Saving Mr. Banks – review

The comedic drama Saving Mr. Banks tells the story of the creation of the Disney film Mary Poppins.  The complicated struggle to get the film rights from the very uptight P.L. Travers, played by Emma Thompson, is portrayed well against a 1960s backdrop.  Between the development scenes are flash backs to Travers childhood where she developed the characters of Mr. Banks and Mary Poppins respectively.  The acting is fantastic and the story is compelling to say the least.

P.L. Travers is hesitant about selling the rights of her book Mary Poppins to Walt Disney, played by Tom Hanks, so it can be made into a film.  They bring her to Southern California and soon she is contrary about every decision attempted towards making the film.  The struggles she faced as a child were shown through flash backs of her as little girl with her father, played by Colin Ferrell.  Through the movie we come to find out how she and Walt Disney came to an understanding to make the movie a reality.

Tom Hanks seems to really channel the spirit of Walt Disney.  He has many of the mannerisms of the man he is portraying and it is really fun to watch.  Emma Thompson is great as the uptight P.L. Travers.  Her path as a redeemable character makes for wonderful drama as we watch her grow and heal.  Colin Farrell shows a wide range of talent amongst this cast of heavy weights.  No one phones it in for the roles they are playing and it shows.

The story is dark and depressing at times but also uplifting as well.   Saving Mr. Banks is great vision of the challenges that come with seeing a movie come to life.  It does not hold back in the dirty aspects but you can tell that the relationship between Travers and Disney was rocky at the best of times.  Disney is not portrayed as some business mogul with dollar signs in his eyes but very human which is an entertaining take on him.

The movie is entertaining and certainly worth seeing. If you’ve seen Mary Poppins you’ll enjoy it a bit more as you will likely understand more of the in-jokes.  However, you will still run the gamut of emotions even if you have not seen Mary Poppins.  I recommend seeing it if you get a chance. You will enjoy it and will certainly enjoy the refreshing acting and story. 

Return to Oz-review

If you are a fan of “The Wizard of Oz” film from 1939 this movie is a very colorful follow-up.  Made in 1985, this movie is not a musical and is drastically different in its tone and mood.  It’s a darker and almost nightmarish movie at times.   Brought to us by Disney, this movie gives us more content from the L. Frank Baum novels.

Dorothy Gale, played by Fairuza Balk, is living in Kansas after her first adventure to Oz.  Her Aunt Em and Uncle Henry think she is crazy so they put her in a nuthouse and she is about to get electroshock therapy when a storm blows her and her pet chicken, Billina, into Oz.  In Oz Billina can talk. Together they find the yellow-brick road in ruins and the Lion, Tin Man, and citizens of the Emerald City turned to stone.  Dorothy must face the evil head-swapping witch Mombi, and the Nome King to save her friends and return home.

The acting is so-so.  Fairuza Balk is a young girl so you can excuse some of it.  However, she does a good job with the act of the melancholy she brings at the beginning of the movie.  Most of the characters that are villains are memorable because of the effects that enhance them. 

The effects are pretty cool.  The stop motion on the Nome King is amazing to watch.  The creepy heads of Mombi are very memorable and the wheelers that roam the road and fall into the deadly desert will be certain to give your children nightmares.  The fact is this movie is very memorable and is like the more mature follow up to 1939 film. 

All in all I think if you liked “The Wizard of Oz” you’ll like this.  It’s dark and it’s depressing but it’s also creative and lovely as well.  It’s more mature and certainly if you are into stories that are a bit creepy and a bit magical like “The NeverEnding Story.” You will most likely enjoy this movie.

Winnie the Pooh-review

Is this what you would call a Kangaroo court?

Well it’s good a see that Disney is taking things back to its roots.  “Winnie the Pooh” is a cute bit of nostalgia that is worth seeing to remember the times when we loved the characters of A.A Milne. I was impressed that they continued the stories of Milne in order to create a fresh movie that is actually very likeable and cute. 

First off I want to give the short at the beginning of the movie the attention it deserves.  It was a great short called “The Ballad of Nessie.” This short actually has a lesson in the form of showing a Loch Ness monster having a hard time with her life that it IS okay to cry in life.  I think that is a good lesson for kids.

I am Roger Rabbiting the hell out of this performance.

As for the main feature “Winnie the Pooh” brings a lot of the same charm we’ve come to expect from the original movie.  There are some things that have changed of course.  Many of the voices are different.  Christopher Robin has an almost cockney English accent which is outright obnoxious.  Rabbit is super over the top to the top now.  He almost seems to be channeling the spirit of Roger Rabbit for his performance.

It has some odd choices too in terms of script as well.  They break the fourth wall a lot in talking with the narrator, played by John Cleese.  Eeyore has taken his depression to new heights when he tells his friends, “We’re all gonna die.”   That’s pretty dark for a stuffed donkey.

