Saving Mr. Banks or How PL Travers Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Walt Disney

Saving Mr. Banks tells the tale of Mary Poppins author PL Travers and her decision to hand the rights of her beloved book over to Walt Disney so he could proceed with a film adaptation of the material. As this main storyline unfolds, there are also flashbacks involving Mrs. Travers' troubled childhood involving her father and his struggles with alcoholism. Her experiences would provide major inspiration as she went about writing Mary Poppins later on in her life.

Let me start by getting the big question out of the way: Yes, Saving Mr. Banks does delve a bit into slightly queasy, Hallmark channel-worthy schmaltz, but, thankfully, it's not overwhelmed by this nonsense. It has such an earnest essence and such great performances that it manages to rise above the sentimental muck without being a totally rousing success. Saving Mr. Banks struggles to find the balance between its two parallel storylines. The main one involves Mrs. Travers' working relationship with Disney and her general opposition towards the creative directions they were going in; the other involves the flashback sequences that show her as a young girl dealing with her father's affliction. The film cuts back and forth between the two in awkward fashion. Just as we're investing ourselves in the story involving Travers' experiences at Disney Studios, we abruptly cut to a flashback sequence and it slows down the pace of the film considerably. It finally stumbles into its stride about halfway through when the flashback sequences get a bit more dramatic material to work with, but the storytelling method never fully gels in an effective manner.

What really makes the film work though are its strong performances, mainly those from Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Thompson has a difficult part to play as Mrs. Travers is so unlikable for the majority of the movie. Even as we discover more about her family's struggles when she was a child, the screenplay never gives us a strong reason to empathize with her in the 'present day' sequences. It's not particularly believable when she begins to have a change of heart because the writing hasn't defined her character enough for us to understand her reasoning and the flashback sequences just don't work in tandem with the 'present day' footage. Thompson makes the most of what she's given and keeps Mrs. Travers enjoyable to watch even as we are frustrated with her conduct. Hanks embodies the role of Disney splendidly and gives a wonderfully charming performance as the legendary figure. Jason Schwartzman and BJ Novak make welcome appearances as the Sherman Brothers, the talented musical duo who crafted the songs for the film. I also really enjoyed seeing Paul Giamatti as Mrs. Travers' lovable driver Ralph. Additionally, Collin Ferrell gives a sweet, understated performance as Mrs. Travers' father in the flashback sequences. It's just a shame that the screenplay doesn't strive to bring his character above the level of trite characterization.

CONCLUSION: Saving Mr. Banks is fun, sweet and slightly forgettable. It relies a bit too heavily on contrived and overtly sentimental storytelling methods in order to elicit an emotional reaction, but it works overall due in no small part to the talents of Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks and the rest of the supporting cast.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

"Well no one told me about Her...." But, that's not true. I'm telling you now!!

Her is a passionate, deeply affecting love story. It takes place in a not-too-distant future where the human race spends most of its time hooked in to whatever technologies they have available to them. (Come to think of it, we might be living in this day and age already) People go about their daily lives with an ear plug that feeds them whatever information they desire and keeps them in constant contact with loved ones and acquaintances. Amongst these people is our main character Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix). He is one of the top employees at a company which specializes in composing letters for all kinds of occasions for people who are either don't have the time or are too lazy to write them themselves. He and his wife have recently split up and, though it's been some time now, Theodore is still unable to bring himself to sign the divorce papers that will seal the deal. He's a bit quiet, but he's not socially inept and spends a decent amount of time with his best friend from college Amy and her husband Charles, both of whom are trying to convince him to get back into the dating pool.

After noticing an intriguing advertisement for the world's first artificially intelligent operating system, a system that 'understands' you, he decides to give it a shot and purchases one for himself. After answering a few general questions about his personality, Theodore is introduced to his new OS Samantha. She's smart, funny and easygoing; the two of them hit it off immediately. As their relationship develops and they share more and more with each other, they begin to fall in love and this leads to all manner of joy, heartbreak and revelations for both Theodore and Samantha.

