Saving Mr. Banks Review (1 Viewer)

[JohnMor]

Wait! Are you guys saying movies like The Conjuring, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Funny Girl and JFK may not be the unvarnished truth?? Next you'll have me questioning 1776 or Shakespeare's history plays!

 

[Mike Frezon]

I wasn't at all concerned that the story as presented wasn't 100% factual. This kind of thing happens in every single movie made...show me one based on a true story where the facts are perfect. You're not going to find one.

The yardstick I used was if I was entertained and moved by the movie. That answer is yes. Do I want to see it again? Yes. Were Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks superb? Yes. Did I care about those characters at the end of the day? Yes.

If this was a documentary, then I'd be more inclined to rake it across the coals for the facts being incorrect. But here? Nope, not going to happen.

My wife and I went to see this last night with my daughter and son-in-law.

I mark this film one of the best I've seen in many, many years. While it was quite overly full of sentiment, it was appropriate to the two stories being told. The script, performances and direction were all first rate. It is only the second movie to ever move me to a tear in the theater. Travers' reactions to the scenes at the premiere were, I thought, quite nicely done and had me tearing up. (The only other film ever to achieve this for me was Toy Story 2--the When She Loved Me sequence).

I'm really surprised at how often the debate rears here about how fictional films based on true events veer from 100% accuracy. It seems as if the debate picks up intensity with people the more they are familiar with a given subject (see the thread on Gravity and the concerns of those in the HTF membership who are scientifically inclined! ).

As a major fan of the Sherman Brothers' work and Mary Poppins I was well-familiar with this tale (and was actually quite concerned the film would be a major let-down for me--especially Hanks in the role of Disney). But as Mr. Hanks induced me to forget that it was the all-too-familiar actor playing the all-too-familiar Walt Disney, I was also totally able to go with the expedient fabrications of Walt's visit to London, etc.

I had to restrain myself from jumping up and applauding this film I enjoyed it so much.

Sure, I looked for (and found) anachronisms such as the brushed stainless ticket gates that wouldn't have been in use in the 1960s...but I never once found myself taken out of the film by any such thing or by a lagging script or insincere performance.

This movie was filled with heart and love...and displayed it on many different levels utilizing everyone in the cast. It really took a page out of Walt's own ethic to take a story and tell it well--without speaking down to the audience and resorting to cheap, mindless gags.

It is my own personal belief that Emma Thompson's portrayal of Travers will be remembered for quite a very long time as people grow to appreciate how she took a character that could have easily been contrived as "one note" (an unlikeable, demanding Brit) and gave her a depth that made us hang on every moment of her time with Disney and his staff wondering about her motivations. This made the back story of her childhood all the more compelling and appropriate for this film. Oh. And the children that were cast to portray the young Travers and her siblings could not have been any more beautiful.

I am so looking forward to watching this film again, I may not even wait for the home video release and go see it again in the theater...something that I never, ever do.

 

[Mark-P]

I too adored the film in only the way a Disney fan can. The only place I felt a little let down, was that Walt was a bit sugar-coated. I was hoping that Hanks might give a portrayal of the chain-smoking, hot-tempered, ego-centric man that Walt really was, but alas, the studio that bears his name isn't about to give us that portrayal. I was waiting for the moment when Walt told the guys to just humor her, when she leaves we're gonna do it our way anyhow.

 

[DaveF]

I liked the emotional, weepy ending. But I was broadly bored by Saving Mr. Banks. Walt Disney was milquetoast. Mrs Travers was unpleasant, and unenjoyable to watch for two hours. The back story took too long to explain why I should have any sympathy for her. The Sherman Brothers and Bradley Whitford's producer were the stars for me, and I enjoyed them throughout. It was an inoffensive movie, and family friendly, and uplifting at the end. My mom loved it. But I can't work up any enthusiasm for it.

 

[Ejanss]

anachronisms such as the brushed stainless ticket gates that wouldn't have been in use in the 1960s...

Or the Disney folks giving 1961Travers a stuffed plush of a character who wouldn't appear onscreen till 1966.

Saw it and loved it, VERY moving and emotional. Here's my favorite historical inaccuracy: In the Disneyland scene, you can see the Pinocchio's Daring Journey ride, and that ride did not open until 1983!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Oh, thought that was PInocchio's Village Haus restaurant, or am I thinking of the East Coast?
I was keeping an eye on how they carefully cut around the shots of surrounding Fantasyland, which would have still had "Castle banner" buildings in 1961.)

