Review: San Andreas

by Trent Crump
★★

- I saw this on a regular-sized theater screen in 2-D.

There have been two big booms of disaster films in cinema history.  One lasted the whole of the 1970s and the other lasted through the last half of the 1990s.  Where the 1970s ones such as The Poseidon Adventure, the Airport films, Earthquake, The Swarm, etc. focused on big Hollywood stars both of the classic golden era and new trying to survive, the 1990s ones were about singular family units trying to survive or scientists trying to survive after their warnings go unheeded.  It's commonly suggested that the 1970s disaster films were better, as they had good, proven actors, and a lot of them.  This allowed the films to have the excitement of watching things get destroyed, not letting the audience know who was going to die and when because all the actors were big names, and allowed us to have some believable character development too.  The 1990s films were all due to the fact that with advancements in special effects, we could more convincingly and cheaply destroy things.  Sadly, San Andreas is more in the vein of a 1990s disaster film than a 1970s one.

San Andreas stars Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson as Ray, a Los Angeles city search and rescue helicopter pilot.  He's good at what he does.  However, his family had a tragedy some time ago, and he's chosen not to deal with it.  This makes his wife leave him and she's now moving in with a really rich dude and serving him divorce papers.  The rich guy, Daniel Riddick, a building designer, seems like a good enough guy.  Seriously, the characters are so thin, this is about all I can say about him.  Meanwhile, Ray is supposed to take his daughter to college, but alas, an earthquake strikes the Hoover Dam area, ruining the dam and sending lots and lots of water rushing into the area.  Present at the dam was a Cal Tech scientist named Lawrence, played by Paul Giamatti, who is working on earthquake predictions.   The data he gets there shows him that this quake was not going to be the last.  There will be more, they will be bigger, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.  And in no time at all, an earthquake hits Los Angeles.  Right as Ray is told to take his chopper and help Nevadans, he turns tail and goes to rescue his wife with city equipment.  (The whole movie I just kept thinking, "Guy is gonna get so sued by the city.  Probably gonna get many years in jail.  This is unethical.")  Oh, there's also a British guy (Hugo Johnstone-Burk) and his little brother, Ollie (Art Parkinson, the kid that played Rickon Stark in Game of Thrones.) who meet up with Ray's daughter Blake (Alexandra Deddario) and become her entourage once the initial LA quake hits.  I guess they're there for comic relief and child-in-danger suspense?  From there on what story we have becomes pretty unimportant as the movie shifts to as much destruction and mayhem as possible.  I personally did not mind that as I was expecting nothing else, but destruction does not a well crafted movie make.  However, this means that some characters that are set up early on just disappear without a word and don't really come back into the story.

The movie is directed by Brad Peyton, who before this did only two movies, both aimed at the grade school crowd.  Cats & Dogs 2: Revenge of Kitty Galore and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, the latter of which he also worked with Dwayne Johnson on.   This is not a great resume, but it's not horrible either.  It just shows that he's competent with special effects films, and he doesn't pick the best scripts.  The script was a bit surprising though, coming from Carlton Cuse, writer of such televison as Adventures of Brisco County Jr., Bates Motel, Lost, and Nash Bridges.  He knows how to write, but this is not his best work. 

Yes, there is a tsunami too.

The earthquake scenes are some of the best put to film.  Granted, we haven't really had a big budget film about an earthquake probably since the last 1/3 of Superman in 1978.  It's pretty awe-inspiring to watch.  For a PG-13 film, it was pretty graphic in a deceptive way.  Someone gets smooshed and the camera would turn away right as you'd expect to see something really graphic.  For once, graphics were no problem at all, and in fact, they made the movie, such as it is.

So if you want little more than wanton destruction and people falling from buildings or buildings falling on them, this movie is a good bet for you.  It's what I wanted, and I got it.  But if you want believability, good characters, or even good acting, look elsewhere.  The family storyline is cliched and the dialogue/delivery is cheesy as it gets.  I'd say it's about on the level of Twister when it comes to disaster films.  However, it's not as memorable, and it doesn't have Bill Paxton or Cary Elwes, which is a shame.  No, instead we get a Kylie Minogue cameo.  Yay us?

Review: Saving Mr. Banks

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

Did you know “Mary Poppins” was nominated for 13 Academy Awards including Best Picture? As a self professed Oscar guru, I must admit that I wasn’t aware it was up for so many awards. That shouldn’t be much of a surprise seeing as its one of the most beloved movie musicals of all time. “Saving Mr. Banks” tells the story of how the rights for the book were acquired by Disney from the stubborn author. It also tells us what it is that makes the author so stubborn in the first place by looking into her childhood and the relationship with her father. By the way, “Mary Poppins” lost to “My Fair Lady” for Best Picture that year, but Julie Andrews won Best Acrtress.

