Saving Mr. Banks

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

It's the behind the scenes story of how Walt Disney got PL Travers to allow him to make the movie of Mary Poppins.

It's not the feel good film you think it is going to be. Travers did not have the best upbringing and the movie juxtaposes her early days with the workings of getting the screenplay done. Lot's of downers, but a very well made film. Paul Giammatti wasn't as loathesome as usually is. I'm tired of Tom Hanks playing Tom Hanks. He needs to break out and be the baddy in some film. Emma Thomas was fine as the very controlling Travers.

One of things I kept thinking while watching the film was how much money they had to have spent and how did the arrange to do that. They shot on the Disney lot and redressed it to make it look 1961, which arguably wouldn't take much. But they had to close off one of the main thoroughfares in the studio for shooting. They also did some shooting at Disney. Again they had to dress Disneyland in period and bring bag some rides back that no longer exist. It was amazing the logistics of the shots at Disneyland.

Finally, they shot some of the scenes at the base of my hill in Heritage square, using the Victorian Buildings to stand in for Australia.

A fine film, no swordfights.

[Drunk Monk]

was there any data loss recently? it didn't turn up in a cursory search (and i know i didn't post it on kfm)

my now-vanished comment said something about how this was the second hanks film that had a totally predictable ending, and that killed any suspense for me. and that it needed a swordfight.

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

Nope. No data loss. I felt the same way about some book reviews. I did a search for Mr. Banks, too. Maybe it lurks in one of your other reviews.

[El Dingo]

I watched this on the plane from England.

There should be a genre for "Children's classic backstories".

I liked "Dreamchild" - the one about the girl who was the inspiration for "Alice in Wonderland". "Finding Neverland" was interesting. I think there's one I'm forgetting but it could be the one about those girls that staged the 'Fairies' pictures - or did I dream that?

Anyway, I found it sterile, safe and predictable. Tom Hanks was great as Disney but wasn't given much to work with. I think if I had read the original story I might have had more of a connection.

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

I saw the fairies movie, too.

[Drunk Monk]

I did a search too. Weird.

The thing is that the movie did spoil the books in a way, just like the movie of Wizard of Oz changed the public perception of that book series. Few remember either Travers's or Baum's original book series, which are both extraordinary and quite different in tone than the films. But the films are classics and who bothers to read anymore? Heck you probably haven't even read to the end of my post here. I shoulda made a youtube vid instead.

[Greg_phpbb3_import1]

who are you again?

I never read the Travers books, but I did read Ozma of Oz which I really enjoyed. I think that was the title. Basically the princess has been hidden and transformed into a boy.

[Drunk Monk]

who are you again?

I never explain anything.