Category Archives: Tom Hanks

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?!


Can’t We All Just Get Along: Truth in Film

Leave a reply

Can’t We All Just Get Along is a segment in which I take a hot button issue in the entertainment world and try my best to see both sides through, and then try even harder to pick a side. 

In the past, an acclaimed box office hit had at least a few months of a grace period before the backlash set in. Now, all it takes is a few hours.

When somebody wants to pick a film apart but doesn’t have any actual problems with its writing, directing, acting, editing, etc., then the next logical step is to attack its plausibility. Over the past two weeks, the two biggest hits at the box office, “Gravity” and “Captain Phillips,” have come under fire mainly from people who don’t work in or write about film.

This whole kerkuffle began the same day that “Gravity” was crowned box office king. Astrophysicist and generally awesome human being Neil deGrasse Tyson sent out a series of Tweets criticizing the scientific accuracy of “Gravity.” His comments came under fire because how dare he know real science. And where was he when “Jimmy Neutron” came out? Somebody needed to tell the world that human children can’t actually breath in space without a suit.


Anyway, these comments struck a nerve in “Gravity” fans across the globe, including me, who just want to live in a world where “Gravity” is absolutely perfect. However, while these Tweets can be seen as critical, I don’t think Tyson was saying that “Gravity” is bad. Rather, he is an astrophysicist who is used to looking at real space so clearly his mind can’t go in any other direction. There is a difference between saying a movie is inaccurate and saying that a movie is bad.

There is a little disclaimer that Tyson should have added: sometimes a movie needs to embrace inaccuracy in order to tell a good story. “Gravity” might not have been the same movie had they taken the time to explore how far communications would actually reach in space. “Gravity” is not a documentary and never pretends to be. Movies are really more about emotion over logic. “Gravity” is supposed to simulate the feeling of being in space, not necessarily the actual experience. A planetarium is meant to show you what space actually looks like. A movie like “Gravity” is more importantly about the fear of free floating through an infinite universe.

From now on, movies should be defined by truthiness as opposed to truth. Which brings me next to “Captain Phillips,” which is even more complex than “Gravity” when it comes to the truth. “Captain Phillips” has been praised for its realism. Its status as a “realistic action thriller” was compromised on Monday when a bunch of members from Captain Phillips’ real crew took to the New York Post (a.k.a. the world’s best headline creator) to refute the film’s portrayal of the events. They allege that the real Captain Phillips had a reputation for being “sullen and self-righteous.” They also claim that he endangered them by bringing the ship so close to the Somali shore and that he didn’t follow safety protocol as closely as the film believes he does.

The crew members case against Waterman Steamship Corp. is still under way, so the honesty of their claims is still up in the air. If these accusations are true, it definitely spells trouble for “Captain Phillips.” There are some films that can get away with skewing history because the changes are so drastic that they are clearly intentional (see: “Inglourious Basterds,” “The Social Network”). However, “Captain Phillips” landed in a pickle because it presents itself as a completely matter-of-fact portrayal of history. Paul Greengrass’ reputation for realism proceeded him (see: “United 93″). It was his duty as a director, as well as the writer who adapted Richard Phillips’ book, to do some extra research.

Then, there is the case where the inaccuracies, whether intentional or not, actually benefit the film. “Captain Phillips” might have been a more interesting movie had they shown Phillips having to overcome his arrogance for the sake of his crew. It is definitely more layered than the Phillips scene in the movie, who is portrayed simply as a genuine working class guy. The Richard Phillips of “Captain Phillips” is a man who always follows the books and is always over-prepared. The film shows that there are certain things that no amount of preparedness can actually fully prepare you for. Apparently, the real life Captain Phillips was aware of this.

Here’s the real issue: had “Captain Phillips” followed the actual events moment-by-moment, then it might not have been as enthralling. Movies are not meant to represent a whole truth, so in cases like these, its helpful to separate the truth from good storytelling. Factual errors are worse when they seem like they could have been avoided. This isn’t a “Braveheart” situation where every inaccuracy could have been fixed. They even got the the use of kilts wrong and while taking kilts out would have prevented the scene where the Scots moon all of the English soldiers, I think I speak for most people when I say that I could have done without that.

Overall, it is impossible to portray reality 100% accurately. There are just so many moving parts that we don’t even know are out there. “Gravity” should be rewarded for at least bothering to do research and “Captain Phillips” should be praised for actually giving the Somalis a voice. There are so many other movies out there right now that get it all wrong that nobody is even talking about. While it is necessary to keep all media in check, it seems like these two movies are being very specifically singled out. They both have been making a lot of money. Basically if you want to make a lot of money in Hollywood, then you’ve also got to prepare to be picked apart.

Movie Review: Captain Phillips

Leave a reply

People praise Paul Greengrass for his sharp action directing and quick cuts. What he rarely gets credit for is that he is the rare action director who realizes that there is no way to be prepared for tragedy. This is why “Captain Phillips” doesn’t start on a boat.

