A Year in Review: 2013

"And now, the end is near, and so we face the final curtain. My friends, I'll say it clear. I'll state my case of which I'm certain:" it's been an interesting year at the movies. What started out as a marathon of critically poor films has turned into some of the best cinema has to offer. I'd love to reflect on the hundreds of movies that came out this year, but, however, my schedule (and wallet...and age) does not permit such luxuries (at times, it's a blessing). As of such, I only saw 6 of this year's films, either in theaters or on DVD later in the year. So instead of a top 10 list, I'll just rank all the films I saw in my order of preference. I thought about doing something like that last year, but, well, I didn't. So we'll just start here, with my list of the movies that I saw in 2013.

6. Now You See Me
Dir. Louis Letterier; PG-13 

Coming in at the bottom of my list is the surprise summer blockbuster, Now You See Me. It wasn't an awful film; in my review, I called it a fun chase film, awarding it 3 out of 5 stars. However, it's not a film I often think about, and the highlight action sequence pales in comparison to those of other films that came out this year. If you have a free night available on HBO, or you have some friends over with Redbox or Netflix at hand, put in Now You See Me--you'll have fun, even if the film isn't great.

5. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Dir. Francis Lawrence; PG-13

Coming in at number 5 is a film that I did not review. I felt that with the circumstances that led me to see the film, the audience I saw it with, as well as the fact that I had not seen or read the first Hunger Games book/movie, it wouldn't be appropriate to do a full review of it. However, here I can say that if I did review it, I would have given it a score of 3.5 out of 5 stars. The film was thoroughly entertaining, and the energy never let up. I enjoyed the revolutionary themes and the corrupt oppressive government. However, I felt three major things kept the movie from being as good as it could have been: a Twilight-style love triangle, a too-sudden ending (I don't care if it was that way in the book), and monkeys--it will make sense when you see it. But they're just a few things--so go see it! It's by no means the best movie of the year, but it's a darn good one.

4. Warm Bodies
Dir. Jonathan Levine; PG-13 

Coming in at number 4, we have the zom-romcom Warm Bodies, which, in my original review, I gave 4.5 out of 5 stars. In retrospect, I may have been a bit too gracious with my score, but this was a very funny film with original directing. It was thoroughly entertaining, and a fresh take on the supernatural craze these days. One of the few good movies that came out in February, Warm Bodies makes it to the number four slot in this list.

3. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Dir. Peter Jackson; PG-13

I may have focused a bit on the negatives in my original review, but I thoroughly enjoyed The Desolation of Smaug, giving it 4 out of 5 stars. What it lacked in emotion, it made up in nuance and entertaining action sequences. Better than An Unexpected Journey in many ways, this little Hobbit made me a very happy fellow, eager to see how Peter Jackson paints the finale for Smaug, Bilbo, Thorin, and the gang. Now you may be wondering why a 4 is higher up than a 4.5, and that's because I enjoyed The Hobbit a bit more than the technically better Warm Bodies. Regardless, if you haven't seen this yet, see at some point, whether now or during the trilogy marathon at AMC Theaters for There and Back Again (you know it's going to happen).

RUNNER-UP: Zero Dark Thirty
Dir. Kathryn Bigelow; R

With all the Oscar buzz that happened towards the beginning of the year, and watching it around the same time as last year's Argo, I had forgotten that, technically speaking, Zero Dark Thirty was a 2013 film, and it is one of my favorite films, earning a score of 4.5 out of 5 stars in my original review. This Osama bin Laden assassination thriller is gritty and realistic, but it's also, in a way, thought-provoking. I still think about the last shot of Maya on the plane leaving Iran after seeing bin Laden's dead body. This movie explores themes of vengeance and what happens when we let vengeance control us. Many people argue this as a propaganda piece, but I disagree. It's a film that explores important themes and a film that you can think about, even if you can't thoroughly enjoy it because of its subject matter. If you can handle some R-rated language and torture sequences, make sure you check out Zero Dark Thirty--my second favorite film of the year.

