Saving Mr. Banks

Saving Mr. Banks

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

As a squeaky clean, nostalgic look at the battle between Walt Disney and P.L. Travers (and indeed between Travers herself), Saving Mr. Banks is droll and charming, with particular strength coming from its two accomplished leads.

It's a simple tale, the wonderfully pompous Emma Thompson plays P.L. Travers, a rather vile and stubborn author, whose books have warmed the hearts of millions. On the other side of the spectrum is Tom Hanks's Walt Disney, an effervescent crowd-pleaser, with a desperate longing to fulfil an old promise that he'd bring Mary Poppins to life. A battle of wits ensues, with Travers turning her nose up at everything Disney throws at her, vetoing the use of songs or "silly cartoons".  Eventually, after days of arguing and a trip to Disneyland, she's worn down (ever so slightly), but it turns out there's a lot more to the characters than meets the eye.

I won't spoil the rest, but the film is enriched with a much deeper and much more personal story than I first realised, intertwining many intimate moments from Travers's childhood with the cynical (and almost pitiful) woman she's become. Thompson's performance packs a lot wallop, with Tom Hanks proving to be an able(if less spectacular) foil. The lack of ugly insight irked me. Only once was Disney's famous smoking habit mentioned, giving the impression that, whilst on the surface it appears very probing, the film is hiding things under its sentimental sheen. Besides that, the attention to detail and production value is top-notch, with a capable supporting cast filling the gaps out nicely.

It's funnier than I expected too, although the slight glimpses of humour are later, rightfully, overridden by Travers's troublesome past, which proves to be the emotional anchor of the film. Indeed, Hanks's Disney, ever affable, has a back story too; which seems to spearhead his campaign for the rights.

It's fluffy in parts, yes, but rarely saccharine or cloying. Director John Lee Hancock utilises the array of tools at his disposal to ensure that what is, essentially, a piece of propaganda, can somehow become a heartwarming and thoughtful look at a sardonic woman and why she's become that way.

At the end of the film, I was pleased to realise that there is true substance under the corporate shine. It's a film so effusive, so sparkling with wit and charm that only the most cold hearted Disney cynics (such as Travers herself) could dislike.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

Kinetic, (still) too long and considerably darker than the first installment, The Desolation of Smaug is a marked improvement on its predecessor, succeeding in solving some of its pacing problems and introducing one hell of a villain.

Yes! It's Hobbit time again and this one is a richer, more intricate installment than the first. As Bilbo and co. converge on the fabled Lonely Mountain, towards the infamous Smaug (voiced and motion-captured by the fantastically evil Benedict Cumberbatch), the stakes are raised even higher. Gandalf wanders off to face the mysterious Necromancer (also a Cumberbatch villain), leaving Thorin and the dwarves to face the dangerously intelligent elves alone. The elves (notably Orlando Bloom's Legolas, Lee Pace's Thranduil and Evangeline Lily's Tauriel) blur the line between friend and foe, making their journey even harder. Of course, the arrival of many orcs and the troublesome dictatorship of Laketown complicate matters further. All this happens before they even reach the mountain. When they finally do (with it taking over four hours of film between AUJ and TDOS), we meet Smaug, the evil, cunning and beautifully designed dragon, who gives fans what they've been waiting for: one hell of a ride.

The film's great. It's much more similar to the tone of the Lord of the Rings movies, but still maintains a sense of individuality thanks to its legendary source material. Of course, Jackson feels obliged to add some of his own stuff, including the surprisngly interesting Tauriel, who (despite her stupid sub-plot with Kili the dwarf) manages to give reason for Legolas's otherwise unnecessary presence. There are moments where Jackson harkens back to the original trilogy, hence the inclusion of Sauron, Galadriel and Legolas (as well as a small, albeit appropriate mention of Gimli).

Besides the teething troubles of the gimmicky High Frame Rate which I saw it in, the visuals are typically top-notch. Middle-earth looks as glorious as ever, with the set design, make-up and hairstyling as elaborate and detailed as ever. With all the criticism levelled at the new films, the production values remain as impeccable as ever. 

What can be critcized, is the pacing and length. While better than AUJ, TDOS still stretches the little book to its limits, hence the inclusion of so many non-Tolkien elements. So work (Gandalf's journey, Tauriel) and others don't (hint: gold). That said, Jackson has clearly taken steps to prevent the film feeling as bloated as the last, with much more action than the previous installment. 

