From the outside, it wasn't going to be much. How very wrong we all were...

Rating: 9/10 (22 April 2014)

Let's look back briefly at movies about movies being made. "Hitchcock" is the main example of this type of film, and was a likable but shallow drama. 2012′s "Hugo" (just fitting into the category) was much better, focussing on other people who happen to be related to film. So now to "Saving Mr. Banks", which follows Walt Disney's (Tom Hanks) quest to adapt the much beloved children's novel "Mary Poppins" into a film. From the outside, and from the far-too-detailed trailer, it wasn't going to be much, just a lighthearted film with some emotional backstories which we all knew the ending of. How very very wrong we all were.
Emma Thompson plays P.L. Travers, the writer of "Mary Poppins", a serious woman who has been brought to L.A. by Walt Disney to adapt her creation into a film. Thompson is hilarious in the role, beating down many ideas put forwards and being generally nasty to everyone. The development of the film is an interesting half of the film, and we see where many ideas came from – the characters, the designs, and especially the songs. Taking the roles of the Sherman Brothers are Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak, who provide even more great comedy performances to the film – the scene where they all sing "Let's Go Fly a Kite" is particularly brilliant. Hanks is, of course, a fantastic addition as the man-child Walt Disney, and we see both his fun and slightly darker sides throughout the course of the film.
This is only half of the film, however, and the lighter half at that. The other is made up of Travers' flashbacks to her childhood, as she remembers the people who inspired her characters. Colin Farrell plays her father, who tries to keep her imagination flowing even when times are getting hard for the family, and who descends further into alcoholism every day. It's a tragic story, and helps you to understand the reasons why Travers' is so pernickety about the characters – she knows each one of them so well. This is something that Disney picks up on, and the best moments of the film is shared between these two main characters, leading up to a fantastic ending.
The film's other greatest part is its portrayal of L.A. in the 1960s as a warm, perfect place, and the retro landscapes help so much to draw the audience in. Hancock builds fantastic visual contrasts between 60s California and Australian desert in 1906, and we can adapt to the shift in tone well each time we enter one of the flashbacks. The film's strong script is also a huge merit, and many scenes land big laughs. But it is the performances which make it so great and enjoyable, and why we connect so well with the film. Many may ask whether Travers was really that horrible, or if it's just over egged for the film. Well, that's answered during the credits, with actual recordings of the script sessions, and it's then when you realise just how accurate Thompson's acting is. It's a fantastic and endearing film, perfect for any fan of the original book or film.