Change Your Image
jaxsky
Reviews
Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
Like a Well-Made PBS Documentary with Really Good Reenactments
With IMDb so strict about spoilers, I'm surprised they display the title of this movie. Turns out Mary Poppins is there for Mr. Banks and not his kids. At least, the filmmakers treat this as a revelation when it is dramatically stated close to the end of the movie. If they wanted that to be a moment, they should have called the film something other than "Saving Mr. Banks."
And that's the problem. There just aren't any big, really interesting dramatic moments. There are moments treated as big and dramatic. And, because there are big-name actors, delightful Sherman brothers music, and really good lighting and makeup, at first it all seems bigger than it is.
Truth is, there's just not much to "Saving Mr. Banks." Few surprises and tepid when they arrive.
The film is pleasant enough, but the back-stories revealed to us about Poppins novelist P. L. Travers and Disney emperor Walt Disney just aren't that interesting. Or surprising. Or revealing to their characters.
Of course, Walt is portrayed just about as wonderful as one could imagine. Travers is a difficult, no-nonsense Brit who has a sudden change of heart for no particularly good reason. Even Paul Giamatti never gets angry nor snarls even once, which is rare not to see.
Hanks does a great job as Disney. Everyone else is adequate, none seeming to stray too far from whom they are anyway, or, at least, the types of people they usually play.
Unfortunately the only thing that makes anyone interesting in this movie is who they are playing and a very few mildly curious moments in those people's lives. The actors and writers bring very little to the table.
It's not boring. It's not that interesting. If you like Disney and Mary Poppins, you'll still like them after seeing this. In fact, you'll change very little before, during, and after watching this movie other than a few well-structured weepy moments. Kind of like a really good Hallmark TV movie.
The Butler (2013)
Forest Whitaker As An Uninteresting, Overly Maudlin Forest Gump
You'll feel emotions throughout "Lee Daniel's The Butler," but you'd also cry if someone kicks a kitten on TV. Dropping in simplistic scenes of hardship and meager triumph does not a good film make. This is not a good film.
Technically, it's fine. And it's got a lot of stars. Some are hard to spot such as Vanessa Redgrave as a racist Southerner and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. But, it's overlong even though the story spans nearly nine decades. In all those years, very little actually seems to happen.
Nothing really happens with our hero, Forest Whitaker as White House butler Cecil Gaines. He does his job quietly. He has very little impact on those around him either at home or in the House. The film is named for this person. It would be nice if he was interesting.
The only real action comes from Cecil's son Earl Gaines (David Banner). Earl takes up the fight for civil rights. But, even he's mostly along for the ride, so while he's not substantial enough for his own movie, without him in this one, I probably would have fallen asleep.
And that's the thing. For all the dramatic tension offered by the subjects of fighting for civil rights in the South and working in the White House, this film is surprisingly boring. Sure, I got to see lots of cameos by famous actors as Presidents of the United States, yet even Robin Williams as Dwight Eisenhower did little to elevate my interest.
Like Forest Gump, the events of history pass by around Forest Whitaker's butler. He is alongside every president from Ike to Reagan. Unlike "Forest Gump," it's never that entertaining.
"Forest Gump" and "Lee Daniel's The Butler" also share a feeling that they take themselves to be significant films saying important things, but I am hard-pressed to say just what those things are. Putting powerful, historical events on screen is not the same as saying something insightful about them.
2 Guns (2013)
Not Too Big, Not Too Small: Just the Right Amount of Fun Banter, Mid-Size Action, and Involving Story
There are a lot more than two guns in "2 Guns." Everyone has one. Sometimes two. Often more. And there are lots of different types: from revolvers to high-end military weaponry.
And yet, despite the name, the gun play is less than one might expect. There is plenty. Just not so much as to get in the way of a well-balanced film. The action is punctuated by fun interplay between the two leads.
The film is somewhat a present-day Western. The story is a modern mix of darker Sergio Leone with lighter Terence Hill and Bud Spencer. The chemistry between stars Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg seems genuine, and their repartee is fun and provides a welcome break from the brutal villains.
And there are a lot of villains as the number and groups of people looking to hurt our heroes grows throughout the movie. By the middle of the film, they are hunted or set-up four different organizations all with greater resources than our protagonists. It's the no escape and nowhere to turn, but it's played toward a lighter side rather than having us feel they're helpless and hopeless.
There are relatively brief scenes of cruelty by the bad guys -- particularly an effective villain played by Bill Paxton. Smartly, the darker moments are soon enough relieved by the banter between Wahlberg and Washington.
For the buddy-action-film genre, the story holds together well. There are no painful moments that make you want to scream, "C'mon! Gimme a break!" Sure, a few forced minor conflicts that allow our leads to bicker and fight, but nothing major.
