Cruella (2021) review

We’ve seen plenty of iconic Disney villains throughout the studio’s extensive filmography, and yet, there are arguably none who are more famous than the villainess of Disney Animation’s 1961 outing, One Hundred and One Dalmatians: the fashion-obsessed heiress turned sinister dognapper Cruella de Vil. Ever since the original film’s release, Cruella has been regarded as one of the most famous villains in cinematic history and this status was thoroughly maintained in 1996 when 101 Dalmatians became one of the first Disney animated films to get a live-action remake. In said film, Cruella was portrayed by the legendary Glenn Close, and while the film itself wasn’t as well-received as its animated counterpart, Close’s performance was widely regarded as its greatest highlight, promptly earning her a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical. She then proceeded to reprise the role in the film’s 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians, and while that would basically be it for the 101 Dalmatians live-action film franchise at the time, plans were set into place for a prequel film based entirely around Cruella herself in 2013. And while this did mean that Close wasn’t going to be reprising her iconic role, she still ended up being involved with the project as an executive producer. Thus, Emma Stone took on the role for this new film, which is the latest from director Craig Gillespie who, like previous directors of the live-action 101 Dalmatians films (Stephen Herek and Kevin Lima), has done a bunch of films for Disney in the past such as 2014’s Million Dollar Arm and 2016’s The Finest Hours. And thanks to his strong direction and a top-notch lead performance from Emma Stone, Cruella is a strikingly stylish and edgy new take on the story of its titular villainess.

Growing up, Estella Miller (Emma Stone) was known for being quite the troublemaker which, in her eyes, may have made her responsible for the death of her mother Catherine (Emily Beecham) at a luxurious party hosted by ‘The Baroness’ (Emma Thompson), the owner of one of the top fashion houses in London. Now orphaned, Estella ends up taking on a life of thievery alongside her newfound friends, Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) Badun. Eventually, her creative sensibilities manage to attract the attention of the Baroness, who promptly hires her as one of her new designers. But while Estella steadily works her way up into being one of the Baroness’ key assistants, she soon discovers that the Baroness has come into possession of a necklace that had been given to her by her mother but had been lost on the night of her death. Now realizing that the Baroness was the one responsible for her mother’s death, Estella, with the aid of Horace and Jasper, promptly embarks on a plot of revenge. Adopting an old persona of hers from childhood, she becomes the rebellious Cruella de Vil and begins to pull off a series of publicity stunts to one-up the Baroness, thus locking the two of them into an intense rivalry that only proceeds to get more complicated once Estella uncovers the Baroness’ darkest secret.

Cruella very much follows in the footsteps of 2014’s Maleficent by presenting a story where the main antagonist of one of Disney’s classic animated films is portrayed in a more sympathetic light as they enact their revenge against those who wronged them. Granted, it’s not like the film makes her a full-on protagonist or anything; in fact, I’d even argue that this one gives its title character more opportunities to be a devious renegade. But overall, the version of Cruella seen in this film doesn’t seem like she’s destined to become as villainous as she’s known for being in other films. Thus, just like Maleficent, I think it’s safe to say that this take on the character hasn’t gone over well with everybody, namely due to the attempt of trying to humanize a character who, at least in other films, wanted to kidnap puppies and kill them for their coats. However, given the context of how this story plays out, it isn’t too big of an issue in the long run because turning Cruella into a rebellious antihero fits perfectly with this story’s 1970’s London setting. And thanks to Craig Gillespie's visually-driven direction, the film excellently captures the punk rock aesthetic of the time, which is only strengthened further by other great elements such as the incredible costume design done by two-time Oscar winner Jenny Beavan and a rocking soundtrack full of classic tunes. Really, the only things that hold this film back are relatively minor at best such as it being perhaps a bit overlong at a little over two hours and some rather predictable final plot twists that reveal the true connection between Cruella and the Baroness.

