SummaryWhen Walt Disney’s daughters begged him to make a movie of their favorite book, P.L. Travers’ Mary Poppins, he made them a promise—one that he didn’t realize would take 20 years to keep. In his quest to obtain the rights, Walt comes up against a curmudgeonly, uncompromising writer who has absolutely no intention of letting her beloved ma...
SummaryWhen Walt Disney’s daughters begged him to make a movie of their favorite book, P.L. Travers’ Mary Poppins, he made them a promise—one that he didn’t realize would take 20 years to keep. In his quest to obtain the rights, Walt comes up against a curmudgeonly, uncompromising writer who has absolutely no intention of letting her beloved ma...
Emma Thompson’s character was brilliant, as always she played her part beautifully. It is Disney at its very best, appealing to the young and young at heart adults. Not sure about it’s accuracy but intrigued me nonetheless.
Tom Hanks was fabulous as Walt Disney, no one could have done the role better. In particular it showed up the Americanisms for what they are, crass unnecessary and overrated. Overall it’s one of my favourite American movies, one that I would watch again..
I enjoyed this film - its well cast and the plot, while a bit slow I suppose (necessarily so, as already noted), I quite liked as the main story really started very quickly and I liked that there was the sub-plot consisting of random flashbacks, which at first was rather baffling and seemed to have little, if anything, to do with the rest of the film, until the penny dropped about its relevance in the wider scheme of things. I feel this isn't a film that younger children are necessarily likely to be too keen on, as it is somewhat dialogue heavy and doesn't have much in the way of special effects, plus obviously isn't animated or anything like that(!). I found that the longer the film went on for, the more I felt sorry for P.L. Travers, as we're gradually made more aware of her background (and more specifically, her childhood), which explains why she is the way she comes across. Of course its easy to criticise, or cringe perhaps at this for portraying the sometime stereotyped middle to upper class English lady(/person) being a seemingly uncaring, unhappy, snippy and often villainous type character but the main thing is, all that is effectively explained via the flashbacks, which helps to make you see the character in a different light.
There are some very poignant scenes, especially towards the end of the film and I felt that the story was affectionately handled, for want of a better term. Its certainly an interesting story - it took me back to my own childhood in a sense, given as a child I used to collect any and everything Disney related and I watched Mary Poppins numerous times, so I was obviously somewhat familiar with it, even though I hadn't watched it in many years. I suppose you could argue that this is a story with an obvious outcome but I'd say its still very much worth seeing, as there are some surprising elements within the story, it gives you an insight into what I think is an interesting story about two very different people (Travers and Disney) and the cast really makes it work - Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks really do, do it justice, I feel. I liked the way that the characters developed and interacted - perhaps there is that inevitable sentimentality there but for what it is, it felt well handled and pretty realistic I suppose, although of course very 'Hollywood', as it could only ever be. The ending I found to be particularly touching and I liked that as the end titles/credits rolled when you could hear some of the presumably original tape recordings of P.L. Travers' conversations (more like instructions(!)) with the others working on the film adaptation.
Generally speaking, I'd imagine most people with an interest in the story, would quite like it, although I suppose I should say that this film doesn't show the actual filming of the film (incase you've wondered, I try to avoid using the term movie, as I believe film is the British term? call me patriotic but there you go), so you won't see people portraying Julie Andrews of **** Van Dyke, although at the end there are scenes from the original film shown but there are no reconstructions of key scenes, the only time this is shown is when people working on the adaptation, not cast members but presumably general members of Disney staff, are seen singing lyrics from the songs they wrote to accompany the film and doing quick run throughs of certain parts of the script. The film mainly concentrates on P.L. Travers and Walt Disney, not other well known people who were involved with the film really. Also, for anyone interested, the film title refers to the father in the 'Mary Poppins' - a character whom P.L. is especially critical of his depiction, almost as much as that of Mary herself.
Yes, im happy to recommend this film as its quite intriguing with good character depictions and is particularly well cast. Its something perhaps a bit different, its quite dialogue heavy I suppose and as I say, thus not necessarily likely to greatly enthrall very young viewers but for what it is, its certainly a good film, one I enjoyed for the way it slowly built on the character of P.L. Travers and the depiction of Walt Disney.
Saving Mr. Banks does not strictly hew to the historical record where the eventual resolution of this conflict is concerned, but it is easy to accept this fictionalizing as part of the price to be paid for Thompson's engaging performance.
Before watching this film: I have not seen all of the Mary Poppins film nor read the book.
Premise: This film covers the manoeuvrings between PL Travers, the author of Mary Poppins and the people at Walt Disney who had wanted to make a film of the book.
Pros:
1) It is an interesting drama/comedy and character study of PL Travers.
Cons:
1) It is a drama and some people may just find it a unnecessary to watch it in the cinema.
Score: 3/5. You can enjoy the film equally well by watching it on TV.
Who would be satisfied with this film? The elder you are, the more you would like this. Also Mary Poppins fans.
Amazing performances of all the actors––if you're a fan of any of them, I would recommend watching this film. Otherwise, however, I find the film predictable and somewhat cliché, lacking of interesting dialogue and imaginative ways to portray this true story. My other objection is that the real life situation has been significantly altered, which isn't a bad thing unless you can really notice it while watching the movie, like I did.
This was the most boring movie I've seen in years. I. Never thought I'd be like my father and fall asleep in movie theaters. But in this case yes I was literally falling asleep. The woman character was so irritating you find yourself wondering why Walt Disney didn't just kick her out of his office the first day, instead of tolerating her incessant whining for weeks. I recommend not seeing it and don't even bother renting it later.
C'est grosso merdo aussi chiant que les "Mary Poppins" ce truc, ce machin à la gloire de Walt, ce bon vieux Walt dont le génie pour abrutir les masses (et notamment les plus jeunes) ne s'est jamais démenti. En tout cas, on tente de nous raconter ici comment la créatrice de "Mary Poppins" a fini par céder les droits de son bouquin à l'infâme Walt qui en a fait alors une bouse de comédie musicale insupportable.
Et pourtant, droite comme la justice, Madame Travers avait dit "une comédie musicale ? jamais !" et résistait depuis moult années aux avances mercantiles de l'emmerdant empaffé. Mais Madame Travers a tout compris de travers apparemment...
Car je ne sais pas si vous avez vu mais "Mary Poppins, le film" est une saloperie de chierie de connerie de comédie musicale à la con ! Donc, présentée ici comme une chieuse emmerdante et maniaque, la Madame Travers l'a eu dans l'os par le malin Walt. C'était pas la peine d'en faire un film de deux heures aussi vain qu'inutile, nunuche, empoté et sirupeux... A la première chanson, j'ai zappé directum de toute façon.