BEST FILM: Saving Mr. Banks
Dir. John Lee Hancock; PG-13

This is undoubtedly the best film that I saw this year. I was pumped for Saving Mr. Banks since I reviewed the trailer back in July, and this film did not disappoint at all. Entertaining, funny, heartfelt, and with fantastic performances from everyone involved, especially those of Emma Thompson and Paul Giamatti. Mary Poppins is a revered classic among many, especially Disneyphiles, and this is one of the few films that I've seen in theaters where the audience clapped at the end. That has not happened since I saw Les Miserables last year. Why? Because this film was made, not as Disney propaganda (Walt Disney isn't painted as Mr. Perfect), but as a meaningful picture that was careful in what it did. Were some events altered from real life to film? Likely. But does something like that really matter when this film is put together so well? Butter my butt and call me a biscuit if this film does not at least get nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I need to see this film again before I can say it's one of the best films I've ever seen, but I can tell you, this rightfully deserves all 5 out of 5 stars.

Well, there you have it! As time goes on, I'll certainly watch the films I've missed, like Gravity and Captain Phillips and Frozen, but I didn't see any of them in time to make them one of the films I would put on this list. When I see them, I'll let you know what I thought about them right here. But before that, I feel that I have some explaining to do. Back in July, shortly after the facelift, I published a post entitled "Changes: A Branch of the Tree of Life," in which I explained that the blog as a whole would dramatically change within weeks of the post. As you can tell, that has not happened, and I fear it may not for some time more. I do plan to move from here eventually, but I don't have the time right now that would justify having a separate website with a new URL. When my time frees up more, then it will be more practical to consider moving away from "The Pianoman's Blog." When I find that opportunity, I will share my plans, and when the move occurs, I will celebrate with an in-depth review of The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick, my favorite film of all time. But until then, check my tribute of this year at my new YouTube channel! Click the YouTube button on the video to subscribe!



But as Michael Buble once sang, "it's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life, and I'm feeling good." What films did you see this year that you enjoyed? That you hated? That you were indifferent about? What film in my list do you find my thoughts absolutely ludicrous for? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below! Happy New Year, y'all!

NEW MOVIE: Saving Mr. Banks Review

"Winds in the east--there's a mist coming in, like something in brewing and 'bout to begin!" These words open one of the newest films out in theaters, which retells the story behind the classic Mary Poppins film. And let me tell you: it's a spoonful of sugar. Here's my review!

Saving Mr. Banks was one of the first films I reviewed for my "Trailer Park" segment back in July. In case you don't remember, I gave that trailer the most positive rating, predicting it to be the best movie of the year. While I don't know if it is the best movie of the year, it is certainly the best film I have seen this year.

Saving Mr. Banks, as I mentioned before, explores the story behind Mary Poppins, following the book's author, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson, Nanny McPhee, Stranger than Fiction), during the pre-production of the classic Disney film. As she works with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan), the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman from I Heart Huckabess and B.J. Novak from The Office), and the rest of the Walt Disney Studios crew, we also get windows to her past and why she's so bloody protective of the material. Like many others have noted, the film relies on the unwavering personalities of both the straitlaced Travers and the happy-go-lucky Walt, who both display their different takes on how the Mary Poppins story should be told and also on professionalism as creative geniuses.

Like director John Lee Hancock's last film, The Blind Side, Saving Mr. Banks is a character-driven piece. While the behind-the-scenes portions at Disney Studios are plenty entertaining, it's Travers's relationships with Don DaGradi (the co-writer of the Mary Poppins movie, played by Bradley Whitford from Billy Madison), the Shermans, Disney, her chauffeur (played by Paul Giamatti, American Splendor, Saving Private Ryan), and her father (in flashbacks) that provide the heart of this movie, in more ways than one. But a character-driven film cannot have a heart without strong performances to make it grounded and believable...and it has just that. Colin Farrell (The New World, Total Recall) plays Travers's father, an playful father, but we discover that it is only a facade for his young children, including P.L. Travers, that hides his occupational failures and alcoholism. I feel like he'll be the character that many audience members will relate to and have compassion for, and Farrell portrays tragedy and gaiety, a challenging mix, in what may be the best performance of his career thus far. One cannot go without noting Emma Thompson's Oscar-worthy performance of Mrs. Travers. The author was a challenging person to work with, according to Richard Sherman, and Thompson certainly shows it ("I don't want any red in the picture. I've suddenly come with an intense dislike of the color.), but amid her more ridiculous requests (read, demands), both the screenplay of this film, which was made outside of Walt Disney Studios, and Thompson's performance show a more human, sympathetic, and tragic side of her character to the point that you can understand her; in fact, I may have teared up towards the end--I didn't cry, though (tears are reserved for Wilson)! Lastly, I'd be a fool to undermine Giamatti's performance. It's not Oscar-worthy or anything, but he makes who would typically be the most insignificant character into one of the most memorable.