As noted in the intro, Glenn Close’s performance as Cruella in the 1996 live-action 101 Dalmatians film and its 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians, is so iconic that she’s arguably the definitive incarnation of the character for at least one or two generations. As such, one can only imagine the pressure that Emma Stone was under to deliver a version of the character that was just as memorable by comparison… and yet, she fully succeeds in doing so thanks in large part to her indisputable on-screen charisma. She also works incredibly well with Emma Thompson, who basically serves as this film’s version of the kind of villain that Cruella is in other films as the Baroness, a role that Thompson gleefully revels in. And really, it’s simply a delight to see these two go to war with one another over the course of the film’s proceedings. The two Emmas are then backed by some terrific supporting turns from Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser as Cruella’s famously bumbling sidekicks, Jasper and Horace. The laid-back persona that Fry brings to Jasper makes him the most grounded member of the group and the one who keeps Cruella from going too far with her actions while Paul Walter Hauser, as is basically expected from him at this point, makes Horace one of the film’s best sources of comedic relief. And while they admittedly don’t have as much to work with by comparison, Mark Strong and Kirby Howell-Baptiste turn in solid work as well as John, the Baroness’ valet, and this film’s interpretation of the 101 Dalmatians franchise’s primary matriarch, Anita Darling.  

As we conclude this review, I should probably preface this final section of it by admitting that, regardless of my overall thoughts on the film, Cruella will always be in my good graces since it was the first film that I was able to see in a theatrical setting in more than a year after everything that happened due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That said, though, this is not just a case where I’m simply being sentimental about how I first viewed it as the film itself is a highly entertaining comedic crime adventure that prides itself on its incredibly stylish visuals and costuming and then proceeds to back it all up with a genuinely unique way of reimagining the story of one of Disney’s most iconic antagonists. Sure, it may go against the traditional ways in which Cruella de Vil has been portrayed on film before, but thanks to Emma Stone’s outstanding performance in the title role (not to mention an equally terrific supporting cast), it still works in a way that doesn’t end up betraying the source material. Simply put, the enthusiasm that the cast and crew clearly must have had for this material couldn’t be more apparent in a film that also manages to have the kind of edge to it that you normally wouldn’t get from a Disney production. With all that in mind, it’s easy to see why this has managed to be the very definition of a crowd-pleaser that was recently confirmed to be getting a sequel. And while it’s currently unclear as to what route it’ll end up taking, perhaps they can go with the suggestion that was made during an interview that the two Emmas had with Rotten Tomatoes and make it a Godfather II-style prequel/sequel that could potentially see Glenn Close returning to play an older Cruella.

Rating: 4.5/5

And don’t forget to vote for your favorite theatrically released film from the summer of 2021 by going to the link below. Voting ends September 15^th!

Click Here to Vote in the 2021 installment of Rhode Island Movie Corner's Annual End of Summer Fan Vote

Men in Black: International (2019) review

In 1990, the first installments of a new comic series, The Men in Black, was published by Aircel Comics. Created by writer Lowell Cunningham, the series focused on the titular Men in Black, a secret organization tasked with monitoring extraterrestrial activity on Earth. Soon after the completion of the series’ six-issue run, Aircel would end up getting acquired by Malibu Comics who, in turn, would be acquired by Marvel. And in 1997, the series was adapted to the big screen courtesy of director Barry Sonnenfeld and Steven Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment. Upon its release, the film, which starred Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as Men in Black agents J and K, respectively, was a big critical and financial hit, grossing over $589 million worldwide and earning the legendary Rick Baker his then-fifth Oscar for Best Makeup. The film would then spawn two sequels in 2002 and 2012, and while neither sequel was as well-received as the original, they were still both solid hits at the box-office. And yet, while it seemed like Men in Black 3 would be the final installment of the franchise, it has now come back in the form of a spin-off that isn’t the attempted crossover with the 21 Jump Street franchise that ultimately went nowhere. Instead, it’s a more traditional spin-off that focuses on new characters but is still set in the same universe. This time, directorial duties go to F. Gary Gray (Straight Outta Compton, The Fate of the Furious) while Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson headline the cast in their second big collaboration together after Thompson made a big splash in the MCU as Valkyrie alongside Hemsworth’s Thor in Thor: Ragnarök. And just like in that film, they prove to be quite the dynamic duo despite this film’s admittedly major shortcomings.