Tom Hanks attempts to woo Emma Thompson in "Saving
Mr. Banks"

Pamela “P.L.” Travers (Emma Thompson) lives alone in her London house. It’s been almost 30 years since she published her hit novel Mary Poppins and Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) has been trying to make it into a movie for the last 20. Mrs. Travers has never signed the rights away because she hates Disney Animation films and doesn’t want see her beloved character transformed into a singing and dancing buffoon.

At the insistence of her agent, she agrees to fly to Los Angeles to meet with Disney himself and oversee some of the pre-production work. She has final approval of everything that goes into the script. She’s picked up at the airport by a Disney Studios driver, Ralph (Paul Giamatti) and taken to the studios where she meets with screenwriter Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and the Sherman Brothers songwriting team Robert (B.J. Novak) and Richard (Jason Schwartzman). She sees the concepts for the art direction, the costume design, the goofy music with made up words, and worst of all: the concept drawings of a mustached Dick Van Dyke as Mr. George Banks. A lot of work needs to be done in order to get her to sign the rights over to Disney.

During her stay, Mrs. Travers reflects on her childhood in Australia in 1901. She loved her father Travers Goff (Colin Farrell) very much. He lovingly referred to her as Ginty (portrayed in these flashbacks by newcomer Annie Rose Buckley). Travers moved his family from one side of the continent to the other where he will work as a bank manager. He’s also a raging alcoholic, something he tries to hide from Ginty (unsuccessfully) but not from his wife Margaret (Ruth Wilson). These flashback scenes give us a great indication of where Mrs. Travers developed the idea of Mary Poppins. It’s made even more obvious when Ginty’s Aunt Ellie (Rachel Griffiths) shows up to help out when things aren’t going so well for the family. 

“Saving Mr. Banks” is much more than just a typical movie about making movies. It’s being advertised as the untold story of making “Mary Poppins,” but what we really get is the untold story of how the character and the book came into existence. “Saving Mr. Banks” is at its most entertaining when it involves Mrs. Travers and Disney, but it’s at its best during the Australian childhood scenes.

The best scenes take place between Annie Rose Buckely and
Colin Farrell

The screenplay comes from Kelly Marcel (who created the short lived Fox show “Terra Nova”) and Sue Smith (who has many small credits to her name) and it’s one of the most polished screenplays of the year. The most difficult part was tying in the present day and flashback sequences together so the flow of the plot wasn’t disrupted. They’ve succeeded in that regard. We also know how this movie is going to end before it even starts since we know there is a movie made by Disney called “Mary Poppins.” Despite that, the story is full of many different subplots (especially the Australian plot) to keep us entertained and keep curiosity piqued. All this is handled well by director John Lee Hancock (“The Blind Side”).

Not only does Hancock see that this story moves along without issues, he also directs his cast into fine performances. Tom Hanks is the perfect pick to play Disney. Disney was a beloved Hollywood figure at that time, and Hanks is arguably the most beloved actor. He’s not on camera a whole lot throughout the movie, but he’s great when he does make an appearance.

Colin Farrell leads the way in the Australian plot and probably clocks more screen time than Hanks. This isn’t the first drama Farrell has done, but I’m not sure he’s ever been better. Hanks and Thompson seem to overshadow his performance – and he doesn’t even appear in the previews on TV – but he still puts on an absolutely brilliant performance. His young co-star, Annie Rose Buckley, steals the show at many times too. She helps us to understand why Mrs. Travers is the way that she is.

An Oscar nod is a pretty safe bet for Emma Thompson

In the end, this is Emma Thompson’s movie and she’s sensational in this role. Her character is very unlikeable from the moment the film begins. She’s not easy to root for, which makes it a challenge for both Thompson and Hancock. The script does leave her rather unlikable for almost the entire duration of the film, which is kind of disappointing. Unlikable characters aren’t so easy to empathize with. But it works here thanks to the flashback sequences. Buckley’s wide-eyed innocence and admiration for her father help us to understand Thompson’s sour outlook on just about everything. She becomes someone you can empathize with, and that’s what makes her a good character.

