactions with his father-figure (Paul Newman in a stellar performance, one of the best of his entire career).

The emotional impact of the film becomes somewhat muted due to its obligatory sense of fatalism, in the same vein as the film noirs of the 1940's. To me, the movie's cold, distant mood fits the piece exceptionally well. The terse manner in which the characters speak is also similar to noir, although the dialogue itself is vastly different (where those movies were flashy, Road to Perdition is earthy). Quite simply, it says all that needs to be said and nothing more.

Sam Mendes directs Road to Perdition with the same subtlety and artistic insight found in American Beauty, but the flourishes are more spectacular: A silent, slow-motion massacre in the rain that resembles a dance more closely than a murder, followed by the words "I'm glad it's you." A long take tracking Hanks as he shoots a man in his bathtub, the bright red blood on the white tile sharply contrasting with the pervading dark grey tones. You will remember these scenes; this movie is unforgettable.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0257044/