It’s just another day, and just another mission for Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks), who’s preparing for umpteenth mission as captain at sea. He drives with his wife (Catherine Keener) to the airport and talk about anything but his trip. They talk about their children and lament about how lazy good for nothing punk kids are today.

The trip seems simple enough, like something he’s been doing for years. The ship he’s commanding is meant to bring supplies around the horn of Africa, which, if you didn’t already know this, is not the friendliest place in the world. Nonetheless, a job is a job and Captain Phillips is the definition of salt of the earth. However, what Phillips is about to find out is that this isn’t like any other job he’s had. Captain Phillips is about to get his mojo back.


Despite its title, “Captain Phillips” is about more than its captain. Remember, there are also Somali pirates here, and we get a rare glimpse at their fractured homeland. The pirates, who are just teenagers, have a demanding warlord to report to. Greengrass isn’t trying to turn America’s enemies into one-dimensional villains. He also isn’t trying to make them look heroic. Rather, he wants to show that there are circumstances beyond simple greed that lead people to a life of crime.

I feel like an old Jewish man could probably turn this into a joke: how does a Somali pirate in a giant boat board a giant freighter? He uses a ladder. Seriously, all it takes for the pirates to get on board the ship is a single ladder that you could probably buy at Home Depot. Once the pirates climb up the ladder onto the boat, the whole film becomes a ticking time bomb. Greengrass is always so cognizant of time and how to use it to build dread. When a character threatens “one minute” until he starts shooting the place up, every millisecond of that minute feels like a frightening eternity. Also, space is so well utilized here, whether it be a boiler room on a freighter or a crammed lifeboat. In “Captain Phillips,” claustrophobia is the name of the game.

One problem people might have with “Captain Phillips” is that the pirates aren’t very scary, which I think is exactly the point. These are not professional criminals, but rather a bunch of teens who are forced to grow up too fast. The scrawny Muse (Barkhad Abdi) gets mercilessly picked on by everyone but once he boards the freighter, he is the leader. Or as he says (and now I can’t stop saying to everyone I know), “I am the captain now.” I get a sense that if Muse were a typical American high schooler, he’d probably have a rough few years followed by a great time in college.

“Captain Phillips” marks a return to form for Tom Hanks, who serves here as both a father figure and a working class badass. Maybe the most distracting part about his performance is that it feels a little bit like a half-assed New England accent. He sounds just like a much nicer Mark Wahlberg. This is some of the graceful screaming that Tom Hanks has done since “Cast Away.” Honestly, I’m surprised that there wasn’t a single scene where Wilson popped out of the water. I guess Greengrass ain’t about those easter eggs.

While Greengrass is a master at realism and capturing real time, the slight problems in “Captain Phillips” comes when it feels too much like a movie and not enough like real life. Certain snippets of dialogue should have come with giant flashing letter exclaiming “THEME!” at the bottom of the screen. While the freighter and Somali characters are all very unique, the film enters vanilla territory once the military intervenes. Mainly, there’s a lot of Marines yelling “Alpha! Charlie!” at each other for a really long time.

Regardless, “Captain Phillips” is the kind of action movie that can only be released around Oscar season because it actually has a soul.

Additional Notes:

  • How is it that none of these pirates never need to use the bathroom? I know this doesn’t seem like an important question but seriously, you can’t go that long without peeing or pooping. Just science.
  • If you’ve seen “The Book of Mormon” and that ruined your perception of African warlords, then you’re not alone. 
  • Now, I kind of wish this movie was a “Book of Mormon” style musical. If Matt Stone and Trey Parker wrote this, hopefully this lyric would exist: “I am a captain. And a captain just believes.” 
  • Speaking of which, there was also a great “South Park” episode about this event.
  • It took me a really long time to remind myself that this wasn’t “Gravity” and that no other movie I will see in theaters is “Gravity.” 
  • I was looking back at my notes for the movie and found that I kept writing “Skinny Pete” over and over again. I think Muse reminded me of Skinny Pete because…they’re both skinny. Guys, my “Breaking Bad” is getting bad.
  • I also wrote the word “prepared” in my notes at least five times.
  • “Captain Phillips” is best if you know as little as possible about the true story it is based off of. 
  • I love how many rainbows you seem every time water bursts out of the boat. Just a really cool effect. 
  • If Robert Zemekis wrote this, then Tom Hanks and all the pirates would be in mo-cap and I would be really creeped out.
  • If Michael Bay wrote this, somebody would put sunglasses on every time something loudly and violently blew up. Also, no one would look back at the explosions. Because science. 
  • I also wrote “sitcom” in my notes. I’m not sure why. I guess I thought it would be funny if there was a sitcom where Tom Hanks and a Somali pirate moved into an apartment together. Guys, I’m dumb. 
  • Another thing from my notes: “Fonzi.” It comes from a scene where Phillips is combing his hair goatee in the mirror. Well, I mean, Tom Hanks is a really cool guy.
  • The Somali pirates call Phillips “Irish.” I am sick of this stereotyping, people. Just because you’re white and from New England, it doesn’t mean you’re Irish, dammit! 