One distraction is the insertion of an agenda. In this film, it's the plight of Mexico and illegal immigrants. And while the movie soon enough gets off its apple box, I prefer my popcorn movies 100% message free (though I like my popcorn butter 100% not fat free).
Overall, it's a more down-to-earth action film in the current age of over-the-top superhero combat. It is well paced with amusing banter between very likable leads. And, refreshingly, you don't need to completely check your brain in the lobby.
The Smurfs 2 (2013)
Solid Family Film Enjoyable for Adults and Kids
I'm not a kid. I'm not a Smurfs fan. And there are a few kids' films I like and many I don't. But, I really enjoyed "Smurfs 2." The film quickly won me over despite what I thought were weak trailers and lame source material. For me, it was light fun and very appropriate for children.
Hank Azaria is the highlight as the evil Gargamel with great delivery of funny lines. He's ably assisted in providing comedy by Brendan Gleeson and, to a lesser extent, by Neil Patrick Harris. Not that Harris isn't funny, but his role as the step-son to Gleeson's sometimes, seeming irresponsible step-father requires less comedy.
Jonathan Winters is, surprisingly, unfunny. But, that's okay. He is Papa Smurf, the straight-man in Smurf village. It's just too bad what may be his last film doesn't give us one more chance to experience his wit. The message is about family and fatherhood. And both Papa Smurf and Harris' Patrick Winslow learn lessons about recognizing and being a good dad. But, mostly it's about fun.
The story moves quickly and doesn't waste a lot of time on dopey scenes or unneeded exposition. There are plenty of fun action sequences and Azaria's antics as the evil and unintentionally-for-himself funny Gargamel.
The film looks very good. The land of the Smurfs is beautiful and the scenes in Paris are lovely. It's a kids film, but it's also, literally, a pretty picture.
Most of the best lines come out of Azaria's mouth. Maybe he came up with some of them. He definitely is a talented performer. But, there are writers, so I'll credit them.
It's often said that a lot of writers on a script is a bad sign. And "Smurfs 2" has five credited. But, it's funny. "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" also had five writers, so I'm not sure so many writers are a bad thing.
The movie is a solid kid's film for without the intrusion of overly adult themes, yet amusing enough that adults won't be bored. It's cliché for me to write this, but it is fun for the whole family.
If you do go, there is a little tag at the very end after all the credits have rolled, so if you liked the movie, stick around through all the credits for it.
Pacific Rim (2013)
Disappointing Action, Weak Script, Mediocre Acting, Annoying Music
Man builds 200-foot robots to fight gigantic monsters emerging from a rift at the bottom of the ocean.
I think this movie may be good for a 16-year-old or younger boy. Otherwise, the stupidity of the story and weaknesses in the acting take you too much out of the action.
From the trailer, I was waiting to be disappointed by why it takes two people to control one robot. Turns out, the neural connection between the machine and man would overload the mind of one brain. Fine. Here's a better solution: nobody gets in the thing and a team of people operate it remotely. Look, I know the point is the show lots of action, but why start off with this silly contrivance? Sure, it's supposed to set-up for powerful emotions when one robot "pilot" gets his partner torn from right next to him, but there could have been better ways to create this situation. It could be pilot, co-pilot. Or navigator and weapons.
Then, are robots really the best way to fight these monsters? They say even bombs and missiles are ineffective, yet some of the robots have missiles and other traditional weapons built as part of their arsenal. Either they are or they're not effective. Make up your mind.
But, I get it. It's all an excuse to watch big robots box big monsters. Fine. But, the fight scenes generally disappoint. Technically the film is fine, but viscerally, I just wasn't there with our heroes during most the battles. There were moments in the Hong Kong fight scene, but even that didn't maintain its occasional high levels of excitement.
And the acting was mediocre and made worse by what I guess was poor directing and a lame script. The only memorable line is when one pilot says to his brother as they're about to do battle, "Don't get cocky." That was awesome in "Star Wars." Here, it just made me think of how much I'd rather be watching that movie.
The character traits that are supposed to make us care are so shoved in and over the top that it never truly connects to us on an emotional level. Yes, it's sibling pilot teams, and father-son pilot teams. But, just saying they're related and share a bond doesn't make us feel that connection. And so many characters are so cliché and overacted it's as if they're in a B-movie. It is a popcorn flick, but at its budget and pedigree, I expect more from the performances.
Finally, perhaps the most distracting part of the film is its score. The movie's music pretty much consists of one theme six notes long repeated and used throughout the movie. I started cringing each time I heard those same six notes (actually, three notes played forward then backward).
This film makes Michael Bay look like Orson Welles and "Transformers" the full-color "Citizen Kane" of robot movies.