When she was a child, Molly Wright (Tessa Thompson) and her family had an encounter with an alien that instantly attracted the attention of the secret organization known as the Men in Black. But while her parents were both neuralyzed as per MIB regulations, Molly managed to avoid that fate, thus leading her on a mission to prove the organization’s existence. Twenty-three years later, Molly finally manages to locate the Men in Black’s New York headquarters, where she convinces Agent O (Emma Thompson), head of the US branch, that she’s a perfect candidate for the organization given how she was successful in finding them. Thus, Molly is officially dubbed ‘Agent M’ and is sent to MIB’s London headquarters on probationary status. There, she meets the head of the UK branch, High T (Liam Neeson), who pairs her up with his old partner Agent H (Chris Hemsworth) on a mission to protect a member of an alien royal family. However, when the mission goes haywire and the royal family member is killed, MIB suspects that this is the work of a parasitic alien race known as the Hive whose previous attempt at invading the planet was thwarted by High T and H three years prior. Thus, H and M soon find themselves on a globe-trotting adventure to try and prevent another Hive invasion. In the process, however, they quickly realize that all this may be the result of a traitor within MIB’s ranks.

Since this review took a little while to get done, we’re at a point now where it’s become well-known that this film experienced quite a few nasty production issues. Most specifically, F. Gary Gray and producer Walter Parkes frequently clashed over the overall direction of the film to the point where the former repeatedly tried to back out of the production. Thus, it’s been reported that the version of the film that was released in theaters was Parkes’ intended cut rather than Gray’s, which would’ve been a bit more topical with its themes (i.e. some commentary on immigration). And to be perfectly blunt, it’s easy to see why Gray’s version of the film would’ve turned out a lot better because what we ultimately get is a generic retread of the previous Men in Black films. While it is based around new characters (with the only references to the previous films consisting of a few select cameos and some visual nods), the film maintains the same general plot structure of the last three films right down to having its finale revolve around a historic landmark (e.g. the Apollo 11 launch in Men in Black 3). The film doesn’t even live up to the International in its title as the strict adherence to the franchise’s formula prevents it from exploring more of the world of Men in Black despite this being the first installment of the series that isn’t primarily set in New York. At the very least, the film maintains the franchise’s quirky atmosphere when it comes to the antics of its various alien creatures even though this is the first entry of the series to not involve the makeup work of Rick Baker due to his retirement in 2017.  

Ultimately, though, the best part about this film is its main leads. After all, one of the definitive aspects of the original trilogy was the strong dynamic of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones (plus Josh Brolin in the case of the third film). And considering their excellent chemistry in Thor: Ragnarök, it’s easy to see why Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson were paired together once again to become the Men in Black franchise’s newest lead duo. It also helps that these two do end up providing a different kind of pairing when compared to J and K from the previous films. Thompson, for example, may be following Smith’s arc from the first film as the rookie MIB agent, but whereas Agent J was the genuine newbie who was gradually introduced to the concept of aliens living on Earth, Agent M is already well-versed in it when she joins the organization. As for Hemsworth, Agent H’s characterization isn’t that far off from how Thor was initially portrayed in his MCU debut; in other words, a charismatic playboy who doesn’t always think before he acts. And while the big reveal surrounding it is a bit too simplistic, there’s a decent little mystery as to why H hasn’t quite been the same ever since he and High T saved the world despite him continually being regarded as one of the organization’s best agents. M and H are then backed by a solid ally in Pawny (voiced by Kumail Nanjiani), the last survivor of a tiny alien race who ends up pledging allegiance to his new Queen, M, and is quite simply the primary source behind most of the film’s best humorous moments. Everyone else in the film, including Neeson as High T and Rebecca Ferguson as an alien arms dealer who has a notable history with H, is fine in their respective roles but they’re ultimately just ‘there’, for the most part.