Movie Review: Toy Story 3

1 Reply

How rare it is to find a sequel that’s not looking to sell a new toy line, or even another three sequels. How nice it is when a sequel would rather continue telling a story, than capitalize off of it. That rare day has come with “Toy Story 3.”

Then again, this should’ve been expected by this point. Pixar cemented its status as the greatest animation creator since Walt Disney years ago and they proved they could handle sequels when “Toy Story 2″ was released 11 years ago.
Rather than start directly where it last left off, “Toy Story 3″ takes place in the present day. Andy is now 18 and heading off to college. He hasn’t played with any of his toys in years. While he means to keep them stored in the attic, the toys end up being donated to a day care center by accident. What seems at first like paradise with a benevolent bunch of toys, including Lotso (Ned Beatty) and Ken (Michael Keaton), turns into a living hell for deserted toys. The mission, once again, is to get back to Andy.
Despite being locked up in a chest for years, the toys haven’t changed at all. Woody (Tom Hanks) remains the most loyal friend in the world. Buzz (Tim Allen) still believes he’s a real space cadet. Jesse, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Rex, Hamm, and even the little red monkeys, are all still there. And let the nostalgia begin.
When the original “Toy Story” was released in 1995, it ushered in an era of computer animation. It’s incredible to see how far the genre has come since then with the characters that started it. By this point, “Toy Story 3″ doesn’t even look like it was created on a computer. It might as well have been shot on real Hollywood sets. Well, it might just look even more real than that.
“Toy Story 3″ also has the benefit of 3D. That’s right, I said benefit. The only other movie I’ve seen that’s benefited from 3D is “Avatar” (the wine cork scene from “The Final Destination” doesn’t count). What works with the 3D in “Toy Story 3″ is that its not gimmicky. Nothing pops out at you. The characters and settings pop out of the screen organically. If more filmmakers could harness 3D in appropriate ways like this, then I might just hop on board.
“Toy Story 3″ certainly doesn’t hide behind its visuals. Who needs them with a story this good? The movie might be a slightly basic variation of the first two (toys get lost, toys try to get back from Andy), but that doesn’t mean it’s not original. Most sequels usually lazily ripoff their predecessors. Pixar is too good for that.
Not only does the story feel fresh, but so does every individual moment. That’s another rarity. For example, “Shrek 2″ tried to teach important lessons like its predecessor. Yet, they were basically the same as the original, and therefore felt nowhere near as effective. However, every little poignant moment in “Toy Story 3″ feels so new.
And once again, Pixar proves it amazing ability to bring human qualities to the nonhuman. Sure, its not too hard to feel sympathetic for a fish, or even a kind rat. But making the audience care for inanimate objects is no easy task. Once again, this task is pulled off perfectly. What we see is that a toy can be just as good a friend as any person.
To classify “Toy Story 3″ as a kids’ movie would be a gross inaccuracy. It is a family movie, meaning any member of a family, at any age, will get something out of this movie. Children will learn the value of friendship and commitment. They will also get an exciting story. Teens and adults might even get a more enriched experience. Some of the humor involves a keen sense of observation, and some film knowledge (spot the “Cool Hand Luke” reference). This movie should finally teach the haters that animation is not purely kiddie junk.
Now, I’m going to do something I don’t normally do. Rather than discuss “Toy Story 3″ for what makes it such a great movie, I’m going to discuss what this movie means to me. The “Toy Story” series will always hold a special place in my heart, and this sequel certified it. How amazing it is that the creators coincided Andy’s life with both the beginning of mine, and my entry into adulthood. Pixar doesn’t always deal much with its human characters, but Andy’s college angst feels too familiar. “Toy Story 3″ made me want to rediscover my childhood.
This also helped make every character even more meaningful to me. There is a moment toward the end, which I obviously won’t fully reveal. It was handled so maturely, and it’s so dark, that I’m shocked the studio didn’t alter it. Yet, it shows us the unbreakable friendship between the toys. After all these years, they’re still together. After all these years, I still want to be a part of their journey.
As a friend lamented once the movie ended, “‘Toy Story 3′ represents the end of my childhood.”* Pixar bookmarked the start and end of my childhood. It was one of the first movies I remember seeing, and one of the last ones I’ll see before I walk down graduation isle. As the film’s conclusion showed, it’s not just about the end of one phase of life, but the beginning of a new one. And if this new beginning might also signal more time with Woody, Buzz, and the gang, then count me in.
*Quote attributed to Reverend Doctor Eric H. Wessan