User reviews

Walt Disney Pictures rarely aims for the Best Picture crown, being more a company focused on profits and sustaining its wildly popular brand. To make you haters hate more: they've earned $4 billion this year already and this includes the $200 million loss of Lone Ranger). They usually only distribute the movies that have a shot at Academy Awards immortality, with The Help (A Dreamworks film) being the latest example of a nominee and No Country For Old Men being their latest example of a winner.

But with Saving Mr. Banks, Disney is going the whole nine yards. With a stellar cast, seemingly endless budget (Giving John Lee Hancock a much-less stressful job in directing), high production value, and heavy dosage of drama that hides beneath the happier movie trailers, this film stands as one of the better dramas of the year and a sure-fire Oscar-contender. Touching upon the tissue-happy themes of forgiveness, family, and seeking happiness in a miserable world, prepare for waterworks throughout the two hours.

What makes this movie work more than anything else is the screenplay that didn't start in the studios of Disney, allowing for a more accurate portrayal of the true story behind the making of the masterpiece Mary Poppins----even if the entire world knows that with the backing of Disney some details will be left out. Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith weaved out an engaging story full of crisp dialogue and skillfully avoids becoming too overblown or too overdramatic. And whenever the movie gets close to being all-out depressing, we get treated to humorous moments here and there to keep the audience in check.

In a movie about artists that are addicted to their craft, you need actors that work with the same type of fervor. Emma Thompson despite not getting top billing gets the most screen time, gets the toughest job, and delivers the ultimate performance. She becomes very dislikable and yet sympathetic at the same time, and it is impossible to see anyone other than Thompson deliver this type of impact. Tom Hanks in an Oscar-baiting year does a superb job portraying the icon planet Earth knows and loves as he gives Walt Disney a humanized performance that separates the flawed man from the myth the Disney Company has feverishly worked to this day to protect. The rest of the cast does not disappoint, and we even see Colin Farrell potentially impress some Academy voters as the loving yet extremely defective father figure.

Disney's protection of its brand is the sole reason why Saving Mr. Banks could never ever ever ever ever ever be produced or made by anybody else. But luckily for all viewers, Disney doesn't pull back many punches in delivering the story behind the complex and conflicted making of Mary Poppins. It will be deep in the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards but ultimately indeed deserves the praise—even if you won't see all the details behind the true story on screen.

i attended a pre-screening of "Saving Mr. Banks" last night in Dallas. while i had been looking forward to the film, i had my reservations. after all, Johnny Hancock (director) was behind "The Blind Side," which i found much too schmaltzy and watered-down for my taste. also, this was a movie about Walt Disney being produced by his company - so how honest would it be about the story behind the making of the masterpiece "Mary Poppins"? would it settle for predictable mellow-drama (yes, i meant to spell it that way) and glorify dear Uncle Walt as perfect and demonize Mrs. Travers as a cold, soulless spoilsport? thankfully, the answer to that is a resounding "no."

while it surely takes artistic license with history, the film as a whole is surprisingly great. there's not a weak moment throughout, not a second where i wasn't entertained and wanting to find out what would come next. this film (rated PG-13) surprises with many of the thematic issues it tackles, including alcoholism, loss - and we even get a brief glimpse of a smoking Mr. Disney (hey, it was the 60s).

Emma Thompson has always been a strong performer though her screen time has waned over the last decade and a half, but here she gives a performance that is worthy of awards attention. As Mrs. P.L. Travers, she is an author as protective as her life's work as a mother is for a child and is dealing with demons nearly forgotten. Mr. Hanks too carries his own playing the iconic and visionary Disney at the top of his game, trying to honor a promise to his daughters while also add to his impressive repertoire of cinematic achievements.

this is not really a film to take your Poppins-loving tykes to. this is the Disney film for mom and dad to enjoy. "Saving Mr. Banks" will probably be remembered as one of the best films of 2013, and for good reason.

From the studio that brought you Mary Poppins, Disney has released a biopic about the author of the original novels, P.L Travers. Saving Mr. Banks is the story of her battles with Walt Disney, who wants the rights to the film adaptation, in a dramatic comedy that is both witty and sentimental.