Hancock's direction wisely transitions back and forth from Travers's childhood in Australia to the present-day pre-production stages of the film without making it seem repetitive and trite. The transitions are well-timed, making the film well-paced-- the two hours that you will spend with this film go by rather quickly, but still it feels complete. He also makes some nice nods to the original film (Mary Poppins), and uses them in a way that doesn't just feel like fan-service. Had I seen Mary Poppins more recently, I probably would've picked up on a lot more than I did watching it now, but missing out on these Easter Eggs won't destroy your overall enjoyment of the film. Another thing to note is the colorization of the film. Now hear me out on this: I don't go to a movie and try to pay attention to these kinds of things, but it's near impossible not to notice the bright colors surrounding the film, and, to me, that helps release some of the Disney magic, even in the more unsettling PG-13 sequences halfway through the film.

This isn't my most in-depth review--in fact, it's more like my brief review of Driving Miss Daisy--because while I was watching it, I forgot about seeing it from a critical eye because I enjoyed it so much. There wasn't much to take me out of the film. There were a few things that I noticed that made me think about the movie as a craft more than an experience. For example, during one musical sequence, the writers run through "Fidelity Feduciary Bank," and Mrs. Travers is distracted by a vivid memory of her father speaking the exact same words in a speech. Could that have really happened? I'll think against it, but it was a well-done sequence, so I can't really complain, especially when I gave the film where an old man takes a 45-foot tumble through a tunnel 4 out of 5 stars! But there is one scene that is accidentally hilarious: during the Disneyland sequence, there is a little girl--obviously an extra-- waiting to get on the carousel with Walt Disney and Mrs. Travers, but she overacts her excitement so much--you have to see it to believe it. It's probably the funniest thing I've seen in a while. But hey, the sequence was supposed to be lighthearted, so why be critical?

I beseech you: go see this film whenever you can. This film earns 5 out of 5 stars. It's endearing; it's heartfelt; it's touching; it's joyful and funny; it's Disney at its finest, bringing back some of the simplicity from Disney animations in the 50s and 60s while also putting in the more mature themes that made the Disney Renaissance loved by all. Take your families to go see it--the younger ones may be bored, but there's nothing here that I don't think a 10 year old couldn't see. I'd be highly surprised if this film doesn't at least get nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. In fact, this is one of only two films I've seen in theaters where the audience clapped at the end. The audience loved the film so much that many didn't move once the credits started rolling on opening night--and you won't want to either, as Hancock has inserted a nice, extended bit halfway through the credits.

I'll need to see the movie another time before I can say it's one of the best films of all time, but do know that you are doing yourself a disservice if you miss out on this one before it leaves theaters. Enjoy the Disney magic once again, and leave the theater smiling. So whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review

We began this journey with a fellowship of a ring, then conquered two towers to await the return of the king on an unexpected journey. Now we witness the desolation...made by Smaug-- in the newest movie straight from New Zealand, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. But after five movies, does Peter Jackson still have that "precious" touch? Here's my review!

In case you haven't been around on the Earth lately, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the sequel to last year's An Unexpected Journey and is the fifth incarnation in Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth series, the Hobbit films serving as prequels to The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit films also serve as a three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's 300-some-page book of the same name. As you can guess, purists are a bit miffed that The Hobbit is being stretched out so wide. But even though The Hobbit is one of my favorite novels, I still enjoy these movies without faithfulness to the novel being a big problem.

