Category Archives: Colin Farrell

Movie Review: Saving Mr. Banks

1 Reply
Image via The Guardian

Hollywood loves nothing more than itself. So I guess it’s fitting that a movie about Walt Disney was made by Walt Disney Pictures. Walt Disney made a movie about Walt Disney whether you like it or not.

That sets the tone for “Saving Mr. Banks,” a sometimes dark but mostly sugarcoated view of a Hollywood story that didn’t necessarily need to be told, but here it is anyway.

In actuality, “Saving Mr. Banks” is not even that much about Walt Disney, even if it was one of the film’s major selling points. It is really about P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), the eccentric author of “Mary Poppins.” Mrs. Travers (as she would want you to call her) is the farthest thing from a sellout, but she is strapped for cash. Disney, who is played here by a mustached Tom Hanks, wants to buy the rights to “Mary Poppins” from her for a film, but Travers won’t do it until she can approve of Disney’s vision. So he sends her from London to Hollywood to work on the script.

Behind-the-scenes looks at Hollywood can be interesting. The process of getting a movie made is such a painstaking process that it usually takes an insane person to get a really good one made. “Saving Mr. Banks” is about pre-pre-production on “Mary Poppins,” before anyone even knew if it was actually going to get made. Therefore, “Saving Mr. Banks” is less about taking huge creative risks and more about the very early creative process of trying to come up with ideas. However, the film never really captures the frustration of trying to get an idea to stick. Rather, it is about a really frustrating person who will shoot down every idea she can.
“Saving Mr. Banks” takes place in 1961, and is intercut with flashbacks to Travers’ childhood. The flashbacks ultimately turn what could have been a fun, breezy look at Old Hollywood into a period piece that takes itself too seriously. The flashbacks serve to reveal Travers’ relationship with her father (Colin Farrell), a man who gave her the cynical outlook on life that was a crucial part of her creative growth. While this is a necessary element of the film, it also feels like it could have been accomplished in just a few simple lines of exposition.

Meanwhile, the film tries way too hard to seamlessly transition into these blasts from the past. Little mind triggers take Travers out of the present and into the haunted events of her Australian childhood. The most ridiculous of these comes from a bowl of pears. From there, the biggest mystery of the film is this: what did pears ever do to her? Did a pear kill her father? Or have an affair with her mother? It was these questions that helped me stay awake through the film’s dullest scenes. I would have preferred that these flashbacks were shoved into the film in a sincerely messy way as opposed to with phony subtlety.

While “Saving Mr. Banks” lets the characters live, it never lets them move around, breath, and truly explore the space. Hanks, who gave one of the best performances of his career in “Captain Phillips” in the fall, seemingly phones it in here. Or at least his potential does not seem to be fully realized. Meanwhile, Thompson gives a standout performance as Travers. At first, her uptight quirks are pretty grating but as the film moves along, they become surprisingly endearing. However, there is a sense of humor that makes up her personality that one can only see from an actual recording of one of their writing sessions (Travers liked to record everything), which is played during the closing credits. Unfortunately, this seemingly funny British sensibility doesn’t come through as much as it should in her performance.

While bias usually only applies to journalism, it can be a major problem for entertainment as well. “Saving Mr. Banks” isn’t necessarily a blatant advertisement for Disney. However, it is definitely a piece of pro-Disney propaganda. While movies don’t need to portray the past accurately in order to be good, they should at least try to come close. Instead, “Saving Mr. Banks” portrays Walt Disney as a big kid with boundless imagination. While I am sure that Disney was like that, he also must have been a pretty ruthless businessman, given the scope of the empire that he created. Instead, we are expected to be sympathetic for him because he had a rough childhood. That tidbit, like most of what the film reveals, isn’t as big of a revelation as it thinks it is.

At one point, Disney gives a cheesy, self-congratulatory speech that is perhaps perfect for this film. We give tons of awards and money to people who make things up, so why do we all need to hear a speech about how important creative people are?

I might have a little bias here myself, as I have actually never seen “Mary Poppins.” I am not sure if this would have changed my opinion on the film or not. I doubt it, because in a weird way, the ending of “Saving Mr. Banks” was emotionally satisfying, even though it fell flat at the same time. Watching the whole film is like watching a good movie duke it out with a bad movie, as if it is trying to give itself an exorcism.