This is a beautiful film, stunning in its simplicity and remarkable in its observations on the complexities of love and relationships. It contains few new discoveries on the subjects, but presents them with a heartfelt sincerity that speaks volumes. Unlike a great number of films in this genre, Her is not a depressing slog; it is often times hysterical. The frankness with which it examines the concept of relationships is genuine and sometimes painful to watch, but it also contains an emotional release that will leave you floating lighter than air by its conclusion.

After the slumping effort that was Where the Wild Things Are, Spike Jonze is back on his A-Game with a vengeance. His script is sharp, intelligent and emotionally rich; his direction is stunning and the images he crafts are breathtaking, rendered with clarity that evokes a future age not too far off from our own. The story falters a bit with its slightly underwhelming conclusion, but the journey there is more than worth this minor complaint. The soundtrack by Arcade Fire and Owen Pallett is haunting and divine and Hoyte Van Hoytema's magnificent cinematography is a wonder to behold.

The performances are nothing short of amazing. Joaquin Phoenix leads the charge as Theodore with an empathetic performance that can make you laugh in one moment and break your heart in the next. Scarlett Johansson is his equal and even though she never appears on screen, she'll manage to win you over immediately. It's one of the best performances of the year and may the Academy be royally screwed for ignoring it simply because she never actually shows up as a physical presence. Make no mistake, every moment she shares with Theodore will make her feel just as real as if she was actually there. Supporting performances from the rest of the cast are strong with Amy Adams and Rooney Mara being the cream of the crop and, just a cool tidbit, Spike Jonze has a wonderful cameo as the voice for a character in one of Theodore's video games.

CONCLUSION: A wholly original love story for the 21st century mindset, Her is a breath of fresh air. It's funny, heartbreaking and, above all, cathartic and features knockout performances and superb direction. It's one of the very, very best films of 2013 and I highly recommend you see it as soon as possible if you know what's good for you!!

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

Do the hustle!! The American Hustle, that is. (I'm so sorry)

American Hustle follows a fiendishly gifted con man named Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale). He and his partner Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) have been living the sweet life, thriving off their supreme con artists skills when the rug is abruptly pulled from under them by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Good ol' Richie-boy wants Irving and Sydney to work for him, bringing down various mob bosses and corrupt politicians with their conning skills. It doesn't matter so much if the politicians are actually corrupt; it's more important to Richie that he goes down in the books as the one who brings them all to justice. One such politician is the beloved Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) who unwittingly gets caught up in their game. Meanwhile Irving's wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) watches from the sidelines, causing all manner of trouble for her husband and his bumbling band of boneheads.

This is easily one of the most entertaining films I've seen all year. I wasn't a fan of 2012's Silver Linings Playbook, but writer/director David O Russell bounces right back with this ambitious, highly enjoyable effort. It's kind of like a madcap version of Martin Scorcese's Goodfellas, kickass soundtrack and all. It never quite manages to reach the heights of that mobster classic, but what movie does? American Hustle breezes by during its nearly 140 minute runtime and features superb performances from its star-studded cast. How can you pick a favorite when you've got the likes of Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence in the mix. (Isn't it interesting that all of them have starred or will star in a comic book film by the end of the year?) Bale is masterful as always, disappearing into his role as the overweight, balding con artist Irving. Adams is ever so seductive as Irving's partner Sidney; Cooper is exquisitely conniving as FBI agent Richie and rounding out the mix we have Lawrence and Renner, both of whom are amazing in every which way.

CONCLUSION: There's very little to not love about American Hustle. Its final act may not be as strong as the ones that precede it, but the entire package more than makes up for this. It has an unpretentious nature that contributes a whole lot to its charm and much of this is thanks to the excellent screenplay and energetic direction of O Russell. Easily one of 2013's best.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Inside Llewyn Davis review

Joel and Ethan Coen are arguably the greatest working filmmakers of this day and age. Each film they make further cements this argument, whether it be a profound masterpiece such as Barton Fink, Fargo and No Country for Old Men or zany bafflers such as Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski and Burn After Reading. I haven't even gotten around to mentioning the dozens of others that fall into that indefinable category in which the Coens dabble from time to time (The Man Who Wasn't There, O Brother Where Art Thou, A Serious Man). Inside Llewyn Davis falls into this latter category. It's dark, somber and sometimes hilarious, but overall, it defies a specific label because...well, it's a Coen Brothers movie. Defying labels is their speciality.