Mrs. Pamela P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) has been hounded by Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) and the Disney Corporation for 20 years for the film rights to her book and she has refused constantly. But by 1961, she has run out of money and agrees to go to Los Angeles for two weeks to work with the writing team to see if a deal can be struck. Her conditions are that the film cannot be animated, there are no songs and she has final script approval. Travers quickly clashes with creative team and Walt himself, a man who promised his daughters he would adapt the book.

As this is going on Travers reflects on her childhood in rural Australia, with her father (Colin Farrell), a loving man who feeds his daughter's imagination, but an alcoholic with probable depression and how these events influenced her writing.

Saving Mr. Banks is a film armed with excellent screenplay and a top notch cast. As well as the likes of Thompson, Hanks and Farrell, Saving Mr. Banks also features Bradley Whittaker, Jason Schwartzman, Paul Giamatti, B.J. Novak and Ruth Wilson. They all offer strong performances and have given us very well defined characters. Thompson dominates as Travers, a no nonsense woman with poor social skills and a British Bulldog stubbornness/determination and injects a deadpan humour with the witty lines she was given. Thompson also brings out the emotion, the serious aspects of the character, as the shadows of her past still linger over her.

One of the big themes of the film is the writing process, both the individual, personal aspect and the collaborative effect of a film adaptation. Saving Mr. Banks shows that many writers use they personal experience and life and become a part of the author. It is hard for writers to let go and particularly for Travers, as she has so much invested in Mary Poppins, so much of herself in it. Her books allowed her to have some wish fulfilment.

The screenwriters Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith, director John Lee Hancock and editor Mark Livoisi worked brilliant to blending the story of Travers butting heads with Disney's creative team and her backstory about her childhood influencing her writing. There are plenty of transitions, allowing Hancock to have some fancy pans. One particular noticeable sequence is when the creative team performs one of the songs and Travers has a flashback. The film slowly reveals how Travers childhood and her father became a part of her writing, used in the books and become a part of the themes of her books and philosophies. This is particularly the case with her parents and their inabilities to cope, both Travers' father's alcoholism and mother's inability to cope with the stress, leading to her theme of responsibility. For a film that is about the writing process, Saving Mr. Banks never really shows about the writing process that Travers goes through, but explores the writing process of adapting a work, from one medium to another.

The final theme and a big part of the comedy comes from the clashes of cultures and personalities. Travers is a brash personality with formal, conservative approach and lives a modest lifestyle in London and a rustic life in Australia. This in comparison to the overtly friendly American and their glamour and excess, from the fashion to the food, particularly sweet treats and the hard sell from Disney in Travers' hotel room.

Saving Mr. Banks has a excellent screenplay, solid direction and balances the comedy dramatic portions extremely well. The film makes sure there is plenty of sentiment, particularly with the score by Thomas Newman. It is a safe film, but still a pleasing experience. It is perfect if you are a fan of Mary Poppins and you will have the songs stuck in your head.

Please visit www.entertainmentfuse.com

This movie is much more than and definitely deeper than one would suspect from the 'syrupy' trailers most people have seen. The understory, gradually revealing the early life of P.L. Travers, the author of Mary Poppins, and depicting how the people in her dysfunctional family led her to write Mary Poppins, is the true core of this movie. I will never see Mary Poppins in quite the same way. All of the acting is superior, and the score is excellent. This is not the shallow, childlike movie that many will expect. I would not recommend it for children 11 and under, depending on the child. Otherwise, I highly recommend this movie, even if you are not a big fan of the original Mary Poppins film.

Saving Mr Banks tells the story of Walt Disney's battle to get the rights to make Mary Poppins into a movie. I wasn't expecting to like this but was completely blown away.

It is beautifully put together, is hilarious in parts and very touching and emotional at other stages, but is not overly sappy or cheesy.

There are some outstanding performances here. Emma Thompson plays Mrs Travers beautifully - a cantankerous and stubborn lady, yet you can't dislike her. Tom Hanks does a good job of playing Walt Disney - a tough role for anyone but he seems to suit it, so long as you can get past the terrible fake southern accent which is worse than Dick Van Dyke's attempts at an English accent in Mary Poppins.

However the stand-out performance is, surprisingly, delivered by Colin Farrell as Mrs Travers' father. He brings amazing range and emotion to a character that is simultaneously a loving, sweet father and a man caged in by life and personal demons.

