saccharine

I absolutely loved this movie. It's been done before, but I found it tremendously moving (I cried quite a few times), nostalgic and most importantly it made me happy. Emma Thompson is absolutely brilliant here and one of the main reasons this movie works so well. She gives one of the year's best performances. Tom Hanks is also great in another fantastic performance this year, perfectly embodying Walt Disney. The interactions between the two are definitely some of the movie's highlights, as well as Thompson's scenes with Paul Giamatti, as a driver who quickly becomes one of Travers's close confidantes. Both deserve awards attention for this movie and honestly I'm kind of rooting for Thompson to win. It's just such a layered, charming performance for a character that could have easily been written off as unsympathetic. The supporting cast is full of standouts including Giamatti, a hilarious Jason Schwartzman, Bradley Whitford and B.J. Novak, and a powerful turn from Ruth Wilson. But I'm surprised that Colin Farrell has largely gone unmentioned in the critical praise. I thought he was INCREDIBLE. His character broke my heart, especially in the last few scenes. It's one of his best performances in years. The storyline is also quite fascinating and while I know it's not all entirely factual it is very respectful of all the figures involved as well as the industry as a whole during that time period. Cynics looking to nitpick about things are going to criticize parts of it as schmaltzy, sure. But I fail to see how someone could hate a movie this good-hearted and with such strong performances. A

This is going to have sensational word of mouth by the way. It's the perfect holiday film and a total crowdpleaser.

Saving Mr. Banks is a gooey and sentimental movie perfect for Christmas, blessed with numerous terrific performances and heartwarming goodness as helmed by John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side, The Rookie) firmly in his wheelhouse. Given that the film itself is a Disney production, it's not really a surprise that it stays far away from being any kind of in-depth expose or closely accurate portrayal of history. Emma Thompson, to the surprise of what I imagine will be few, is wonderful in a difficult part. She manages to make Travers more than just one-note cantankerous. Is there a more perfect actor to convey the wonder of Disney than Tom Hanks? It's definitely a supporting performance to Thompson but Hanks aces it. The rest of a solid supporting cast also registers, especially Colin Farrell and Paul Giamatti. Leave your cynicism at the door because you probably won't really enjoy this otherwise. B+

Syrupy, corny, but goddammit I loved it. It's Disney "magic"/manipulation at its best.



(A+)

I thought it was very enjoyable but it ended up becoming a bit too sappy in the end. Despite Colin Farrell's good performance, I thought the flashbacks were overused. They were so constant and came at random times, they ended up taking me out of the movie. I understand the importance of them, but I wish they were used more sparingly. Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks were both fantastic here and the film works best when they're front and center. They both deserve Oscar nominations and perhaps even wins. They were magical performances. The rest of the supporting cast is very good as well. It's a nice lite and breezy movie. It's far from one of the best of the year but it is enjoyable enough and features two fantastic performances and it more than worth seeing.

7/10

Enjoyable but kinda slight. Emma Thompson is greaaat, so is Colin Farrell.

This film is apparently about P.L. Travers reconciling with her past while she goes through the process of giving away the rights to her beloved book. The fact that Walt Disney somehow helped her in that reconciliation seems kind of insulting to her memory, and the film also glosses over the fact that she actually hated the film when she saw it at the premiere (she starts singing along to "Let's go fly a kite"). I just felt that most of the more dramatic moments in the 60s parts kinda rang false, despite Emma Thompson's best efforts. The flashbacks were hit or miss as well, with Colin Farrell shining in a small role (he should be getting the awards buzz rather than Hanks). It's just a slight, sugarcoated film mixed in with some effective poignant, and comedic moments, but it never really hits the mark. C+

I disagree with you saying that Farrell should be getting the awards recognition and not Hanks. Farrell was very, very good but he honestly didn't have that much to do. His parts were also the worst parts of the movie. Hanks on the other hand just gave a magical performance.

I do agree that the flashbacks were probably the worst parts of the movie, but I felt that Farrell elevated those parts and he revealed a lot about his character while being given very little to actually do. Hanks was really good, but he didn't impress me that much really. I expected more. I don't know. I should probably rewatch the movie at some point anyway, because I was kinda in a bad mood when I went into this.

Farrell deserves the recognition more than Hanks. In my opinion Hanks barely leaves an impression even though he was good in the limited time he has.

I certainly wasn't expecting a bad movie out of Saving Mr. Banks, but I also wasn't expecting something this good. Although the advertising has pushed the dynamic between Walt Disney and Mary Poppins author P.L. Travers - which is indeed one of very many successful pieces of the film - it's really more of an intimate character study that blurs the line between fiction and reality in intriguing ways, and offers a fascinating view into why authors can treasure their fictional creations as much as they do. In these regards, the script succeeds in portraying Travers as a multifaceted person whose cantankerous exterior hides a more tortured interior, and Emma Thompson does a fantastic job of capturing this complexity. Hers is a performance that has little trouble drawing laughter and sympathy. It's really her movie, although the rest of the ensemble is in terrific form as well, especially Tom Hanks in an affable performance as Disney, and Colin Farrell as Travers's father in a performance that begins with whimsy, but ends with heartbreak. Rather than being content with simply referencing Mary Poppins, Saving Mr. Banks successfully adds to that film's allure by examining the very emotional place it came from. It's not often that one movie is so successful as a companion piece that it adds to an established classic, but this film is one such case.