I still have vague memories of the first time that I watched the original Men in Black. Obviously, I was too young to see it in theaters in 1997, but I did watch it when I was about eight or nine when it aired on TV one night whilst my family and I were over at a party hosted by a family friend. And while my mom warned me that the film may be a bit too scary given the various alien creatures that appeared in it, this didn’t end up bothering me in the slightest and I became utterly enthralled by it. This then led to me watching the second film (which may not be as good as the first but isn’t quite as bad as a lot of folks say it is) and going to see the third film in theaters, which gave us the great addition of Josh Brolin as a younger K and a genuinely sweet twist in the finale that highlighted the strength of J and K’s relationship. Men in Black 3 was even one of the very first films I ever reviewed on this site, so with that in mind, you could say that I’m a big fan of this franchise and was really looking forward to its newest installment. Sadly, though, Men in Black: International ends up being the weakest of the bunch, though to be fair, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s ‘bad’. It’s just that, as I pointed out earlier in this review, this film was heavily affected by its scandalous production issues to the point where the version of it that we ultimately got is a generic copy of the previous films instead of a more culturally relevant sequel as was initially the plan. Thus, despite the best efforts of the dynamic duo of Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson (and a scene-stealing Kumail Nanjiani), Men in Black: International is the very definition of a ‘by-the-numbers’ sequel.    

Rating: 3/5

Beauty and the Beast (2017) review

Disney’s been on a roll as of late with their live-action reimaginings of their classic animated films. Granted, this current trend of theirs isn't going over well with ‘everybody’, as I pointed out last time, but, for the most part, films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book have been major successes on both a critical and commercial level instead of just on a commercial one as was initially the case with these films. And for their latest endeavor on this front, Disney revives one of its most beloved stories for a new generation; Beauty and the Beast. The studio’s original animated take on the classic fairytale of the same name from 1756 was the second smash hit of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ era when it was released in 1991. In fact, it was so universally adored that it ended up being the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a feat that has only been accomplished 2 other times since then by, fittingly enough, a pair of Pixar films; 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, which, of course, were released under the Disney banner. So, yeah, one could say that there was a lot of pressure on this new take on the ‘Tale as Old as Time’, directed by Bill Condon, who's no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner, Chicago (not to mention directing 2006’s Dreamgirls, which won 2 Oscars), and features an all-star ensemble cast. After all, we’re talking about one of the most famous Disney stories of all time, meaning that this new film has a hell of a lot to live up to. Thankfully, Condon does do justice to this beloved masterpiece of a story with a highly enjoyable new take on Beauty and the Beast that respects its predecessor without being a direct carbon copy of it.

In a quaint little town in France, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson) is a complete mystery to the rest of the people living there. Never once conforming to the expectations that life tries to set upon her, Belle spends most of her days reading, inventing things, and ignoring the advances of the town’s popular but egotistical local hunter, Gaston (Luke Evans), while also hoping to someday leave the confines of her ‘poor, provincial’ town. That day ends up coming sooner than anticipated when she goes to rescue her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), who had been taken prisoner by a monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens) that resides within a forgotten castle not far from town. To save her father, Belle ends up taking his place as the Beast’s prisoner. But, soon after, she begins to learn the big secret behind the castle and, more importantly, its mysterious owner. As it turns out, years ago, the Beast was a selfish and vain human prince who was cursed by an Enchantress after he had rejected her pleas for shelter. Turning him into a Beast, as well as turning his servants into enchanted household objects, she puts the Prince under the pressure of having to find true love in time before the last petal of the red rose that she initially offered him falls. And, thus, as Belle begins to become more and more accepted by the Beast and his servants, she does begin to fall in love with him, which soon causes problems once Gaston learns of the situation.

Now, admittedly, as far as Disney’s remakes go, this is more like Cinderella than The Jungle Book. By that, I mean that you shouldn't go into this expecting a lot of differences between this new version and the original. It's the same exact story with the same primary plot points. So, with that said, I know what some of you will inevitably say; “Why the hell remake a masterpiece then?” But I'm going to ignore that debate for now because, to me, it all comes down to execution, and I'm pleased to say that this film is very well-made in every possible way. Sure, it's still the same story as the original but I'd say that there are just enough new elements in here, as minor as some may be, that help differentiate it from the original (e.g. a new plotline that reveals why Maurice and Belle stayed in their provincial town for all these years). Visually, this film is a top contender for next year’s Oscar for Best Visual Effects, Production Design, and basically every other major technical award at that ceremony. Yes, a lot of the visuals in this are CG but they are done excellently. And as for the songs, well, what more needs to be said about them? They're the classic songs written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice and are all handled brilliantly in live-action. You'll be tapping your foot along to the beat of ‘Gaston’, marvel at the grandeur of ‘Be Our Guest’, and awe at the beauty (no pun intended) of the title song, ‘Beauty and the Beast’. There's also some great new songs as well, including the sweet recurring melody ‘How Does a Moment Last Forever’, which is sung three times in the film (this includes the end-credits version sung by Celine Dion who, of course, sung the title song during the end credits of the animated film) and the Beast’s new big solo, ‘Evermore’.