  

One weekend a month my ass.

Finally, and I think this a big change.  I always found the friendship between Pooh and Piglet a lot more enduring in the original movie.  In this one Pooh is sort of a dick to Piglet.  Especially if it means he can score some honey.  Bottom line is that this a cute movie that is fun to watch and is probably a lot better for little kids than people with nostalgia goggles.  The original is still more heartwarming and more a testament to youth than this one which seems to just want to ride on the other's coattails. 

Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides-review

Jack gets dragged into a new sequel.

            The biggest flaw to the “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie was following the romance of Orlando Bloom.  He wandered the screen like a wet blanket and just made the movies seem to drag on and on when you wanted more Jack swashbuckling.  This movie makes up for it. But it’s still not very good.

            In this story we find Jack trying to find the Fountain of Youth. Or he gave up on it? Either way you will be given a ton of exposition in a short amount of time so try to keep up. There will be a quiz on this later.  All you need to know is everyone wants the Fountain and need location which he and Gibbs (the mutton chopped fellow from the other movies) know. Everyone is screwing over everyone trying to get there first.        

First off it’s really strange to have supernatural threats in all the other movies that are really cool. Then when Blackbeard shows up; (“The Pirate pirate’s fear”) he is not all that threatening.  In the movie he kills a single guy killed with by a flamethrower attached to his boat.  That of course makes him a genius since flame throwers weren’t really used until World War 1.

Where is the eyeliner?

            But besides that his sword lets him control his ship via telepathy.  He also can raise crew members as zombies to keep them compliant. So why doesn’t he do that more often?  It raises more plot holes then it should.  His magic only is useful for the plot.  He has a voodoo doll of Jack which he gives a good once over.  This is only the first of the Indiana Jones rip offs in this movie.  The second is drinking out of a goblet “One which gives live and one which takes it away.”  Are you serious?  That is almost line for line out of “The Last Crusade”.

            The worse part is the most insultingly forced romance between a priest character that has NO REASON to be on Blackbeard’s ship and a mermaid.  Granted the mermaids are kind of neat in a lot of ways. They are beautiful, they tempt you then they grow vampire fangs and try to tear you apart.  They even have seaweed bullwhips.  I like approach.  But the forced romance just got nothing but eye-rolls from the audience. 

Thanks so much for this forced romance!

            The ending is baffling.  Penelope Cruise really does not deserve what she gets.  I won’t spoil anymore than I probably already have.  But stay after the credits it gives a little more to the end but not much.  I hate to be the one to say this; but where the hell does a pirate get eyeliner.  It’s obvious Jack is wearing gobs of the stuff.  I’d just love to see him cry.  That would be funny to see him with runny eyeliner.

            The one thing that is always great about the series is Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa.  He returns as a privateer for the king of England.  I always loved him as a character because it’s as if he stepped right off the Disneyland ride.  He is the one character whose motivations are always crystal clear and he does as he pleases.

            As one final nitpick to the swashbuckling genre.  I know it looks awesome to see a guy jump around like a gymnast.  But usually it’s better when it’s real.  Not CGI doing ridiculous physics that no stunt man could do.  Also if there are any pirates around reading this.  If someone is attempting to engage you in a fair sword fight that requires fancy footwork.  Just shoot the bastard.  You are a pirate. Don’t fight fair and keep a gun handy.  

African Cats –review

Umm...Hakuna Matata?

    “African Cats” is a beautiful movie.  Every frame of it is like a postcard of the savannah.  It’s filmed like a National Geographic narrated by none other than Samuel L. (Bad Ass Motherfucker) Jackson.  It shows nature at it’s most fickle and its most cruel at times. That being said if you are like me and are overly sensitive about watching animals die than this is not the movie for you.

Ack! I've fallen and I can't get up.

            They do make big deal of characterizing the animals in such a way that there is a good lion pride and an evil lion pride.  Why?  Because the leader of the other pride is on his way to take over the pride and his coming will likely mean the death of the cubs.  This is portrayed like it is the coming of Sauron and the Nazgul.  In reality as much as this might be a shitty bit of nature it’s what a lion does.  It’s like making out bees to be villains because they sting people when it’s their nature to do so sometimes.

Does this lion look like a bitch?

            Besides that we have a cheetah family that is trying to survive in the cruel harsh nature of the plains.  They goes through just about every little bit of crap that African wilds can throw at them and with the exception of baboons armed with spears or something else ridiculous.  Just to keep on trucking with the message about motherhood that seem to have been lost in all the cruelness the rest of the film gives us. 

            But I’ll admit I’m sensitive about animals.  I know it’s part of the circle of life and all but it doesn’t mean I can’t empathize with another creature in pain.  So if you can handle watching that sort of thing it’s an amazing movie.  But otherwise get ready for a movie that will break your heart in worse ways than “Bambi”.