Glenn here looking at the trailer to the long-awaited sequel to Oscar-winner Finding Neverland!
Tom Hanks as Disney and Emma Thompson as P.L.Travers in "Saving Mr Banks"Okay, so Saving Mr. Banks isn't a sequel, but it's certainly a kin to Marc Forster's Peter Pan origin story from 2004. I wasn't a fan of that movie, but given we've recently been discussing Johnny Depp's descent into fulltime caricature, maybe we should relish Finding Neverland as one of his few roles of the last decade that didn't rely on kooky make-up and broad physical comedy. For whatever reason I'm surprised Disney didn't try and get Depp on board to play a bumbling Dick Van Dyke in this behind the Hollywood scenes feelgood drama. Instead they went with relative unknown Kris Kyer who actually has a history as a Dick Van Dyke impersonator. Whatta world! [more...]
Neither he nor Victoria Summer as Julie Andrews are featured in this first trailer for Saving Mr Banks which is more interested in the story of Mary Poppins' author (Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers) and her relationship with Walt Disney. There is, however, plenty of Emma Thompson.
Let's take a look see, shall we?.
YES
• Emma Thompson. It really can't be said enough how big of a treasure she is to cinema. While she will never likely top her string of critical successes from the early 1990s (Howard's End, The Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, Much Ado About Nothing and Peter's Friends is nearly as strong a run as Nicole Kidman had in the early '00s), she continues to do fine work whenever she graces us with her presence. While I find it curious that Thompson brought Nanny McPhee to the screen and now tries to tell the tale of Mary Poppins' creator, I'm just grateful she has the lead role in a movie that's aiming for the big leagues.
•The rest of that cast. Like him or loathe him, Tom Hanks seems ideally cast as Walt Disney, don't you think? In addition to Thompson & Hanks we have: Rachel Griffiths, Colin Farrell, Jason Schwartzman, Bradley Whitford, Kathy Baker, Paul Giamatti, and Ruth Wilson. An impressive roster, no?
•"No, no, no. 'Responstable' is not a word!" I know it just ties back to Thompson, but there could be some fun to be had in the way the original books became such a sweet Disney confection.
NO
• John Lee Hancock. The director of The Blind Side, The Alamo and The Rookie is back to provide us with syrupy mainstream pap. I wasn't as down on The Blind Side as others and I know Nathaniel likes the Rookie but, still, it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that we're looking at a new Hollywood classic.
• Memories of Finding Neverland. No, but seriously, Finding Neverland was baaaad. I hope this isn't anywhere near as mawkish and bland. This pertains to the previous point, obviously.
•"Dear viewers, please come and visit Disneyland." There's something really off-putting about Disney making a movie that is basically all about how great Disney is and how wonderful Disneyland is and the magic of movies is at Disneyland. The film is basically one big commercial for the power of Disney and would you like to spend your hard-earned money at Disneyland?
MAYBE SO
• There's something ironic about Disney turning the story of adapting Mary Poppins into a cheery movie against its creator's wishes into a seemingly whimsical cheery affair. However, as I'd heard rumoured some time ago, the sequences with Rachel Griffiths (one of my favourite Aussie actors) as the original Mary Poppins appear to be aiming for a somewhat darker tone. We'll see.
• The cast. Yes, I know I covered them in the "Yes" field, BUT... didn't you see Hitchcock? That was another Inside Hollywood feature with a big attractive cast yet which bottomed out and was one of the worst films of the year. Who knows how big of a role the likes of Kathy Baker or Schwartzman will get. Doesn't Giamatti's appearance in the trailer seem awfully like that of, say, Toni Collette in Hitchcock? Griffiths is the one I am particularly interested in, but will she be relegated to one flashback?
• Like every so-called Oscar rule that can be disproved simply by using the words "except when they don't": The Academy love movies about Hollywood... except when they don't. The Academy love movies with Tom Hanks... except when they don't. etc etc. Whenever anybody tries to tell you something is LOCKED because "duh!" there's always an example of them turning their nose up. So while Saving Mr. Banks has the appearance of a no brainer, it could easily turn into, say, another Hyde Park on Hudson. Frothy can be a tough sell unless it really sticks the landing.
• The "twinkly" fantasia. It could be magical. It could be embarrassing. Tom Hanks on the TV set doesn't imply the film will be filled with the stuff, but maybe the rather generic look of the film could use some visual inventiveness like that.
Here's the trailer if you're up for it. I'm camped out in the "Maybe So" area of Disneyland with Saving Mr. Banks. Like the aforementioned Hyde Park on Hudson it could simply vanish without the right critical reception and end up an also ran. I suspect it'll be one of those "well, I guess I have to see this, don't I?" affairs, but let's hope for something supercalifragilisticexpialadocious.