One of the best things about the film, though, is its ensemble cast. Because, damn, does this film have one of the most impressive ensembles in recent history. Of course, it's all led by Emma Watson, who does a phenomenal job in the role of Belle. Simply put, she does justice to one of Disney’s most beloved heroines while also doing just enough to provide some nice little updates to the character here and there without ever going against everything that made her great in the first place. And I know that she’s gotten some flak for her vocal performance during the musical numbers but I thought she was fine in that department. Dan Stevens is also fantastic as the Beast, perfectly conveying everything that goes into the character's great redemption arc. As for the villains of the film, both Luke Evans and Josh Gad are clearly having a lot of fun in the roles of Gaston and LeFou, respectively. They ham it up in the best way possible, as Evans perfectly encapsulates our favorite manly but shallow villain while Gad brings new depth to the role of Gaston’s loyal lackey. Kevin Kline is great as well in the role of Maurice, as he portrays the character in a much more toned down manner compared to the original that fits very well with the new plotline that shows why he’s been so protective of Belle all this time. And of course, we can't forget about the Beast’s servants and man did they get a great cast for these iconic supporting roles; Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette (Fifi in the original film), Audra McDonald as Madame de Garderobe the Wardrobe, and Stanley Tucci as new character Maestro Cadenza the Harpsichord.

And thus, Disney is now 4 for 4 with their recent live-action remakes. I mean, admittedly I don't think I can go as far as to say that it's the ‘best’ of these remakes but I can tell you one thing; it's a hell of a lot better than its current 71% score on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. Thankfully, that's still considered a ‘fresh’ rating but I have the feeling that some of the more negative reviews that the film has been getting have been a lot more stringent on comparisons between the two versions of this story. Like I said before, I can see why this is happening. Because this one is arguably the closest to its animated counterpart out of all the Disney remakes released to date, the word ‘unnecessary’ has undeniably been thrown around a lot. Maybe it is… but I don't care. I love the original (it is, after all, my 3^rd favorite Disney animated film of all-time) but I also love this new take on it, as its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, it is a genuinely well-made film in terms of its production design and visuals, not to mention having a fantastic ensemble cast to portray this story’s collection of iconic roles. Simply put, it's just an incredibly satisfying ‘feel good’ film and in this current time, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now. Just ignore all the negativity in the world for a few hours (especially the negativity directed towards a certain element of this film; more on that in a bit) and enjoy a charming new take on a classic that we all know and love. On that note, to those who aren't big on these Disney remakes, don't worry, for the original animated film is still as perfect as it ever was. This new version is ultimately just like the remakes of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon; it's a nice complement to the original source.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. Well, I should probably address the big controversy surrounding this film because… oh boy. So, as many of you are aware, the film has been getting some flak recently from some audiences after an announcement that stated that it would have Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay’ moment involving the character of LeFou. Because of this, there's been quite a bit of heavy blowback from various parties; some countries banned the film unless cuts were made, a theater in Alabama refused to show it, and in Russia, it was given an adult rating. Yes, in Russia, this film is considered nearly as mature as, say, Logan. To all this, I say… this is one of the stupidest and most overblown controversies in recent memory. This moment that everyone keeps talking about is just one SMALL moment at the end of the film. Heck, if it hadn't been pointed out beforehand, I bet most of us wouldn't have even noticed it because the film’s quite subtle about it. Bottom line, Disney isn't trying to force an LGBT agenda down our throats; they're just trying to represent a wider audience. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, this backlash totally goes against the great positive messages of this film, namely, you know, accepting people for who they really are on the inside. So, yeah… this backlash is frigging stupid.)

A Walk in the Woods (2015) Short Review

(This will only be a quick little review because I’m busy working on other projects. Enjoy!)

