Saving Mr Banks

tunguska

I couldnt find a thread on this so if there is one already, apologies. I was out shopping way too close to christmas and I was wiped from a day dragging my ass from shop to shop so passing by cineworld I decided to duck in and see what was playing. Saving Mr Banks looked to be the best choice so I decided to give it a go, worst case scenario I got to put my feet up for 2 hrs and maybe get some sleep.........Maybe I was emotional from all the shopping but this was my film of the year. I thought it was great. The acting from everybody was brilliant, Im not a big Colin Farrell fan but I have to say he was great in this. The script was bullet proof, it was just a lovely film, the "Lets go fly a kite" dry run scene was magic. Im not somebody who cries at movies or gets overly emotional but for whatever reasons I found myself blubbering near the end of the Mary poppins film premiere scene.
Should get a few Oscar nominations at the very least.

PunkFreud

I found it very disjointed. The flashback sequences didn't fit well enough with the main Travers/Disney story for me, it felt like two movies running concurrently. While I must admit that I enjoyed the "Let's go Fly a Kite" sequence, that was more to do with nostalgia. The saving grace of the movie was it's two leads who really held it together.

It's a glorified Disney advert for the far superior Mary Poppins.

Hootanany

PunkFreud wrote: »

I found it very disjointed. The flashback sequences didn't fit well enough with the main Travers/Disney story for me, it felt like two movies running concurrently. While I must admit that I enjoyed the "Let's go Fly a Kite" sequence, that was more to do with nostalgia. The saving grace of the movie was it's two leads who really held it together.

It's a glorified Disney advert for the far superior Mary Poppins.

Brought a tear to mine as well, I don't if it would be Hanks for the Oscar but think Nanny McPhee will get it

e_e

Eh, thought it was fine but nothing more. Diverting enough 2 hours I guess.

dark crystal

I loved it too. It was a rather old fashioned film that wore it's heart firmly on it's sleeve throughout. The more cynical viewer may accuse the film of being overly saccharine, but I don't mind a bit of whimsy - it's a film about a Disney film, after all!

The entire cast were great, especially Thompson, who I thought gave one of the best female performances of the year.

OU812

Loved it. Excellent acting all round & so glad that Colin Farrell has a decent script to work with. Hanks was superb & I'll be very surprised if he doesn't get nominated. For some reason I can't see Thompson getting a nod, she was good, but I think the actual person she played was way too flawed to be accurately portrayed.

Strangely it's changed Mary Poppins for me, it's altogether a darker movie now that I know the story behind it.

tunguska

OU812 wrote: »

Strangely it's changed Mary Poppins for me, it's altogether a darker movie now that I know the story behind it.

Yeah me too. Was on the BBC a few days ago and I found that I saw it as a different movie entirely.

johnny_ultimate

It's basically Disney's Triumph of the Will.

As long as you're willing to shake off the propaganda element of the whole thing (and it really is the studio's shameless love letter to itself - the Disneyland sequence borders in-film advertising) it's modestly engaging and occasionally charming. The cast and director are clearly enthusiastic about the whole thing, and there's some very pleasant sequences indeed. The flashback scenes are condescendingly overexplained (it's a film with basically no trust whatsoever in the audience's intelligence), the film pulls many punches when it comes to its darker subject matter and complex characterisation, and the epilogue wasn't needed. It's diverting enough, though, as long as you're willing to pack away the cynicism - and, man, some aspects of the films really invite it - it's an old-fashioned, funny, squeaky clean piece of entertaining revisionism with a nicely cinematic look. I did find myself humming some of the songs for a while afterwards, I confess.

pixelburp

Yeah I saw it a while back but never thought of adding any thoughts to boards; it's an enjoyable enough film, mostly on the back of the two leads' performances, but it's a film that felt hamstrung by the cooperation / involvement of Disney themselves. I thought there was a ... more complex tale hiding in the background that Disney were careful to tidy away; or worse, rewrite into something more cheerfully sinister.

I thought it was far too absolving of Travers' father and his addiction; I know next to nothing about Travers or her father in reality (but like all these sorts of films I'm keen to learn more so ultimately can the film be called a success in that respect?), so maybe it told the tale accurately from her point of view, but the presentation of her father as a creature too spiritely and innocent for our world was borderline distasteful and misjudged really. He was never angry, abusive, violent, anything; just joyous and whimsical with his children, while the mother looked exasperated in the background. I don't think there was a need to present 'Requiem For A Dream' levels of addiction or anything, but this smacked of the old-school Hollywood approach to present alcoholism as a funny idiosyncrasy, rather than a destructive disease & runner of lives. 'Harvey' syndrome basically.

As for the warm & fuzzy treatment of Disney himself, well I wasn't too pushed about that to be honest; it wasn't Walt Disney's story to begin with, and even if they shoved in some darker hues to Walt's personality it wouldn't have made things better or more dramatically legitimate - if anything it would have made it all the more preachy and jarring. We saw one side of the man's personality; I'm sure in time we'll see the other side but Saving Mr. Banks wasn't that opportunity in my opinion. This was the story of PL Travers first & foremost.

OU812

pixelburp wrote: »

the presentation of her father as a creature too spiritely and innocent for our world was borderline distasteful and misjudged really. He was never angry, abusive, violent, anything; just joyous and whimsical with his children, while the mother looked exasperated in the background.

it's how she as a child remembered him, he could have been the worst drunk ever publicly, but with his children, be all childlike & if she didn't see that side, she wouldn't remember it. Even the mother said "I know you love him more than you love me"

She was simply an eight year old girl hopelessly in love with her father and could see nor remember any bad in him.