The "Making of the movie" plot had me fighting old Hitchcock traumas, and the "Dad is a dreamer" flashback plot had me fighting old lifelong Finding Neverland traumas (eek!), but they pulled it off better than I was dreading.
Hanks may not have been completely cantankerous-Disney, but he got the voice rhythms down pat, even in the Big Ending Speech.

The best part of this film is Paul Giamatti as the driver. Another one of the very best actors of our generation.

I usually dread seeing Giamatti simply because he's in freakin' EVERYTHING (and I never even saw Lady in the Water, although I saw the John Adams series), and I cringed when I first saw he was going to play the Chirpy 60's-American Hollywood Person to torment Travers, but I never expected the script to give his character a little sympathy and depth. That helped me conquer my Neverland/Depp fears much more than Hanks and Thompson ever could, not that they didn't do so badly either.

 

[Brandon Conway]

A crowd pleaser for those who will embrace its straightforward warmth as seemingly only Disney can uniquely deliver. Of course, when your story is of the creation of perhaps the finest film to deliver that Disney magic a lot of the heavy lifting is inherited. Thompson does a wonderful job, and Hanks is admirably strong as Disney, who has a persona perhaps too disseminated into our consciousness to ever be encapsulated by any actor; but Giamatti in very few scenes delivers a performance of depth for a man that is, as Tolkien would say, "simple folk" (that easily could have been a misfire of manipulation) which I appreciated greatly. 9/10

 

[TravisR]

Thompson does a wonderful job, and Hanks is admirably strong as Disney, who has a persona perhaps too disseminated into our consciousness to ever be encapsulated by any actor; but Giamatti in very few scenes delivers a performance of depth for a man that is, as Tolkien would say, "simple folk"...

Speaking of the movie's performances, I thought the people in the smaller roles (like Colin Farrell, Bradley Whitford, Jason Schwartzman, B.J. Novak and Melanie Paxson [I think that's her name, the lady who played Walt's secretary]) were also pretty good too.

 

[Matt Lucas]

Hello all---

I’ve been a huge Disney fan nearly all my life, so when I heard about SAVING MR. BANKS, my first worry was that it wouldn’t follow the true story. I wondered how Disney would take what was essentially an un-happy ending [PL Travers attended the MARY POPPINS premiere, then approached Walt Disney about making more changes to the film] and make it an entertaining film.

When the cast was announced, I was disappointed to read that Tom Hanks was cast as Walt. And when I saw the trailer, my worst fears were realized: Hanks didn’t look like Walt, and worse, he didn’t SOUND like Walt. He spoke with Hanks’ nasal tone.

So I saw the film during the holidays with some degree of caution.

And I loved it.

First of all, I decided when we entered the theater that I was going to forget all I knew about the history of the making of MARY POPPINS and just watch SAVING MR. BANKS for what it was…not complain about what it wasn’t.

The filmmakers were clear from the start that they were making a movie based on a true story, but they made no promises that it would be 100 percent factually accurate. And, as others have pointed out so well, what Hollywood film based on truth or fiction is completely true to its source material or facts?

With that in mind, I have to say that I got what was promised: an entertaining movie. A moving story, well-written and fantastically performed by the actors and filmed pretty well by the director and crew. I very much recommend it.

And if you’re caught up in how historically accurate the film is…well…you will probably be disappointed. And that’s too bad, because you’ll miss out on a very good film. As for the truth, I think the basics of the true story are here. It was a battle of wills between two very stubborn creative people who were used to getting their way. Walt did whatever he had to do to get the movie made, and Travers resisted him at every turn. She was practically perfect in making the process difficult for everyone involved on the Disney side of things, and this is clearly depicted in the film.

This is Emma Thompson’s movie. She owns it. Watching her, I was reminded again why she is the best actress alive today. She manages to make a completely unlikeable character human with subtlety and grace. She is a treasure.

The supporting cast is fantastic, and while they all did a wonderful job, Paul Giamatti was in many ways the soul of the film, because he allowed us to care about Thompson’s character just enough to be interested in her story. Giamatti shines in a wonderful scene with Thompson in which…well…his character just plain becomes a real person. In a matter of seconds, he brings the character to life. Wow.

As for Hanks…well, I still say he looks and sounds nothing like Walt. But I have to admit that he did a great job capturing the spirit of Disney. [FYI---if you’re interested in hearing Hanks himself talking about his process for getting into the character as well as his experiences with Disney, check out episode 2 of the Walt Disney Family Museum’s official podcast].

So…was it the best movie of the year? Sadly, no. I wanted it to be…but it wasn’t. Was it good? YES. It was very good. Better than I expected.

