"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.
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!
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!
1 comment:
Though not everything in this film may be totally accurate, it still makes for an enjoyable, if very emotional viewing. Good review Adam.
Post a Comment