Go see it for yourself when it comes out at the end of November. I'm looking forward to watching it again.

Once upon a time (seeing as though that's how all fairy tales seem to start), there lived a boy from Missouri, called Walt Disney. This boy had a piece of paper with a mere sketch of a mouse upon it. Who ever would have thought that this was to be the start of such a great legacy? In 1961, Walt Disney invited P.L Travers, the author of "Mary Poppins", to his California studios to discuss the possibility of acquiring the rights to her book - a discussion that Mr. Disney had initially sparked twenty years prior. For those two decades, the proud author refused to depart with her precious work in fear of Hollywood's mutilation of it and repeatedly told Mr. Persistent to go 'fly a kite… up to the highest heights'. However, when sales of her book begin to dwindle and with a rough economic climate ahead, Travers reluctantly agreed to travel across the Atlantic to hear what the impresario had to say. This untold backstory of how Travers' classic work of literature made it to the big screen provides the substance for John Lee Hancock's Saving Mr. Banks. Here, we have an American icon that plays an American icon. Two-time Academy Award winner Tom Hanks delivers extraordinary sense of character as he renders Mr. Walt Disney with expert attention to detail. "There's a lot of voice work, the way he walks, the body positions, the way he holds his hands, the way he touches his moustache. How he phrases things and lets sentences roll off the end", Hancock remarks - and so Tom Hanks becomes the public face for Walt Disney and we learn of the man behind the mask (with two fluffy ears). Our central protagonist is Mrs. P. L Travers, played by Emma Thompson (who similarly boasts two Academy Awards). "She was a wonderful case study, requiring so many different shades. She was just so complex. She's one of the most complicated people I've ever encountered", says the British actress. Her rendition of a tetchy and cantankerous author who's plagued by the memories of her past is brilliantly executed. As narrative flashbacks delve into Mrs. Travers' childhood, we soon realise the true depth of her literary creation, Mary Poppins. Mr. Banks explores the bond between a young Travers (then Helen) and her drunkard father, Travers Goff (exceptionally played by Colin Farrell). Like a puzzle, the story is pieced together, bit by bit and we learn that her deep-seated adoration for her father is what lies at the heart of her magical masterpiece. Demonstrating that her novel holds such personal significance, Travers continues to exercises a stubborn reluctance to hand the rights to her book over to what she considers to be a dollar-printing machine. The straight-talking novelist is repulsed by Disney's empire and this is only intensified when the entertainment wizard showers her in all kinds of ridiculous merchandise. As Walt Disney haplessly pursues Travers, unsettling the adamant writer with his vision of the film, it seems that he will never obtain the rights to make the movie of Mary Poppins. We are, of course, watching this in hindsight and the knowledge that the book was made into a successful film adds a magical quality to the experience and permits laughter as it plays on dramatic irony; and there are some real gems for the Disney die-hards. Walt Disney made a promise to his daughter to make the movie of Mary Poppins. As the likelihood of fulfilling this promise fades into the distance, the entertainment-guru reaches into his own childhood and discovers a new, more personal connection to the emotionally troubled Travers. In order to break away from a life dictated by her past, Travers agrees to sign the waiver so that one the most lovable films in cinematic history can be made. This biographical dramedy stands as a poetic tale of hope, which ultimately gives testament to the might of the mouse house and conveys the magical idea that everybody has a story to tell. Making memories is what Disney is all about and for its 125-minute runtime, we re-visit old memories and we also create new ones. With all the conventions of a family film (after all, this is Disney), Saving Mr. Banks is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! (Couldn't resist).

As with 'The Day of the Jackal', anyone with a basic knowledge of history will know how this ends; just as anyone familiar with the film that eventually emerged from this 1961 meeting of an irresistible force and an immovable object will know both the outcome and who won the creative battles.

We actually learn early on when she laments that "I want to keep my house" that Disney had Travers over a barrel; while the fact that there was never a sequel to 'Mary Poppins' tells us all we need to know about what she actually thought of the film that emerged!