“Saving Mr. Banks” never strives to break new ground. It is a good remedy for anybody looking for a feel good holiday flick. It is more “Finding Neverland” than “Sunset Boulevard.” Disney’s big final speech fell a little short: he should have mentioned that telling a story involves a bit more honesty and sincerity than “Saving Mr. Banks” has to offer.

Brain Farts From The Edge

·      Having just seen “Inside Llewyn Davis,” every other portrayal of an artist going through a creative struggle just seems trite. And on that note, it is hard to say that Llewyn is a jerk (as many have) after seeing some of things that Mrs. Travers does.

·      I am still not sure if Mr. Disney was actually an anti-Semite, but I was half expecting him to yell “bring me your finest writer Jew writer!” at several points.

·      Speaking of which, B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman were completely under-utilized. I could have watched an entire movie about them trying to write a musical.

·      PEARS

·      Walt Disney’s teddy bear attitude reminded me a lot of Hank Hooper from “30 Rock.”

·      PEARS

·      I should probably mention Travers’ friendship with her driver Ralph (Paul Giamatti). This is probably the most weirdly used cliché in the entire film. I am not fully convinced as to how this one man suddenly made her like America more. Their friendship was way too predictable to be plausible.

·      I would love to see a separate Disney biopic made by a different studio that explores what could possibly drive somebody to have such a grand creative vision. The guy was a child, a businessman, and a futurist, all rolled into one.

·      In the film, Disney says that he likes to see the world through a child’s eyes. This film feels like a child’s perception of Walt Disney. That is not a good thing.

·      Everything in her present life echoes her past. Crazy, right?!


Movie Review: Seven Psychopaths

Leave a reply
This is one of my favorite movie stills of all time.

“Seven Psychopaths” is one of those film in which its title is also the title of the screenplay a character is writing in the film. However, it’s not one of those films that just ends with the final scene being typed out, so we can take comfort in knowing that everything that just happened was only in some writer’s head.

“Seven Psychopaths” is an insane deconstruction of action movies that I loved every minute of. Perhaps Hollywood has reached a tipping point when it comes to telling crime tales, and “Seven Psychopaths” is exactly what it needed to put it back in line. Meta films walk a very tight rope, and “Seven Psychopaths” manages to consistently stay in line.


I have never understood why films about screenwriters have gotten such a bad reputation. Thanks to the weird minds of screenwriters created by the weird minds of screenwriters, we’ve gotten “Sunset Boulevard,” “Barton Fink,” and “Being John Malkovich.” I have a feeling that “Seven Psychopaths” was written when Martin McDonagh was going through writer’s block. Marty Faranan (Colin Farrell) hasn’t gotten past the title for his latest script, “Seven Psychopaths.” Marty is a drunk, which is in his heritage, as others tend to frequently remind him. He is also in a bad relationship with a controlling girlfriend (Abbie Cornish). He wants his script to be about seven different psychopaths. However, he’s having trouble finding his psychos.

“Seven Psychopaths” was made for both film buffs and crime news fanatics. Marty’s best friend happens to be a dognapper named Billy (Sam Rockwell). He wants to help Marty write his script, so he puts out an ad seeking out every psychopath in Los Angeles with a great story. Billy is always eating junk food and he may be completely insane. I always knew Rockwell was a great actor, but I never realized he could be this funny. His performance is filled with twitchiness and manic energy that makes it impossible to know what he could do next. If for some reason another film about Hunter S. Thompson were to be made (I’m hoping for a version of “Rum Diary” that’s actually good), I would cast Rockwell above all others to play Thompson.

Christopher Walken, in his best role in years, plays Hans, the eccentric boss of the dognapping empire. While he can kill it in small roles (“Pulp Fiction,” “Annie Hall”) he is capable of emotional range that goes much further than “creepy guy with a raspy voice.” His character is that archetypal old criminal who seems too nice to ever shoot. He’s also raising money for the same reason many other film criminals have: his wife has cancer. Why he thinks dognapping is the best way to pay for his wife’s treatment is beyond me, but I don’t think the reasons are all that important.