TDOS is pretty much Jackson at his most comfortable, with dazzling imagery, sweeping scope and a fantastic eye for detail, but there's still some length problems to get over before the epic finale.

Mud

Mud 
Overall rating: 4.5 stars

Compelling, sweet and suitably earthy, Mud is heartfelt and features a great cast, with Matthew McConaughey leading the way with another strong performance, and sees director Jeff Nichols as a talent to watch.

Mud tells the story of Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Sam Shepherd), two adventurous kids who, upon meeting Mud (Matthew McConaughey) are compelled to help him find the woman he loves, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It's a rather sweet little feature, understated and quirky; far from the most mainstream film released this year. It combines a simple story with some complex characters, in particular the title character, who remains relatively unexplained - narratively at least - throughout. Besides the fact that he's on the run for murdering a man, there's little else to Mud's back story, which, in a bizarre way makes him all the more appealing to root for. He doesn't come in the shape of the standard movie murderer: he's sweet, relatively pitiful and has good intentions. Of course, this intricacy is much easier to understand when you watch the film. McConaughey imbues the character with both strength and vulnerability. It is truly Mud's story which carries the film, not Ellis's romance sub-plot - which, whilst heartwarming, is brief. However, that whole affair is crucial to show the audience that Mud is in fact a good guy. I won't go into detail, but the final few shots are rewarding to the audience, especially the last.

I was never moved a great amount during the film, despite the strong cast, but I found myself smiling at the end. It certainly isn't an ending where I thought "wow, what a film" but I was satisfied and slightly touched. It's nothing that's going to set the world alight, but one of those films you could watch on a Sunday afternoon, smile at the end and consider it an afternoon well-spent.

Ultimately, Mud is fresh. Rarely do I find myself satisfied with the ending of a film as much as this. It wasn't clichéd, mysterious, explosive or particularly shocking, but it just felt right.

What more could I ask for?

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

With a pitch-perfect cast, surprisingly dramatic direction and strong source material at its heart, the second installment in the popular franchise is even better than the first, packing plenty of thrills and a surprisingly hefty emotional wallop.

Let me make myself clear: I've read the books, yes, but I'm not an obsessive fan of the books; I'm not biased in the films favour. Don't scorn the high rating I've given the film: it genuinely is brilliant. 

Catching Fire sees Katniss Everdeen return with all the other familiar faces, as well as some new ones. I won't go into too much detail, but the stakes are much higher this year, with old victors returning to the arena, as it's the Quarter Quell, 75 years of the Hunger Games and they celebrate by upping the ante in their sick games. It's similar to the first movie location wise: District 12 - The Capitol - The Arena, but the entire affair feels a lot more defined as a whole. More detail goes into the creations of the districts, more detail goes into the inner workings of Katniss and Peetas bizarre relationship as well as the fantastic Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks getting an awful lot more screen time. In fact, the entire movie gets a lot more screen time. I've seen many criticise the film's length, but I don't see it as an issue. Plenty of movies have been longer this year (we've still got the phenomenally lengthy affair of The Hobbit to come) and I never felt bored by this film, even if it took a bit too long to get into the arena. This could be attributed to the book, which takes far too long to get going.

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate the casting team for their fantastic work. The actors, both aesthetically and characteristically, resemble the description in the book, with particular credit going to Jennifer Lawrence (as always), Woody Harrelson, Jena Malone and Stanley Tucci. There's nothing Oscar winning there, but it's nice to see strong performances accompany fleshed out characters (not naming any names...). Of course, part of the credit should go to Suzanne Collins for creating these characters in the first place, but equally, Francis Lawrence had a part in bringing them to life on the big screen (sorry for the cliché).

It never feels like a bridge between two installments (that's what Mockingjay Part 1 will be) and the change of director is fresh. Gone are the days of Gary Ross's shaky-cam (which I didn't even mind) and Lawrence's heavy breathing. The world is richly realised with real passion going into it. The villains (Donald Sutherland's cryptic President Snow) feel more threatening, the district scenes grittier and the capitol scenes even more surreal.

Many will probably feel that the second installment improves on the first, as I do, and it shows. Katniss is the new Harry, bold, confident and strong, willing to carry the burden some daren't bear. Bring on the next part.

Tick tock Katniss Everdeen, tick tock.