The story follows Llewyn Davis, a down on his luck folk singer desperately trying to earn a living in the early 60's. Llewyn's prospective music career took a turn for the worse when his singing partner committed suicide and he now spends most of his time performing in small, rundown venues hoping to make a name for himself so he can break into the music scene. He's just recorded a new album, but it isn't selling much; no one pays much attention to the folk scene these days. (Keep in mind, this is before Bob Dylan emerged into the world and shook up the music world) He spends most of his time bumming cash from friends and crashing on the couches of whoever will have him. In his free time, he manages to estrange himself from every possible relationship that comes his way, whether it be friendship or romantic. His friends Jim and Jean are generous enough to give him the time of day and allow him to stay at his place, but Jean's tolerance for Llewyn is thin. She thinks she may be pregnant with his child and wants him to pay for an abortion before Jim finds out. To top it all off, Llewyn accidentally locked his friend's cat out of their apartment, so he has to carry it the city with him until they get back into town. Needless to say, life isn't going to well for poor Llewyn and we're paying witness to every comically tragic moment.

I love the Coen Brothers to death and even though Inside Llewyn Davis doesn't rank amongst their best, I have a feeling I'll enjoy it more upon repeat viewings, as is typically the case with their more confounding efforts. Oscar Isaac is excellent as the title character and manages to keep us hooked into Llewyn's journey despite the fact that he's not always enjoyable person to watch. Supporting performances are strong with the likes of Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake and Coen regular John Goodman filling in the ranks. The plot suffers from a meandering road trip in its second act that goes on for a bit too long with far too little of consequence occurring, but seeing as how its these sequences that give us Goodman, I shan't complain too much.

CONCLUSION: Though it may not be one of the best works that the Coen Brothers have produced, Inside Llewyn Davis is still a worthy entry in their catalogue and an intriguing character study.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 2nd Verse, just a tiny bit better than the 1st

Did you ever watch the documentaries featured on The Lord of the Rings extended editions? They might very well be the best supplemental materials I've ever seen. It's such a joy to watch director Peter Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens discuss how they approached the daunting task of adapting such massive novels. The Lord of the Rings books overflow with gorgeous imagery, stories and characters. Streamlining those books into three-hour films was clearly no easy task. In these documentaries, the filmmakers discuss the difficult choices made when adapting the material to film and the approach they took when deciding what things stayed in the film versions and what things had to be cut. Sure, Tom Bombadil was beloved by the books' fans, but his inclusion in the films would have slowed things down and his storyline didn't really move the plot forward in any way. And yes, even though the Scouring of the Shire is a pretty cool scene in the novel The Return of the King, it seems more like a fun side story than an actual part of the main quest. (So many people complain about the multiple endings of the film iteration of The Return of the King but imagine if the Scouring of the Shire had actually been included; there really would have been something to complain about.)

Those are just a couple examples of wise omissions that Jackson and co. made when adapting The Lord of the Rings. They understood that you couldn't carry everything over and decided to focus solely on what was absolutely integral to telling the story of Frodo and the Fellowship's quest to destroy the One Ring. It baffles me that the same filmmakers are adapting The Hobbit because it seems as if they're making the exact opposite decisions this time around. I sincerely miss the days when these filmmakers were wiser and made actual movies as opposed to cash machines.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a dreadful bore. I couldn't bother hating it because I was so indifferent to its overblown, unfocused narrative and video game style settings and characters. The book itself is simple enough as it is, but stretching it out into an epic length and splitting it across three 3-hour long movies definitely took its toll on this first meandering entry. Throughout the course of the film, Bilbo Baggins and his Dwarven companions ran, hacked and slashed their way through various scenes and then ran, hacked and slashed some more with little to no driving story or character motivations. It was just one video game sequence after another, some taken from the book - most invented for the sake of padding out the running time. In adapting this beloved and unassuming adventure story, Jackson and his team have shown little to no reverence for Tolkien's text, opting instead to compete with their masterful Lord of the Rings films.

