Saving Mr Banks

[Jayman]

Superb. Love Emma Thompson to bits.
9/10 for sure.

Great article here about the true story: http://mentalfloss.com/article/51926/st ... alt-disney

Thought there was some very dark scenes for a pg. Did walt swear in one scene? went straight past me at the time as i didn't expect it.

I know exactly which scene you're referring to but I assure you it wasn't the F word. Just sounded like it.

[woody505]

im sure walt sed ive fu!@(d things up very gd film though

[The Sparrow]

He says Fudged, honestly.

[canadian_turtle]

This was amazing! Now I have to say that I'm a HUGE Disney fan and Mary Poppins is one of my all-time favourite films so obviously I'm biased in that regards as it was really interesting to me to see not only Walt Disney (and old school characters + Disneyland) being brought to live, but also see one of my favourite films being made. However, despite this bias I still think this is an excellent film. The story in Australia is heartbreaking but explains so much and the story in LA is just such fun. The Shermans in particular were excellent, I had no idea Jason Schwartzman had this in him!

10/10 - purely on entertainment value.

Not so great was the fact that the sound in the O2 was seriously off on Thursday and whenever voices were (slightly) raised there was a weird and distracting echoing effect going on, meaning we heard the dialogue twice.

[Jayman]

For anyone else interested in the real P.L. Travers, this documentary might be of some use.
Be warned, there's very little insight into her life and lots of shamleless plugging of the broadway production.
Makes me think that the producers of Saving Mr Banks had no choice but to base their version on pure speculation.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeiEumLxTcM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuPoy0B6WPM
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHhaGog1Wis
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMWOaU8RqSY
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w3ao9XrSc0
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOAuw1ozPbc

[McG]

I went to a 2nd screening of this on Thursday and, if anything, I enjoyed it even more!
I went with some friends who had not seen the film before but I chose to go again to avoid any Hallowe'en guisers(Scottish word for those calling at your door while in fancy dress who will then do a turn ie sing, tell a joke or whatever in return for goodies. I was therefore a bah! humbug! ) . . . .but the film was very good!!!
Marks 9/10

[Ms Thrifty]

That IS a recommendation, McG - so I hope some more previews come up, as there have been none at any of my locations. A while yet before release, so still hope. In which case, maybe you'd go a third time!

[martadelas]

It was a Disney movie, so of course it had that sugar-coated feel to it, but that is what I not only expect but in fact demand form a Disney movie, so can't complain, even if it seemed a bit self-serving.
As much as I find Tom Hanks to be a great actor, he did not convince me as Walt Disney, but Emma Thompson in my eyes made a great PL Travers, so all is good on that front too, especially with very good supporting appearances. Oh, and loved the period feel of the whole film.
In general I liked the movie, but I didn't love it.

7.5/10

[Yinster]

Did anyone else noticed on the tickets for Tuesday the 12th showing this message

Doors: 6.30 - Live coverage from 7.15pm and film on screen at 7.30pm

And I loved this second time round too.

[raj101]

I have no truck with a fictional movie being awash with sugar coated scenes, and taken as a 'dream of Disney' or a child dream of Disney this movie works fine, its both well filmed and nice to look at if somewhat insubstantial in its look at the film industry. The problem for me is that the movie never even purports to be fantasy or a childs view of events. Films can be saccharine and filmed well without flying in the face of reality, such as The Help, which makes a firm point of not rewriting the past.

I think this movie might have benefitted from being seen through the eyes of a child in both past and present, which would have excused the falsity of the story and the way the era and characters were depicted so rosily with barely a hint of a flaw, though at the cost of losing the hard contrast between Travers childhood and adult life. I might well give it another go, if just for Hanks performance, but I am not sure if my verdict would be any different, not that its important what my take on the movie is anyway. Or perhaps I did just see it on a bad day, I wasn't well that evening, it help to stay to the end this time!