“Seven Psychopaths” commits so many felonies against good screenwriting. Yet, it breaks all of the rules with such confidence and self-awareness that it just can’t be held against McDonagh. Now, I’m not saying that self-awareness is an excuse for bad writing. However, they come across much better when they are done intentionally. “Seven Psychopaths” knows that the kind of story it wants to tell has been done so many times before, so it might as well try to present it in a new way.

“Seven Psychopaths” introduces characters and subplots, and then gets rid of them whenever it damn well pleases. Breaking screenwriting rules is actually beneficial here: it adds a dangerous, unstable element to the whole story. It’s a screenwriter projecting his own mind through the eyes of another screenwriter, and neither have any idea where their own stories can take them. And that is a beautiful thing about writing a film: when you have absolutely no idea where the story you are inventing is going to end.

Despite the unpredictability, McDonagh seemed to have a good plan for where to end this film in the same way that “In Bruges” tied everything together so perfectly in the end. “Seven Psychopaths” is a huge ensemble, and it makes a mobster played by Woody Harrelson, a serial killer who kills mobsters, and an adorable Shih Tzu all come together. I am not trying to start a fight here, but I will take that Shih Tzu over Uggie any day of the week.

I see “Seven Psychopaths” as being about the purpose of violence in movies. Sometimes, it has to exist just punish people who had it coming. At one point, Billy suggests they all just go out into the desert and forget about everything that happened. That doesn’t work for long, and not only because Billy is an idiot. Perhaps the reason that heist films end in a shootout is because that’s the only natural course for a criminal to go on. No matter how hard you try, cliches can never be completely avoided. But if you present them in the right way, they can show why movies are such an exhilarating experience.

A friend of mine made a very accurate remark about Martin McDonagh, in that he is the only auteur bred during a generation of Tarantino ripoffs that can ripoff Tarantino correctly. That may be partly because McDonagh got his training in theater, so he knows how to write the long scenes of dialogue that mark a Tarantino film. Not only that, but he also gives the characters funny and insightful things to say. We don’t mind if the story is delayed for a bit, because what the characters are saying is so good to listen to. If a film has good dialogue, that means it can be listened to without the accompanying images and still be just as good.

As someone who is currently writing a script, “Seven Psychopaths” spoke to me on a very high level by nailing a writer’s journey. Whenever it looks like we’re just sitting there doing nothing, there is actually about a thousand ideas forming in our heads, looking for ways to become a whole. “Seven Psychopaths” is filled with little mini stories that are just as good as the main story. Some of the mini stories are made up and told within a story that is also made up. “Seven Psychopaths” is a movie about how life doesn’t turn out like it does in the movie. Try not to let your head explode before you can actually go see it for yourself.

Yes, that is Tom Waits and a bunny rabbit.

The Movie About Dognapping You’ve Always Dreamed Of: Seven Psychopaths Trailer

1 Reply

I only post trailers for movies when it is something I am irrationally excited for and have irrationally high expectations for.

Today, the trailer for “Seven Psychopaths,” the new film from Martin McDonagh, was released. McDonagh’s last film was his 2008 directorial debut “In Bruges” which remains one of my favorite films of the past five years. “Seven Psychopaths” has McDonagh re-teaming with Colin Farrell, whose abilities as a comedic actor remain severely underrated. It also stars Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken, who are two of my favorite actors, as well as Woody Harrelson, who I like most of the time. It also has Gabourey Sidibe (Precious) sitting on a toilet, just in case you were dying to know what that looks like.

The story seems to revolve around criminals who kidnap people’s dogs, return them, and then collect the reward money. “Seven Psychopaths” could be somewhat less dark than “In Bruges,” if there are as many animal reaction shots in it as the trailer seems to portend. However, based on “Bruges,” McDonagh is not one who will let criminals get away with their wrongdoings unscathed.