So now we come to The Hobbit Part 2 of 3: The Desolation of Smaug and the realization that we may never get a film adaptation that honors the text on which it is based hangs heavy over the proceedings. That being said, Part 2 is actually an improvement over Part 1 in that, at the very least, it is more entertaining and even contains sequences that thrill in ways that An Unexpected Journey didn't come remotely close to doing. Overall, though, it's still a middling entry and suffers from the filmmakers' misguided decision to stretch this simple tale far more than necessary, accentuating its flaws all the more.

Poor Bilbo Baggins, the character who's supposed to be the main protagonist of this story, is shoved to the sidelines and spends most of his time staring on as other characters take the spotlight. Martin Freeman is still as charming as ever and I couldn't help but wish that, as the title character of the movie, he would get to do a bit more. Maybe that's too much to ask, though. Instead of focusing on the Hobbit in a movie called The Hobbit, we get more nonsense about Thorin and the dwarves' quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain and all their silly gold. There's also an extended subplot in Laketown, a location that was featured in the book for a grand total of maybe 10-15 pages, and another plotline involving Gandalf's quest to discover more about the mysterious Necromancer. (A.K.A. Sauron, the big baddie from The Lord of the Rings) In the midst of all this chaos, there is a painfully unnecessary love triangle involving Legolas of the original trilogy, Tauriel, an invention of Jackson and his screenwriters, and Kili, the hunkiest dwarf of all. (Since when did the dwarves start looking like really hot bearded men instead of, you know, dwarves?) I was expecting to be more annoyed with Legolas' inclusion here, but was pleasantly surprised. Seeing him felt like seeing an old friend and served as another sad reminder that these new movies don't hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings. Evangeline Lily is actually a welcome inclusion as well. As Tauriel, she flips about, slaying orcs left and right and she manages to do all this while keeping her hair in place. This is no easy feat and I know from experience. What a babe

The Desolation of Smaug benefits from a number of superb action sequences, the best of which is a barrel escape sequence on a river which features the dwarves defending themselves while Orcs and Elves alike hop to and fro, shooting arrows, slashing about and being generally more acrobatic than the laws of physics could feasibly allow. It's just plain great moviemaking and it reminded me of how awesome Peter Jackson can be when he's firing on all cylinders. The extended sequence in Smaug's layer is also thrilling. Benedict Cumberbatch is an inspired choice for the dragon and the effects work that brings him to life is some of the best you'll see all year. (Though nothing quite matches the groundbreaking work done on Gollum) The scenes at Laketown offer a new shade to the Middle-Earth mythos without being entirely necessary and Bard (Luke Evans), a new addition to the already sprawling character roster, is a nice attempt at filling the Aragorn-sized void of this trilogy. (As if Thorin wasn't enough...) There are still far too many meandering side quests, but there's a sense of momentum to the story this time around which makes the slower scenes much more bearable. And then, right as the movie seems to be building to a thrilling climax, it abruptly ends. Actually, saying that it 'ends' is a bit misleading. It doesn't have an actual ending so much as it just stops and cuts to the credits. It's a big Middle-Earth sized middle finger reminding us we'll have to pay three separate times to see a story that could easily have been told within a single film's running time.

So, yes, The Desolation of Smaug is an improvement over An Unexpected Journey and it gives me some hope for the final chapter of this trilogy, but it isn't good enough to stop every single moment in these two films from dragging on and on. There has yet to be any justification for stretching such a simple book out into a nine-hour saga. The Hobbit has lost much of the charm and entertainment value of the original story simply because Peter Jackson feels this inexplicable need to compete with his Lord of the Rings trilogy. At the end of the day, The Hobbit should not be treated as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings; it should be treated as its own story and it's a damn shame that Jackson and co. didn't treat it with the same reverence that was on display in The Lord of the Rings. I can only hope that someday someone will come along and cut together all three of these massive Hobbit movies into a single film. I'm sure that effort would do Tolkien proud. Until then, this is what we're stuck with.