“Saving Mr. Banks” is simple and lovable. Fans of “Mary Poppins” will enjoy seeing how difficult it was to actually make this movie thanks to Mrs. Travers’ stubbornness. Fans of the movie making process will enjoy seeing another movie about these things are put together. And fans of great movies should appreciate almost everything else about this. A strong story and fantastic performances make “Saving Mr. Banks” one of the year’s best movies.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★★

“12 Years a Slave” is the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free man living in upstate New York in the years prior to the American Civil War. He has a wife and two children. He’s a talented violinist who is invited to travel with a couple of musicians down to Washington, DC. While in Washington, Solomon is kidnapped in his sleep and sold into slavery. No one wants to hear that he is a free man. He doesn’t have any papers on him to prove his citizenship. Even if he did, the men transporting him probably wouldn’t want to see it anyway.

When he arrives in the south, Solomon is renamed Platt by a slave auctioneer (Paul Giamatti). He’s sold to a man named Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) along with a woman named Eliza (Adepero Oduye). As Ford’s slave, he’s treated relatively fair both by Ford and by his wife (Liza J. Bennett). Ford’s field supervisor Tibeats (Paul Dano) has it in for Solomon and the two do not get along at all.

During these early scenes of the film, director Steve McQueen is really only settling in as his role as the filmmaker of what’s meant to be a powerful, profound and important film. He almost seems intimidated by the emotional power contained within John Ridley’s masterful screenplay. Ridley contains a lot of genuine suspense in his writing that helps to build up the fear Solomon experiences. He’s also achieved the impossible by making a slave owner – Ford – somewhat empathetic.

Cumberbatch doesn’t clock a lot of screen time, but he’s commanding when he does. The slave owner he plays is a bit more kindhearted, but is afraid to really show it. This is why he has to have someone else – Tibeats – minding he fields. Dano always seems to play characters that are very intense. They could be intense in their words and actions (“There Will Be Blood”) or intense in their silence (“Little Miss Sunshine” and this year’s “Prisoners”). His role is very challenging and once again he impresses. Had the movie only chronicled Solomon’s time at Ford’s plantation, Dano would have been the show stealer, but his role is small.

After Solomon disrespects his authority, Tibeats attempts to kill Solomon. Ford is able to save Solomon, but he doesn’t know for how long. He decides its best to transfer Solomon over to another plantation. This one is a cotton farm owned by Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). He’s a ruthless man who likes to whip his slaves for not meeting a quota of cotton picked per day.

Epps’ prized slave is Patsey (Lupita Nyong’o) who can pick more cotton than any of the male slaves any day of the week. He also lusts after her, something Epps’ wife (Sarah Paulson) disgusts. Whenever possible, she exercises brief and sudden moments of violence against Patsey.

Solomon meanwhile is trying his hardest just to stay alive. He accepts his name is Platt and doesn’t let anyone know he can read and write. He doesn’t talk about his family back home in New York, and he doesn’t dare say anything about being a free man. He does try to use his educated mind in his favor, but that only goes so far. Eijofor plays this aspect of the character to perfection. You can see the longing for his wife and kids in his eyes. McQueen will leave the camera on his face for extended periods of time as countless emotions wash over him.

Eijofor puts on a fierce performance in this role. He’s a revelation to watch on screen. It’s a rare treat to see an actor play into every imaginable emotion with this much intensity. And the best part about his performance is he does it with very little dialogue. His performance is carried by his expressions, his mannerism and even something as simple as his posture.

Fassbender’s Epps is one of the greatest villains in the history of cinema. He’s a product of the environment in which he lives. Slavery was a way of life, and he’s just living with that assumption. He makes justifications of his brutal actions by quoting biblical scripture. He’s also insane, which makes him more dangerous. He walks through the room and there’s fear in everyone’s eyes. He knows his people fear him and he loves how powerful it makes him feel. A good movie villain is at his most evil when he feels he’s absolutely justified in his actions. Fassbender feels this way throughout the film. He personifies the evil found in the entire culture in his performance.

Nyong’o turns in yet another powerful performance in this film. The movie is certainly full of outstanding performances and she stands out more than anyone else. She embodies all the pain and suffering experienced by the slaves during this time in American history. McQueen really understands who this character is and uses the role and Nyong’o’s portrayal to deliver his most powerful emotional punches.

And when those powerful moments arrive, they are some of the most powerful and gut wrenching moments you’ll see in any film this year. McQueen is slow to get there, but once he does it is meaningful. “12 Years a Slave” is a deeply moving and harrowing look into these dark times in American history. And it’s a true story, written by the Solomon Northup himself. That makes it even more gripping. You cannot take your eyes off this film for a moment. If you do, its only because the visualization of slave abuse becomes a little too much. Its certainly not the because of the performances or how beautifully photographed it is. This is a great film that will be talked about for years to come.