Regards,
matt

PS---If you're a Disney fan and you don't already know about it, I highly recommend a visit to the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco. It is simply beautiful and a wonderful way to learn more about Walt Disney, the man.

 

[Hanson]

It was okay. The flashbacks to Australia, while a necessary storytelling device, bored me. The movie screeched to a halt whenever they cut back.

Thompson was very good (and also starred as the Poppins-esuqe Nanny McPhee), but Hanks was just meh. Or maybe it was the part as written -- it's not like Disney was going to settle for anything less than an adoring depiction of their founder.

Having Travers warm up to the movie towards the end seemed like a saccharine, Disney ending. I did not know the history going in, but it didn't seem right the way it concluded. Turns out it's way, way off.

I have never watched Mary Poppins, so perhaps I don't have the nostalgia necessary to really enjoy the film.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I have never watched Mary Poppins,...

Hanson, you really ought to do something about that...

 

[Hanson]

I think that ship sailed when I hit my 30's. And that was a while ago.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well...I'm 54. And I still love every minute of it.

It's not just for young children. It's a Disney film that can be enjoyed by people of all ages.

It's, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made...period.

 

[Jason_V]

I think that ship sailed when I hit my 30's. And that was a while ago.

If the HTF has taught me anything over the decade plus I've been here...it's your never too old to dive into something new. You don't have to be "young" to appreciate anything Disney. Just be open to a new experience.

 

[bujaki]

Hanson,
My wife and I are in our sixties, and we watched a DCP of Mary Poppins last year. Loved every minute of it. Holds up very well. You should watch it and then tell us your reaction, whether positive or negative. As Jason said, just be open to a new experience.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Do it! Do it! Do it!

 

[Johnny Angell]

While it may have necessary for the audience to understand Travers better, I found myself bored with her childhood story and was always wanting to return to the "present."

I'm also less picky about strict adherence to the facts as along as the movie gets the overall story right. I thought they went to far afield when they showed Travers enjoying the movie. The had just shown that she wasn't invited to the premiere but didn't have the courage to show just what "prick" she could be.

I heard an NPR interview with Emma Thompson and she had listened to the tapes and Emma basically said she was a bitch. She didn't use the word though.

Did the movie solve Traver's financial difficulties and was she successful with any further writing?

 

[Johnny Angell]

I think that ship sailed when I hit my 30's. And that was a while ago.

A well made movie will always be waiting at the dock for you. Get on board and then it will sail.

 

[TravisR]

I think that ship sailed when I hit my 30's. And that was a while ago.

I might have seen Mary Poppins once as a kid so I don't have the love that some here have for it but having seen it a few times as an adult, I still find it to be an enjoyable movie and well worth watching. It's not as if someone will see it and have a new favorite movie but I'd be surprised if they really disliked the movie either.

 

[Ejanss]

I think that ship sailed when I hit my 30's. And that was a while ago.

I had the advantage of seeing this movie back in the 80's with a first-time (for them) mostly teens/adults audience with a reasonably (about 80%) clean slate of my own, and we were knocked back on our seats by the intelligence of it--Every time you think you know where this movie is going, it pulls another script, effect, humor, art-direction, or otherwise Walt-era surprise out of its hat literally until the end credits. We're talking an actual "Never a dull moment" movie, and when that's 138 minutes, that's pretty impressive.

Way I see it, back in the studio-system days, every studio had one everything-into-the-pot "showpiece" movie where they put everything the studio was capable of into one big Roadshow production--MGM had Wizard of Oz, Selznick had Gone With the Wind, Fox had Cleopatra....Walt had Mary Poppins, and he KNEW it was the one.

I might have seen Mary Poppins once as a kid so I don't have the love that some here have for it but having seen it a few times as an adult, I still find it to be an enjoyable movie and well worth watching. It's not as if someone will see it and have a new favorite movie but I'd be surprised if they really disliked the movie either.

Ask people who hadn't seen it since a kid to name the first scene that springs to mind, and they'll probably make some joke about Julie Andrews prancing around a Victorian children's bedroom singing about a spoonful of sugar. Come to think of it, so did PL Travers.
Ask people who HAVE seen it, and they'll usually bring up Dick Van Dyke and the chimney sweeps Stepping In Time.

It's time to break the 60's Julie-hating (and 70's culturally-monolithic G-rated Mouse-hating), and appreciate a Cool Movie for what it is.
Never judge things by their appearance, I'm sure I never do.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Hanson:

I think a gauntlet has officially been thrown.