CONCLUSION: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is less painful to sit through than An Unexpected Journey, but it still suffers from the same issues: it's butter scraped over too much bread. It does, however, benefit from some rousing action sequences and improved pacing, but this is still not enough to justify bloating the original story.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire leaves me hungry for more!! (Get it?? Hungry?? Yay!!)

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire caught me completely off guard with its awesomeness. Featuring the superb cast of the first film combined with the assured direction of Francis Lawrence, it's not only an improvement over its cinematic predecessor, it's arguably a big improvement on its source material as well. Fans of the book will be totally engrossed and emerge from the theater immensely satisfied and general audiences won't be at a loss as to why the source material is so enormously popular.

When we last left Katniss Everdeen and her glorious ponytail, she and her kinda/sorta boyfriend Peeta had just emerged victorious from the 74th Hunger Games by not so subtly defying the all-powerful Capitol. Well, President Snow just won't stand for this treachery and has decided to make Katniss' life as miserable as possible. He starts by paying her a visit in her home district and threatening the lives of her friend and family, including that hunk of a man Gale who secretly steals kisses from Katniss when he thinks no one else is watching. (Tsk, tsk) In order to appease President Snow and convince him that she wants nothing more than to avoid sparking a rebellion that could cost countless lives, Katniss and Peeta embark on the traditional Victors tour, visiting the eleven additional districts to deliver prewritten speeches that expound on the glory of the Capitol. Unfortunately, the Districts are already riled up beyond belief and ready to overthrow the Capitol at a moment's notice. To counter these uprisings, President Snow and his new Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee decide that the 75th Hunger Games will bring together all the surviving victors of the previous Hunger Games, including Katniss and Peeta, and have them battle it out in the arena. To the death. Again.

I'll come clean, folks - I wasn't a huge fan of the book Catching Fire. It presented some interesting ideas and suggested intriguing directions for the story to go in and then promptly pulled an about face and became a retread of the first Hunger Games story. Once again, we had to pay witness to more training, talk show interviews, judge presentations, fashion shows and all the other nonsense that comes with preparations for the Hunger Games. There were little twists to each event that helped keep it fresh, but it wasn't enough to hide the lack of new ideas. I enjoyed the book overall, but couldn't help but feel a slight twinge of underwhelmed-itis, a serious affliction in this day and age.

I went into the film adaptation of Catching Fire expecting to have the same lukewarm reaction, but ended up being pleasantly surprised. Chalk it up to the direction of Francis Lawrence (Water for Elephants; I Am Legend) who, with the aid of an excellent screenplay coined by Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionare; 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine; Toy Story 3), has crafted a suspenseful, emotionally resonant sequel that ups the excitement and drama to even greater heights. Lawrence also eschews the obnoxious shaky-cam format of the previous film, replacing it with a steady hand that allows the excitement to come from the action sequences themselves as opposed to the ADD-ridden camera work. The weaknesses of the book are still present - the lame love triangle; the repetitive nature of the story. But in the wake of such exhilarating moviemaking, these flaws can easily be forgiven.

I've already mentioned that bringing in Lawrence as a director was a great choice, but it would all be for naught if he didn't have a cast as strong as the one here. Easily one of the finest ensembles in big budget filmmaking since Harry Potter, Catching Fire's cast features the likes of Jennifer Lawrence reprising her role as Katniss Everdeen, instilling the character with strong emotion and humanity in addition to being a total badass. Additionally Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is noble and kindhearted as always. And did I mention he's oh so charming? Seriously, how is it even a competition between Peeta and Gale? Peeta's got this thing in the bag. But, speaking of Gale, poor Liam Hemsworth is still stuck on the sidelines as the third part of this lame love triangle. At least he's got a bit more to do this time around than sit and pout while he waits for Katniss to return from battle. Returning cast members Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President Snow and Stanley Tucci as flamboyant talk show host Caesar are all wonderful in their respective roles and new castmates Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Gamemaker Heavensbee, Sam Claflin as the charming Aquaman-esque Finnick and Jena Malone as the ruthless Johanna Mason are welcome additions to the superb cast.