Are you as excited for “Seven Psychopaths” as I am? Have you seen “In Bruges” yet? If your answer to the latter question is no, go rent it right away. Watch the trailer for “Seven Psychopaths” below:

Movie Review: Horrible Bosses

1 Reply

Twelve years ago, Mike Judge mastered the cubicle comedy with “Office Space.” His workers just wanted freedom. In this summer’s “Horrible Bosses,” all the workers want to do is have their bosses killed. It’s funny how things change like that.

“Horrible Bosses” follows the lives of three men who are troubled at work: Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudekis), and Dale (Charlie Day). Nick goes by the life theory that good things only come when you work too hard and take orders excessively. His psychotic, manipulative boss Dave Harkin (Kevin Spacey), takes advantage of him and eventually takes over the job that would have been Nick’s.
Of the three of them, Kurt is happiest at his job as an accountant at a small chemical company until his boss’s son Bobby Pellitt (Collin Farrell) takes over the company. Bobby is a Scarface wannabe who has no regard for the company he works for. At one point, he tells Kurt to “trim the fat” from the company (by that, he means, fire all the fat people).
Then there is Dale, who’s only purpose in the world is to be the perfect husband. Though he does need some money to support himself, so naturally he becomes a dental hygienist. Unfortunately, his incredibly inappropriate boss, Julia (Jennifer Aniston), is sexually harassing him and prepares a blackmail plan to get him to have sex with her.
The three men constantly reconvene at Applebee’s and discuss their problems until one day they realize that they must kill their bosses in order to achieve happiness. So, they hire a criminal (Jamie Foxx) to help them out. As accordance to the law of comedy, things don’t work out quite as planned.
“Horrible Bosses” is a great summer blockbuster comedy and it succeeds where many other in this field have failed in both being funny and being entertaining. Films like this usually have to deal with following a stringent plot structure and arrive at a certain plot point (think of “The Hangover” movies). While “Horrible Bosses” must not veer from its murder attempt plot line, it also doesn’t hesitate to let everyone involved enjoy themselves a little. What can be picked up from the hilarious outtakes seen in the credits is that improvisation is not out of the “Horrible Bosses” formula.
I’ve always believed that comedy consists of a good mix of good acting, and even better writing. Writing makes a good comedy smart and plausible, and good acting makes the characters and every bit of dialogue spring to life. Yes, “Horrible Bosses” can be described as a dirty comedy in every sense of the word. However, the dirtiness seems more of showing a way people behave and think rather than a way to simply be shocking. A lot of the dirty humor is simply conversational, such as the scene in which the guys argue about who would be most likely to get raped in prison.
It is safe to say that “Horrible Bosses” has one of the best comedic ensembles assembled in many years. All three of the main stars have each developed a certain character and personality through their roles. Bateman plays the vulnerable workaholic straight man that he created in “Arrested Development.” Luckily, that persona never died once that show was cancelled. Day is basically playing the same version of his character in “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”: a loveably inept idiot who shouldn’t be around, seeing as he screws everything up, but having him there makes the story all the better. Then there is Sudeikis, who can now be named a movie star. Here, he continues the horny everyman character he created in this past February’s underrated “Hall Pass.”
The villains are all perfectly cast as well, with Farrell giving the best (or maybe, the most believable) performance out of all of them. Spacey goes a little too over-the-top for comfort at times, but it definitely seems like he was enjoying himself. Aniston, usually the good girl, is surprisingly the dirtiest character in the whole film. Now, that is good shock humor: making an actor go totally outside their comfort zone, and then making them really good at it.
“Horrible Bosses” consistently works. It’s not perfect (I’m still not used to computers as being a main plot point a movie), but it does everything it can for laughs without debasing itself. Like any good comedy, it has a great sense of recall. As opposed to dropping side characters it introduces early on, it brings them back and ties them into the story in very neat ways. Also, it is not as predictable as, say, “The Hangover: Part II.” I think I can now forgive director Seth Gordon for having previously made “Four Christmases.”
The one thing I keep going back to in “Horrible Bosses,” is the strength of its characters. In good comedy, it is forgivable to have an implausible plot as long as the characters feel real. After all, humor usually comes from sticking ordinary people into a heightened reality. Because there’s nothing funnier than watching three white guys from the suburbs walk into a bar in downtown Los Angeles.