Emma Thompson is great fun to watch, always. Here, she plays Mrs Travers the one who dared to say no to Walt Disney. The movie, made by the Disney studios, would have us believe that Walt Disney was, well...Tom Hanks. No. Impossible, incredible, almost laughable but thanks to the power of the stars one can sit through it, thoroughly entertained by this work of fiction. The imperious character played by Emma Thompson as a theatrical rather than a cinematic experience is nonetheless engaging and moving. The flashbacks were, if you permit the impudence, a total miscalculation. They come back with annoying regularity and instead of adding, they detract from the central story. My favorite parts were the meeting between Mrs Travers and Saint Walt Disney in London and Mrs Travers inviting herself and sitting at the premiere of Mary Poppins.

Despite watching the trailer and knowing the broad story, Saving Mr. Banks still managed to surprise me. It's a beautiful, tender film that manages to be sad without being mawkish, funny without detracting from the emotion and with far greater depth than expected. Unfolding the story of Walt Disney's attempt to persuade P.L. Travers to sell him the rights to her beloved Mary Poppins, Saving Mr. Banks is a delightful film that is deceptively emotional and flows smoothly enough to be entirely engaging. Travers (Emma Thompson) thwarts Disney's (Tom Hanks) attempts to secure the rights for twenty years until a flatlining bank balance and a mildly panicking agent persuade her to at least consider Disney's proposition or lose her home with certainty. Whisking her to Hollywood and bombarding her with all things Disney, the master of the House of Mouse spares no expense or effort to woo Mrs Travers and persuade her to allow him to keep his promise to his daughters to film the books they loved so much. But nothing prepares him for the stubborn, exacting curmudgeon who challenges him at every twist and turn and demands and demeans in equal measures. After the recent Captain Phillips, in which Hanks was astounding, there is a very good chance that he may join an exclusive group (of twelve so far, including co-star Emma Thompson) of actors to be nominated for two Oscars in the same year. Even more rarely, he'll deserve both nominations! Quite simply, it is impossible to imagine another actor in the role of Uncle Walt. He oozes charisma and his smile is used for so much more than merely expressing happiness. There is a genuine warmth to Hanks' performance and this is one of those rare occasions where I temporarily forgot I was watching him. He's been a very good actor for many, many years, but this year I've had to reassess my opinion of him and state that he has transcended his deserved 'movie stardom' to become a very fine actor indeed. Unsurprisingly (and most welcome), Hanks is matched every single step of the way by Thompson. There is a magical thawing in her Travers in the course of Saving Mr. Banks where she pokes her head out of her hard, crispy chrysalis and threatens to become a warm(ish), witty woman. Early on in the film, it is difficult to like Travers as her demands become more extreme, her retorts more cutting and her demeanour downright unpleasant, but Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith's screenplay weaves the story of the film rights with the tale of Travers' troubled childhood to give reason for her crustiness and context to her literary creation. It is this aspect of Saving Mr. Banks that surprises most and completes the film. Director John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side) approaches each side of his female protagonist's life very differently and her buried history is shot in muted, dusty colours with a jagged Western romanticism that tempers the bleak happenings that shaped the girl into the woman. Colin Farrell is on his best form for years as Travers Goff, the drunk father who lives in his own fantastic world of imagination and adventure to escape the harsh reality of the real world. He is a man who fails consistently and knows it, but loves his daughter unequivocally. As with Hanks and Thompson, the chemistry between Farrell and Annie Rose Buckley (playing Ginty, the young Travers) is effortlessly beautiful. The casting is just one of the joys of Saving Mr. Banks, with Paul Giamatti chief amongst the supporting actors as Travers' driver, Ralph, a doleful puppy in human form that responds to every brush-off and verbal slap with another smile and encouraging word. In the studio Bradley Whitford as screenwriter Don DaGradi and B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the Sherman brothers bring more gentle humour as Travers' desperate, unwilling adversaries. There's no lazy leaning towards slapstick or cheap shots, rather Hancock steers their scenes gently allowing both the frostiness and the occasional sprinkles of sunlight to sparkle with sincerity. There are hints of Travers' adult life beyond her books but, though comments remain, it feels as though the backstory was excised for the final cut and so I came away from the film feeling that something was missing. The final act is perhaps a little too tidy; it glides towards a resolution too smoothly and nothing is made of the rumoured aftermath of the deal, but these are minor niggles in a beautiful film that carries one along and moistens the eyes occasionally. Saving Mr. Banks is an unqualified success. It is a joy to watch and leaves one hoping that Mary Poppins earns yet another screening in this year's Christmas TV schedule.