A-

SAVING MR BANKS

I enjoyed this film very much. I've never seen Mary Poppins so I don't know much of the film this is connected with, but it was cool to learn of the history of it's creation. I thought the flashbacks between time periods was a bit jarring and annoying but by the end of the film it just worked. I thought the acting was very well done by everyone involved from the top down. Emma fantastic. Hanks well done. Colin brought the father figure to life. Overall, I was very happy with a film I wasn't much looking to watching.

Grade - A

Pretty much sucks unless its a scene with the Sherman Brothers. HUGE miss.

This film, the purported story behind Mary Poppins both as a literary creation and as a Julie Andrews mega-hit, is charming and largely entertaining, though I believe it is undermined to a certain extent by its bid to tell two stories at the same time. And they are two stories, despite sharing a protagonist (Poppins mastermind P. L. Travers as a warmhearted child coming of age in rural Australia in the early 20th century and then as an icy, reticent 64-year-old novelist) and an implied call-and-response structure of the pop-psychological variety. In this case, it is the scenes set in the past which fall short. This is not because of the actors, including a well-cast and always welcome Colin Farrell, nor the beautiful and nostalgic photography, but because they are soft and underdeveloped relative to the gravity of the dysfunction and grief depicted, including the downfall of a father (Farrell) who is both consumptive and an alcoholic. This portrait of the artist as a youth in crisis requires its own film, one harder edged and more able to convey the experience of life Down Under at the turn of the century. It is, in what may be an ironic twist, slightly hamstrung by the accessible magic touch of the Mouse House.

The scenes set in the "present," or rather California in the 1960s, are more complete and satisfying. People intent on viewing the film through a certain political lens, as a shareholder friendly ode to the spiritual power of Disney financed and released by Disney, will find much to chastise, and there are already catalogs of artistic-license falsehoods compiled online. If embraced, however, as a modest comic drama with an iconic (fictionalized) cast of characters, it has certain undeniable pleasures, including a full-bodied lead performance by Emma Thompson. She is well in her comfort zone and delivers an arsenal of biting, oh-so-very-English one-liners with the ease of a master.

B-

Every moment spent in flashback is horrible. The Disney-fying of the alcoholism is stunningly nonsensical--that irresponsible drunk can't stop leaving work to play with his kids! Demon in a bottle! Everything is too clean and safe and "beautiful." That works in the LA scenes--we're safe and sound in Walt's Jesus-like hands at that point, after all--but as applied to the Australia stuff its all borderline offensive considering the buttons it tries to push.

Basically, this was never going to work as long as Disney was financing it. Its disingenuous. Its an love letter by itself to itself. Its plays like something that would run every fifteen minutes in one of the parks. To empty auditoriums.

Very strong film in a way that I did not expect. Much more complex and layered and script-centered than it looked like it was going to be, this is a serious film about a subject with long rooted emotional damage. Has some interesting things to say about truths of reality vs film/fiction. If anything it sort-of rejects the Disney storytelling ice cream machine, by mixing a plot made of characters largely talking/arguing with each other with flashbacks.

Both lead performances are good, but Hanks wins due to having one of the best scenes of his career. Overall it's refreshing to see a great famous person performance that isn't an attempted impersonation. They let him feel like Hanks, but gave him the reserved and emotional nuances to be a great role

I liked it enough, but I did find it slight. Both in capturing the making of Mary Poppins, the Father, and Walt Disney's obsession during the time. I expected more, but it is an undoubtedly good film to watch. Just knowing more about the subject matter, which few do, I expected more. Acting and overall is top notch though. B+

Beautiful. Simply Beautiful. Everything (acting, writing, backstory, music, etc.) was beautiful. Need I say more.

Grade: A.

Magnifisplendeliciousuperbosity - - what a movie!!!!!

Saving Mr. Banks is the most joyously surprising melacholy biopic.

All the characters were splendidly drawn by the talented cast in both past and present.

The Let's Go Fly A Kite sequence was simply rhapsodic.

Easily my favorite of the xmas 2013 holiday movies.


153 out of 5.






{Note: Anyone who enjoys Saving Mr. Banks would do well to find the time to see the excellent 2009 documentary The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story, an excellent complement to this film.}

I wasn't into this at all. Thompson is great, yes, but the movie was just too fluffy and dull and riddled with annoying flashbacks.

5/10 (C-)

Neither leaves a bit of an impression. Thompson is the only one.

B

Nothing revelatory, but a very sweet film, carried by grand performance by Emma Thompson, who really should have been nominated for an Oscar. Hanks does a fine job as Disney, but it is Thompson's film through and through. Of course, this being a Disney production it sadly sugarcoats the film's ending (Travers never forgave Disney and hated the film). I also wasn't fond of the flashbacks.

Pretty good, but definitely not OScar worthy. The flashbacks, as many have said, were uninteresting, and I really was just interested in the making of MAry Poppins.

B+

This ages pretty well. I certainly like it more now than I did when I first saw it.