Catching Fire works splendidly for the most part. Its biggest weakness other than the 'been there, done that' vibe may be its ending. Though it stays faithful to the story it's based on, many of my friends who were unfamiliar with the source material felt baffled by the abrupt ending and understandably so. The quality of what precedes it is so strong that it's easy to feel disappointed when it comes to its inevitable sequel teasing cliffhanger ending. Either way, despite my general dislike of the final book in the series, I'm excited for the film iterations of Mockingjay. I'm annoyed that it's being split into two films instead of standing strong as a single entry, but I have faith in this cast and crew. We're halfway there and they have yet to let me down.

CONCLUSION: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is one of the most exciting and enjoyable films of the year. It's emotionally sound and relentlessly entertaining. Keep your fingers crossed that the final chapters follow suit.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Thor: The Dark World

(Oh me, oh my, here I am slacking on reviews again. Forgive me while I play catch up.)

I don't much care for Thor and his 2011 debut feature did nothing to change my feelings for the character. Actually, with the exception of Iron Man, I wasn't really a huge fan of any of the Marvel Studios films prior to The Avengers. I just don't get why some people go gaga for the Thunder God, but I think it has something to do with a few factors: First, he's super hot, so you've got your female audience in the bag. Second, he's got an awesome hammer, so fanboys can geek out whenever he brings an almighty smackdown on his enemies. Third. Um, well, he has a cape. It's red....And he has a beard. And gorgeous, golden locks. Other than that, I don't really get it. He doesn't have much of a personality and he's kind of invincible, so suspense is hard to come by.

Suffice it to say, I didn't have a lot of stake in his second cinematic outing. If it had been awful, I'd just heave an exuberant sigh and carry on with my life. If it was a pleasant moviegoing experience, I'd be pleasantly surprised and then carry on with my life. I'm happy to say that Thor: The Dark World manages to fall on the latter end of the spectrum. It's serviceable entertainment and its second half is a whole lot of fun. With Alan Taylor, director of numerous Game of Thrones episodes, at the helm, we also get some more impressive visuals than those of its predecessor.

Its plot is nonsensical, as these kinds of plots tend to be, involving a dark elf played by none other than the 9th Doctor himself (Christopher Eccleston in yet another thankless role that does very little to showcase his talents as an actor) who wants to gain control of a mystical object known as the Aether so he can destroy the universe. Why does he want to destroy the universe? I haven't the foggiest. You'd think that in the interest of self-preservation the bad guys in these movies would be a little more concerned with their well-being. Either way, the motivations of the villain don't matter too much because we never really find out enough about him to care. Somehow, Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster gets infected by the Aether and the 9th Doctor will stop at nothing to kill Jane to obtain it! Naturally, it's up to our hero Thor to save the day!

Okay, yes, it's all a bit silly and the first half is bogged down by mind-numbing exposition. But, once Loki gets more involved with the story in the second half, the movie really takes off. It's actually fun enough that it makes up for the dullness/confusion of the first half. Even though Thor is kind of a lame character, Chris Hemsworth is a charming lad and he instills this part with a great deal of charisma. Natalie Portman does her due diligence as Jane Foster and Kat Dennings is here, unfortunately, still playing the Jar-Jar Binks of the franchise. But, let's not kid ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Loki show and I sincerely wish Tom Hiddleston had even more screentime. His character is far more interesting than Thor's.

CONCLUSION: Thor: The Dark World isn't a genre-bending revelation, but it's better than its predecessor and a rollicking good time at the movies. Another solid base hit for Marvel Studios!

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5