The truth, a little of the truth, so far from the truth. I read the original novels, and they are indeed pretty far from the Disney Treatment (capitals are in order) they got; yet, I really love the movie (Mary Poppins, that is), but I can also see why Mrs. Travers loathed it. And I read about the real encounter between Walt Disney (a way more unpleasant person than pictured here) and Mrs. Travers, and once again, this is its Disney Treatment. Once again, I liked the movie, a lot; yet once again I see where someone could loathe it. The Disney Treatment is responsible of the popularization of many famous or obscure tales (as an Italian, I'm thinking of Pinocchio); and, at the very same time, it is responsible for their massacre in an orgy of sugary coating. That Pamela Travers had to suffer this twice, is way too cruel. Summing it up: 9 to the movie per se, 5 to the Disney Treatment of reality.

"Saving Mr. Banks" is easily one of the best movies to come out this year. It tells the tale behind the making of Disney's beloved classic "Mary Poppins," but it is so much more than just a typical 'making of a movie' movie. While many of these types of films aren't as good as the movie they are about, this one is different. It feels like a companion piece to the beloved classic. It allows us to appreciate the trials and tribulations Disney had to go through to make his magnum opus. However, it is also more about P.L. Traverse and why she loves her character so much and why Mary Poppins holds such a special place in her heart.

Director John Lee Hancock does a great job of making this film something truly special. He balances witty humor with emotional depth, but does so without being too sappy or melodramatic. The film is also well written by being more personal than just being a movie about making a movie. The themes of letting and moving on are handled well and really becomes relatable to anyone watching.

The performances are top-notch. Tom Hanks makes a pretty good Disney and he isn't sugar coated either. The real standouts are Emma Thompson and Colin Farrell. They give strong dimensional performances that makes us truly care and sympathies with the characters.

Overall "Saving Mr. Banks" is a truly great and beautifully told film. Its individual parts may not be the years best, but as a complete film it is the whole package. It's a movie that exemplifies why we go to the movies and what Disney stands for as an entertainment corporation. It is a movie that is equal parts heartfelt, witty, charming, entertaining, and emotionally satisfying. I give it 5/5

Beautifully ambitious and eagerly constructed, the success of Walt Disney Studios' homage to its heritage is anchored magnificently by the crowning work of Emma Thompson's career. John Lee Hancock's Saving Mr. Banks is a tenderly affectionate tale featuring one of the year's finest ensembles. Following a classic three act structure, when the film begins, it undoubtedly lifts off and hooks you almost immediately. Held back by a few poor choices in the editing room, there's no denying the glamour, chemistry, and witchery that the film sets on you. Saving Mr. Banks is feverishly delightful.

Written by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith, the film tells the story of P.L. Travers, the author of "Mary Poppins," who in the early 1960's met with Walt Disney and his creative team to decide whether to sign the rights of her beloved book to the magic studio. During the production, Travers reflects on her childhood and her relationship with her loving father, played by Colin Farrell, intertwining the magic of her beloved novel and the guilt of a troubled past.

As an unbridled, even at times downright vicious P.L. Travers, Thompson hasn't pursued and thrived in a character of such complexities since James Ivory directed her to an Oscar in Howard's End over twenty years ago. Travers' mannerisms and moral guidelines are captured charmingly by the creative team. Thompson and director Hancock clearly worked closely together to nail the nuance of the central character's focus. She buries herself in the time, and that of designer Daniel Orlandi's stunning costume work, to be the perfect entity of a fruitful tale. Playing the young Travers, Annie Rose Buckley is cute as a button and has some real juicy moments to sink her teeth into. Unfortunately, some directorial choices hinder any substantial connection between her and the audience to muster any real attention.

Marcel and Smith's script is pure gold. There is such a dynamic and balance of charming and witty comedy tied in with heart wrenching and polarizing drama. Their assembling of the movie era, capturing subtle inequities of the business, and painting a magical story, will likely stand as one of the screenplays of the year. There is a heavy yet almost invisible component of layered despondency that the two writers choose to include that make the film truly sing.