The Desolation of Smaug picks up right where An Unexpected Journey left off as the eponymous Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, Sherlock, The World's End), wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, The Lord of the Rings, X-Men), and the thirteen dwarves flee from orcs and wolves to reach Erebor and reclaim their treasure. What awaits in Erebor? Why, nothing but the massive fire-breathing dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock, Star Trek Into Darkness)! However, the road to Erebor is not simple, as they run into several more obstacles along the way, opening the way for wood-elves Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, Lost, The Hurt Locker) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom, The Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean) to begin their adventures.

I had but a few complaints with this film, but first, let's reflect on some of the pros of this film. Desolation of Smaug is much better paced than An Unexpected Journey and is much less boring (a point I did not emphasize in my original review). Since there was no true resolution to An Unexpected Journey, the heat is still on, and Jackson makes that very clear in the enemy orcs' early appearances, and the much-talked about barrel sequence is no exception. A constantly exciting ride, it is rightfully the highlight of the film. Benedict Cumberbatch voices Smaug to sinister perfection and is almost unrecognizable in his voice performance. His verbal showdown with Bilbo, which we got a glimpse of in one of the trailers, had me smiling because it was so good. Even though Smaug's dialogue is digitally altered, you can still pick out the slight emotions and menacing articulation in his words, making the character of Smaug a prominent and fearsome force. And even though Gollum is absent in this film, Martin Freeman's nuances with Bilbo's character, especially when it's concerning his new Ring, is so great to see. This film is very much an action piece, but one of these scenes towards the beginning where we see this side of Freeman's Bilbo grounds the film on an emotional level and a level that works with connecting the mythology.

A lot of people, as I said before, are very unhappy with the many additions that Jackson added in order to tie in with The Lord of the Rings. If I'm being quite honest, it's these additions that I love most. The last Dol Goldur sequence (Dol Goldur is where an ominous Necromancer resides), although lacking slightly in the CG department, was the part of the film that had me smiling them most--it was epic! When I own the film next year, that will still be my favorite part. I can't stop thinking about that sequence; I wish I could nerd out in front of you all, but doing so would ruin much of the fun and potential surprise in the film, and I won't do so here. Also, Jackson's inserted the character of Legolas from The Lord of the Rings films and added the new character (not in any of the books) Tauriel. Their additions will definitely be the deciding factor of whether people liked the movie or hated it. Here's my view: Their characters are welcome additions, as they are the most exciting parts. I like the tie-ins to The Lord of the Rings, so I like how they're handled--if Peter Jackson shoehorned them in there, but no attempt to make it just, I would be like Catching Fire fans when narration wasn't in the movie. The only thing I'm unsure about is an added love triangle, which I believe, at face value, is supposed to mirror the Aragorn-Eowyn-Arwen love triangle from The Lord of the Rings. It's completely original to the films, but I'm not sure if it works--YET! I feel my complaints with it will be addressed in the sequel The Hobbit: There and Back Again, so as for now, I have no opinion. I'll just warn you that if you're a Tolkien purist, you may want to make a bonfire and burn every reel of film that exists of this film...thank God it's digital!

