my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

Author Topic: Saving Mr. Banks (2013) Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 01-03-2014 10:05 PM                        CINEMA: Moore Warren, Moore, OK AUDITORIUM: 8 PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema/THX PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None RATING: Three stars (out of four) THE PLOT: Walt Disney wants to sign a movie deal. Wackiness ensues. Not quite as moving as "Finding Neverland", but I'll take it.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 01-10-2014 11:13 AM                     I quite enjoyed this, but from what I reading some elements of the real story were changed for more dramatic effect - but hey's it's a Disney film what do you expect? I thought the soundmix (and the music score) was outstanding - I saw this in a THX auditorium and I swear it sounded like 7.1 surround sound (notably during the Australia scenes where the sound of insects seem to all around the listener).  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-17-2014 12:25 PM                        I thought it was an outstanding movie. Tom Hanks never seems to disappoint. I was wishing for more "behind the scenes" stuff, but that's just because I enjoy that kind of thing. The fact that one of the real Sherman brothers consulted on the music was a great touch, I thought...those two guys were my favorite part of the movie, along with the always reliable Paul Giamatti playing the poor guy who gets assigned to drive Mrs. Travers around, and eventually winds up making friends with her. We got the Blu-Ray of "Mary Poppins" when it came out recently and watched it a couple of weeks ago. I'm really glad we did...there are a lot of little inside jokes and details that a person would miss if he hadn't seen it. I loved all the "period" details. They did a great job of re-creating the atmosphere around the Disney studios. I got a huge kick out of the many ways the film sort of pokes fun at the Disney image and their always-perky 'cast members.' The scene where Emma Thompson banishes all the Disney plush toys to the closet (and makes Mickey Mouse sit in a corner "until you learn the art of subtlety") was hilarious. I was a little surprised that the Disneyland segment didn't show more of Disneyland, but I guess it wouldn't have added anything to the story (and would have been very difficult to film). Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable film surprisingly moving. Audiences will be laughing and crying at this one. I'm surprised it didn't get any Oscar nominations, especially for Emma Thompson. I suspect it's because it is a Disney film about a Disney subject, and really polishes most of the rough edges off of Walt Disney. If some independent company had made the movie it might have fared better, awardswise. One techno-beef....toward the end of the movie it shows clips from "Mary Poppins" as played on the Chinese Theater's screen. The image seems at some times to be almost 1.33:1, and other times a full scope image. It keeps changing shape. But it sure was cool to see Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke up there on the big screen again. 4.5 out of five stars from me.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-17-2014 04:57 PM                        I completely agree with you about SAVINGS MR. BANKS, Mike. Thr movie was excellent as expected but I was anmoyed at first with the flashbacks but it began to make sense as the movie progressed. Like you, I also obtained the blu ray and watched it about two weeks before and it made me enjoy SMB even more. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-17-2014 05:33 PM                        I have to correct myself...the film DID get one Oscar nomination for best score. I'm still surprised the movie didn't get a best picture nom, but there were a lot of good contenders this year. And Emma Thompson for sure deserved a nomination.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 03-26-2014 12:24 AM                     Saving Mr. Banks was pretty good but not great. They could of probably cut out at least 20 minutes of the movie, the pacing was pretty slow and there was a lot of flashbacks that got a little annoying at times. The movie wrapped up well and it did make me want to watch Mary Poppins again. The movie was a lot darker or deeper than the trailers made it out to be. Overall, a good movie, but not a great one.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-26-2014 06:30 PM                        Somewhere I have a CD or old dvd that interviews the Shermans about "writing for Walt." They also mention the key song: "Feed the birds" that Walt played every day till he died. (His feelings about being a good parent.) Louis  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 03-26-2014 07:22 PM                     When MARY POPPINS was in the planning stages, I worked for Buena Vista Distribution. I was present at a sales meeting at the studio where Walt told the story, and the Shermans played the music. That was my first exposure to the story, although my wife has loved it since childhood, to the extent she refuses to see the movie. SAVING MR. BANKS was interesting to me for the depiction of those people where I had a knowledge of the real ones. I liked it a lot more than I expected, even though it was hard to fully accept Tom Hanks as Walt. It is always hard for an actor to portray a real person who is familiar to the audience, but it isn't supposed to be a documentary. I too hadn't seen MP for years, and it turned up on cable so I gave it a try. I lasted about a half hour. Technology has improved so much it had a pretty dated look, and I've always felt that 140 min. is way too much., but, going back to its original release, the box office grosses stayed high week after week. Who am I to criticize that?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.