Upon hearing the casting of Tom Hanks as the iconic Walt Disney, I have to admit my reservations were at an all-time high. Hanks, who has excelled in his career playing the everyday man, and floored the bulk of America with his performance in Captain Phillips this year, absolutely nails his role as the film executive tycoon. His choices of character beats, that don't put down the material nor distract the audience from the story being told, is spot on nearly every moment. He maneuvers his way with his charisma but allows the animosity to fester in the viewer. I was thoroughly impressed.

Where the film missteps greatly is in the direction and options that John Lee Hancock chooses to execute throughout. "Banks" essentially tells two stories. One of the present time during the production of "Mary Poppins" and the other of P.L. Travers' childhood. Hancock chooses to tell these two stories simultaneously, awkwardly transitioning from one time period to the other, and ripping us away from the story we're desperately invested in. In many ways, his direction will be seen in the same reactionary split of Tom Hooper's Les Miserables. There will be some, likely many, that will have no problem with his bumbling alterations in certain scenes and there will be some, like myself, that sees that he's still has a long way to go. Not gunning him down as a complete disaster, he has about three instances where the potential and vision are clearly realized. Hancock knows how to tug at the heartstrings. When a scene works, he accomplishes it with the utmost confidence and brilliant demeanor. A tightly paced and pivotal scene involving the song "A British Bank" showcases Hancock's best varieties, and also that of co-star Colin Farrell.

For my dollar, everything connects and rises during the creation of "Let's Go and Fly a Kite." The cast comes together and unifies in such a harmonious fashion and Hancock chooses to utilize all the supporting players including that of the wonderful Bradley Whitford, the witty BJ Novak, and in his best turn yet, Jason Schwartzman. Hancock operates these three men in an ingenious method. Paul Giamatti is a compassionate force, especially in his exchanges with Thompson while Ruth Wilson makes me absolutely adore the ground in which she walks.

Besides the dynamite work of Thompson, I lived for the miraculous music of Academy Award nominated composer Thomas Newman. Brilliantly hinting at some of his other composed works, everything about the music in Saving Mr. Banks purely resonates because of Newman's continued abilities to insert his own personality into his work. You can't find another film musician this aware of his talents and continued drive to elevate his own material. It's the Oscar slam dunk we've been waiting for in Original Score.

http://www.awardscircuit.com

Being a big Tom Hanks fan, I wanted to like this movie...I really did. I just found his portrayal of Walt Disney to be one dimensional. I can't for the life of me, figure where, or why, he came up with his sort-of-southern-gentleman kind of vocal inflection. Being old enough to have watched "The Wonderful World of Disney", his mannerisms seemed forced. Add to that, the jarring reversal of character by P.L. Travers and I found the movie to be rather bland, unfulfilling and overly long. Also, knowing how the REAL story actually turned out, I was interested in seeing how they would cobble a happy ending onto this version. As it turns out...not too well.

"Saving Mr. Banks" is an exquisite film. It draws you in with the delightful reality of Disney as well as the triumphantly stark reality (inasmuch as it is reality; I do lack her background) of Mrs. Travers. I purposely leave out parts of the film for the sake of the movie-goer, but let me say how delightful the songs are, the people are, the displays of emotion-- my part as well, as I nearly cried and fully laughed at certain points throughout. The film speaks to me and it feels complete in its currency-- tuppence, if you will-- in taking Mrs. Travers' story and embellishing it with the truth of the creators' (both Travers and Disney, for the part he has in the creation of the film) lives. The lives of the characters-- and I do mean most people seen on screen, in particular the driver and Mrs. Travers' mother-- are well-told and well-lived, and spark a certain comfort and warmth, even in the cold of their realities and harsher backstories. I believe the film has done its job beautifully, and I wouldn't change it for the world. Even the animated penguins, although for me there is still my deep and abiding love for their real counterparts.