Now for the not-so-great. Halfway through the film, the traveling gang sans Gandalf make their way to Lake-town where Bard the Bowman resides. I felt that this was the worst part of the film, bar none. In short, most of this section felt very goofy and cartoony, with Stephen Fry, who I very much liked as Mycroft Holmes in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, playing an over-the-top caricature of Louis XIV of France as the Master of Lake-town, with a lackey to match. I don't remember if a part of this section was in the book, but I just thought it clashed with the more serious tone the rest of the series had brought on. Speaking of clashing, it's around this point where Thorin becomes a really big jerk (to put it lightly), more so than he was in the novel. In the novel, he was arrogant; in here, he coldly drops the expendable few. I found this jarring and that its only usefulness was to tie-in with the added material; I didn't find it necessary. Also, the dialogue in this film just isn't that great--or audible. Somehow when this was being edited, it was decided that the dialogue be very hard to hear, and after 10 or 15 minutes, I just gave up on trying to pay attention to it. That's a technical nitpick, but An Unexpected Journey had a similar problem on repeat viewings. Although it couldn't hurt to make an action movie a tad bit louder, could it? Regardless, the dialogue is mostly there to move the action, rather than the story, along. There's not many memorable lines here, at least that I can recall. In The Lord of the Rings, you have Frodo's monologue about Samwise Gamgee being the most important character should their adventures to Mordor be written in a book, or "My friends, you bow to no one," in The Return of the King, or even Bilbo's monologue to Thorin Oakenshield in An Unexpected Journey about the little hobbit with a home helping the dwarves reclaim the one they no longer have. Desolation has few of these, and it's kind of disappointing. Desolation is a visual adventure, not an emotional one with sentiment. Then again, it's not supposed to be. Desolation's purpose is to prepare for The Lord of the Rings and There and Back Again through plot and visual cues--an action movie to prepare us for the epic scope of the finale. In that, it's job is done well. Another thing to note is that, like it's predecessor, Desolation lacks a definitive resolution--in fact, it's a cliffhanger much in the vein of The Empire Strikes Back. Because I knew from the start that this was going to be three films, I didn't mind it--I walked out eager for the finale. However, every time I see one of these movies, there is a resounding groan amongst audience members who felt cheated because it ends on a cliffhanger where the stakes are highest. If you go into this knowing of the split, you'll probably feel less ticked. Just some helpful advice from your good old friend here.

The barrel sequence is rightfully the highlight of this film.

So in the end, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug does exceed its predecessor in many respects--pacing, score, nuances, and tie-ins-- but a few things keep it from being as great as The Lord of the Rings. Because of that, I'll give The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the same score I gave its predecessor: 4 out of 5 stars. Don't be mistaken: I enjoyed Desolation more; from a scoring aspect, however, it was about the same. For example: Driving Miss Daisy and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are two of my favorite films, and I would give them both 5 stars. That said, I like Indy just a little bit more than Daisy, even though it's the same score.

So have you seen Desolation, and what did you think of it? Are you a Middle-Earth kind of guy (or gal)? Do you enjoy these kinds of movies? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

As a side note that doesn't affect the score: due to certain circumstances, I saw this 2.5-hour film as a 3D showing. Is it worth it? A few sequences benefit from the 3D, like the barrel sequence, some of the elf fights, and the Mirkwood scene, but otherwise, you won't get that pop-out effect that you would typically expect in a 3D movie. The 3D also takes a lot of getting used to. During the prologue, I was worried that I would end up with a headache due to the live-action 3D. I got through it, and it didn't particularly bother me, but it was a bit of sensory overload. Personally, I prefer the brighter color scheme in The Hobbit movies, and you won't get much of that if you see it in 3D. Personally, I would see The Hobbit the same way you saw The Lord of the Rings--in 2D, although you may enjoy seeing it in IMAX--a much larger, and louder, screen. That's just my two-cents.

Because I feel I have to elaborate a bit on some of the tie-in features, below is a SPOILER HEAVY section for Desolation of Smaug. Feel free to read and discuss, but know that I warned you ahead of time.

One of my biggest uncertainties with The Hobbit is the addition of the love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel, and the dwarf Kili--this was not in the book. However, I feel that in the end, Jackson will use this love triangle to shape Legolas's character for The Lord of the Rings. How so? In Desolation, Legolas is extremely aggressive towards dwarves, even mocking a picture of his future partner Gimli, but in The Lord of the Rings, he treats Gimli as a blood brother. Why the change? I feel that Jackson is going to use Tauriel as a catalyst to shape Legolas as a compassionate character--it's possible for an elf to even love a dwarf. There are no boundaries that need to be set if united we stand. I trust Jackson, and it's sequences like Gandalf the Grey's light versus Necromancer Sauron's darkness in Dol Goldur that give me faith. It's these uncertainties that many critics and audiences are receiving as negatives, though I think Jackson is confident enough in his work to leave this open ends in a move that requires a lot of cajones--splitting a small book into three parts. When it's all said and done, I feel that we will look back at these movies, though they are not perfect, and recognize the vision, to make us see this trilogy as near-equal to The Lord of the Rings.