Chim Chim Cher-ee, this movie is a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious movie!

Rating: 8/10 (6 January 2014)

Saving Mr. Banks is the first Walt Disney's company film that takes itself very serious as a dramatic sophisticated comedy historical piece. It's better than any subsidiaries films that Touchstone or Hollywood Pictures put out in a long time. I can't believe how mature this movie is. There is no other film like this from Walt Disney Company besides their documentary films that tackle such adult-theme driven subject matter about their history in the movie business. I wouldn't say, this movie is a family friendly film, due to its dark subject and adult-theme driven matter, but WOW, I have to say this movie knows how to give the audience, a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down in the most delighted way. At first, I thought this movie was going to be paint Walt Disney like saint, when the company produced it, but it's so unlike that. The studios didn't sanitize Walt Disney at anyway. You see Disney curse, drink, smoke, and most of all, backstabbed. In this film, there are scenes that fans of Walt Disney and anti-Disney would love. The movie directed by John Lee Hancock centered on the development of the 1964 Walt Disney Studios film Mary Poppins, and the conflicts between the book author P.L Travers (Emma Thompson) and filmmaker Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) on where the film should go. I would greatly advice to see that movie, before seeing this, so you don't get confused. Both are equally in love with Mary Poppins, the source book material. Walt Disney wants to make the film to show love to his daughter, while P.L Travers wants to keep it all for herself as a memorial of her own father play by Colin Farrell in flashbacks. Walt Disney wanted Mary Poppins, a musical animation film, while P.L Travers wanted a dark Ronald Dahl's type live action movie. It's easy to say, Saving Mr. Banks is a movie about making a movie, but it has deeper themes than that. In a sense, the movie is mostly more rooted in the conflict between interpretations of what people view as naïve optimism escapists versus nihilism realism beliefs. Both Walt Disney & P.L Travers react to past pains different and it shows in their actions and their works. Tom Hanks, while not too much looking like the real life Disney, pulls it off. In real life, Tom Hanks is a distant cousin to the Disney family. You can't help, being happy every time, he is on screen even if you know it is Tom Hanks playing Walt Disney. After a while, you forget that, and see Disney there. While, I would had love to see more about Disney's personal life and maybe more hints of his well-known controversial nature. I think the movie does a fair adaptation of what Walt Disney might had been during that time. I think those who think he was anti-Semitic, racist or fascist might want to take a closer look at his life by researching rather than criticizing this film with faults accusations. This film isn't about Disney, at all. It's not his bio-pic. Indeed, this movie is mostly about P.L Travers's story. Emma Thompson is great as the always unhappy, strict, negative P.L Travers. Some people might not like the movie due to her unlikeable nature, but with a great positive supporting casting roles from Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman, B.J Novak, Bradley Whitford, and Colin Farrell surrounded her, you can feel the love that they all had for the project. I can see any of these supporting actors or main actors getting Oscars for their roles. Never once did I thought, her character went too far out, that make me not care for her tragedy life story. She indeed had some of the best mean-spirited one liners in the film and some lovely heart-felt moments with the crew making the film. In real life, P.L Travers never lightened up, and went so far to say, she hate the final copy of 1964's Mary Poppins. We don't see that in the film, but the movie doesn't hide the fact, she might had hate it with all her scorning. Like, Walt Disney, I think the movie gives a fair adaptation of the real P.L Travers. She was a lot worst in real life. At less, the movie doesn't show the harsh relationship between her and her son like in some versions of the script has. It would make her look too evil. In my opinion, the movie, Mary Poppins is a lot better than the book version. While the great satire and subtle humor of the book is great. I have to say, Travers was truly wrong about the picture. The anti-feminist ending as she call it, wasn't anti-feminist at all. The animation was ground breaking and the songs were charming. Without Mary Poppins great success, we wouldn't had the great Pirate of the Caribbean ride that was pay by Mary Poppins success in the box office. Without that ride, we wouldn't get the great film series. So it was a win-win. Now for this movie, pacing. It is pretty good, but it seems that the series of flashbacks depicted Travers' turn of the century youth in Australia seem like a different movie than that of the 1960's California settling. Both the locations of Australia and Southern California were beautiful to watch. I love the wardrobe in this film. The soundtrack is amazing. It's nice to hear the Sherman Brother's music for Mary Poppins, again. I adore Thomas Newman's score. Overall: a great cheery, upbeat movie with a very dark undertow.