There have been complaints about this film on the basis of historically inaccuracies ranging from the dialogue between Disney and Mrs. Travers, the relationship between Mrs. Travers and the studio to the simple motif of Mrs. Travers dancing with the writers. This film is not an historical document, rather a story about an author, her book and a studio. The film portrays the Mary Poppins books as an attempt by Mrs. Travers to rescue a version of her father and give him a better story than life provided him, a point made touchingly by her bursting into tears in- front of the writing staff due to her perception that they had made Mr.Banks 'unspeakably awful'. The writers return the following day with a changed ending, one where father went kite flying with the kids and they were together as a family. Abstracted from the history of events, this film is a charming depiction of two people with difficult childhoods forming an uneasy friendship through a tortuous collaboration. In reality, Mrs. Travers never did let go of her father or her books and had a poor relationship with the family that survived her; what sense of hope or satisfaction would an audience derive from such an ending? I would like to think that this isn't weakness or evasion, but Disney's way of trying to give the relationship between itself and Mrs. Travers the parity and respect in film that it deserved to have in life.

As a child, one of my favorite movies was always "Mary Poppins". Being young, I obviously couldn't articulate exactly WHY I liked it so much (I'm sure the catchy music had a lot to do with it), but I wore a tract in the VCR with it, that is for sure. After seeing "Saving Mr. Banks", however, I was astounding to realize perhaps part of the reason why "Mary Poppins" stands the test of time: because the message behind it is one born out of real-life issues.

For a basic plot summary, "Saving Mr. Banks" focuses on P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), writer of the "Mary Poppins" children's novel. For 20 years, Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) has been pursuing the rights to make the book into a movie, finally culminating in him flying Travers to Los Angeles to begin work on the project. When Travers wants full creative control and clashes monumentally with Disney's version of the film, it is revealed (via flashbacks) how personal the Poppins story truly is to Travers.

The reason why this movie is so touching and genuine is because it works on two different levels:

On one hand, it brings back incredible nostalgia for fans of Disney's "Mary Poppins". Just hearing the iconic music again and seeing how key plot/character points came together is exciting.

On the other hand, those (though probably few and far between) who haven't seen the movie will still be intrigued by the fascinating backstory of P.L. Travers. More specifically, the role her father (played by Colin Farrell) played in her life and how that relationship shaped her persona even into adulthood. Some fascinating human dynamics that prove out the old "truth is stranger than fiction" maxim.

The hallmark of "Saving Mr. Banks", though, is its ability to have audiences laughing, crying, singing, and feeling all in the span of two hours. The complex characters, catchy tunes, and use of flashbacks prove a potent mixture of drama and fun. This is truly a film for the entire family.

Until recently, "Prisoners" had been cemented atop my "Best Movie of 2013" list. "Saving Mr. Banks", however, is just as good, if only in a completely different way. I'm sure I'll enjoy some more genre Hollywood fare this holiday season ("Hobbit 2", "Anchorman 2", "Grudge Match", etc.), but I have a feeling that when all is said and done, this one will still be at the top of the heap.

"Savings Mr. Banks" is worth seeing for Emma Thompson's peerless performance as "Mary Poppins" author PL Travers. That Thompson was not nominated for a best actor Academy Award is a crime. Thompson's performance is one of the most compelling and convincing performances I've ever seen.

Thompson plays PL Travers as a witch, and I'm using the nice version of the word. You know what word I really mean. Thompson's Travers is thoroughly believable. This isn't a cartoon villainess. This isn't Cruella DaVille or Maleficent. This is a woman you could imagine having as a boss or a neighbor. You'd do everything you could to avoid her. She doesn't learn any lesson. She doesn't reveal that we are all warm and fuzzy if you just get close enough.

Some have criticized "Saving Mr. Banks" for this reason. They say that it's sexist to depict a successful woman author as being a witch. Baloney. It would be sexist to depict her as warm and cuddly. Women can be unpleasant. I know plenty of women like Travers. It isn't liberated to insist that all women are nice. Plenty of women are not nice at all.

I found Thompson's depiction of Travers to be so powerful that the rest of the film didn't measure up, for me. Part of the film takes place in 1961. Travers is in Hollywood, working with Disney studios on their film adaptation of her book "Mary Poppins." Part of the film is a series of flashbacks to Travers' childhood in Australia. In the flashbacks, Colin Farrell plays Travers' alcoholic father. The flashbacks didn't work for me. They had the feel of an afterschool special. Everyone was so good looking, especially Colin Farrell, even while suffering the health effects of alcoholism. Annie Rose Buckley, who plays the author as a child, is cherubically beautiful. The scenes depicting the alcoholic father disappointing and humiliating his daughter, and breaking her heart, did not affect me at all. They felt paint-by-numbers – oh, this is the predictable scene where the little girl realizes her father is a loser.

The 1961 scenes in Hollywood worked much better. Paul Giamatti is amazing in the small part of Travers' limo driver. He brings a wallop of humanity and poignancy to his role that really swept me off my feet. The two develop a real rapport, and they could have taken up much more of the film. Jason Schwartzman and BJ Novak are also brilliant as Robert and Richard Sherman, who wrote the songs for Mary Poppins. In one scene, Travers objects to Robert Sherman's walking with a cane. The film doesn't mention this; I wish it had. Sherman was only 19 or 20 years old when he participated in the liberation of Dachau. He was shot during the war. That's why he walked with a cane.

Tom Hanks as Walt Disney didn't really work for me. Walt Disney was a totemic figure from my childhood. I remember him, in his TV appearances, as rather godlike – avuncular and yet distant, impenetrable. While watching Emma Thompson as PL Travers, I got the sense that I was watching something like the real PL Travers – a real, complex, human being. While watching Tom Hanks as Walt Disney, I got the sense that I was watching Tom Hanks play a sanitized version of Walt Disney. "Saving Mr. Banks" was very brave in its depiction of Travers, but very vanilla in its depiction of Walt. Giamatti as the fictional limo driver had more depth and complexity.

The movie is most valuable as a character piece. It tries to say some big things about how people live through sorrow, like Travers' childhood, and survive that sorrow by creating art about it, like "Mary Poppins." That big idea really didn't wash for me. I know it's possibly true, but that message just didn't grab me, so the movie was not a ten, but it's certainly worth viewing for Thompson's performance, for her interplay with Giamatti and the Sherman brothers as played by Schwartzman and Novak.

Well, there are not many people I know who don't like the film 'Mary Poppins'. So why not see how and where it all began by watching one of the most incredible films of last year, 'Saving Mr Banks'. Starring Tom Hanks as movie maker Walt Disney and Emma Thompson as writer P.L.Travers, author of the Mary Poppins books, this stunning movie tells of the meetings between Walt Disney and P.L.Travers and his determination to obtain the screen rights to her books to make the film we all know and love today. Tom Hanks is, of course, superb as Walt Disney but Emma Thompson gives, in my opinion, one of the best performances of her career as the stubborn author. The film is made by the Disney company so, although it is based on reality, it has been given the Disney sentimentality and sweetness that wasn't actually there in truth. The movie ends following the premier of Mary Poppins and sees P.L.Travers crying, the viewer is given the impression that it is because of her recalling her relationship with her father, but in truth the real P.L.Travers was seen crying at the premier but it was due to her actual hatred of the film, the musical numbers and mostly of the animation, of which she was steadfast should never be used. Keep watching the credits as the director has very cleverly included clips of the original tape recordings of the meetings and you can hear the real P.L.Travers making her feelings known. Given the differences between reality and the various fictionalised scenes this film is a definite 'must see' and I join the many critics who feel that it should have been given more accolades at the Oscars.

Walt Disney was nothing like the man Tom Hanks portrays in this movie.

Disney was an American icon, whose studio and theme parks have played significant roles in American pop culture. However, Disney was an enigmatic man unlike anything shown in this movie. Disney was far from the beloved, grandfatherly executive Hanks plays on screen. In fact, Disney was known to be a difficult and sometimes unpleasant man who paid low wages and worked his animators to exhaustion. In short, life in the Disney creative offices was not the great big party depicted in Saving Mr. Banks.

I understand it's a family movie, and clearly most people have enjoyed the show. But I have trouble getting on board something that plays very loose with how things really went down.

I was able to view an advanced screening of Saving Mr. Banks. I will have to rate it as an excellent movie. It made me laugh, it made me cry and it certainly brought back memories. I enjoyed it very much. The film was on the most part incredibly true to era. I felt the transitioning from one time period to the other was done smoothly and poignantly. Obtaining the screen rights for the making of Mary Poppins and the childhood of P.T. Travers are intricately woven. The entire point of the movie could not have been made without this aspect. It was brilliantly done. I see many Oscar nominations here. Tom Hanks was outstanding as always as well as Emma Thompson. Colin Farrell was remarkable. The interactions of all the characters was beyond well done.