Had things turned out differently, ‘A Walk in the Woods’ would’ve ended up being the third on-screen collaboration between acting legends Paul Newman and Robert Redford, following their critically acclaimed turns in 1969’s ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ and 1973’s ‘The Sting’. Sadly, this would never come to fruition as Newman retired from acting in 2007 and died just a year later in 2008. Despite this, Redford moved on, brought in another acting legend in Nick Nolte to take over the role that was originally intended for Newman, and was finally able to get ‘A Walk in the Woods’, based on the 1998 memoir of the same name by travel author Bill Bryson, brought to the big-screen. It follows Bryson (Redford) as he attempts to hike the Appalachian Trail with his old friend Stephen Katz (Nolte), who he hadn’t been in contact with for about four years. But due to the two of them being not so prepared to take on this adventure, hilarity ensues as the two end up getting into all sorts of crazy situations as they try to complete the over 2,000 mile long trail. All of this comes together for a film that is just as pleasant as the trip these two men are taking (not counting all of the chaotic stuff that happens to them).

‘A Walk in the Woods’ is a fairly simple story but that doesn’t mean it’s not an enjoyable one to watch. The cinematography for the film by John Bailey is absolutely breathtaking with its shots of scenic vistas and Americana. And ultimately the film really benefits from its charismatic duo of leads in Redford and Nolte. The two have excellent chemistry, perhaps almost as good as Redford and Paul Newman, and it’s fun to see these two deal with everything that happens to them on the trail, from bears to crazy hikers, including an overly enthusiastic, and rather annoying, hiker named Mary Ellen (Kirsten Schaal), and so on. And it’s also rather nice to see these two old friends reconnect again through all of the chaos. Back them up with a few solid supporting roles, including Emma Thompson as Bryson’s wife Catherine and Mary Steenburgen as the owner of a motel who flirts with Bryson, and you have a nice little buddy road trip; no more, no less. ‘A Walk in the Woods’ isn’t the most profound film of its genre but it still manages to be a nice little film that strongly benefits from its leads and its beautiful scenery. If you’re looking for a nice little indie flick after all of the big blockbusters from this past summer, I think you’ll enjoy ‘A Walk in the Woods’.

Rating: 4/5

Saving Mr. Banks (2013) review

It’s interesting to note that, in the years since his death in 1966, there haven’t been any films made that center around or feature Walt Disney. After all, he was the man responsible for some of the greatest animated films of all time and one of the biggest companies in the world is named after him. With credentials like that, it makes you wonder why there hasn’t been any attempt to do something along the lines of a biopic. But with this film, the man behind arguably the world’s most famous mouse finally makes his debut on the big screen, albeit through a portrayal by Tom Hanks instead of Disney himself. But Disney’s not exactly the star of this film. Instead, ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ is the tale of ‘Mary Poppins’ author P.L. Travers and her experiences working with Walt Disney during the production of the iconic film adaptation of the novel starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. It was the film that earned thirteen Oscar nominations and ultimately five wins and is considered to be one of Disney’s best films. However, as this film shows, the production didn’t really go as smooth as one might have expected but with the help of a talented cast and the proper focus, ‘Saving Mr. Banks’ ends up being one of the best films of the year.

In 1961, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) travels to Los Angeles to meet with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) so that they can discuss the development for the film adaptation of her novel, Mary Poppins. Travers, who has script approval rights, is concerned about Disney turning her beloved story into one of his ‘silly’ cartoons, although Walt assures her that he will do her story justice as he made a promise to his daughters years ago that he will make Mary Poppins ‘fly off the pages of the book’. Still, as pre-production begins, Travers remains very skeptical about the project, objecting to pretty much every decision made in bringing the story to the big screen by Walt, co-writer Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman (Richard) and B.J. Novak (Robert)). During this time, Travers also reflects on her childhood, when she was a little girl living in Australia in 1906. More specifically, she remembers her alcoholic but loving father Travers Robert Goff (Colin Farrell), who was her inspiration for the character of Robert Banks in the story.

While the film does take a little while to get going, it offers a very interesting look at the production of what is easily one of the most famous films of all time. Sure, it may have been a big hit both critically and commercially when it came out in 1964, but that doesn’t mean that P.L. Travers was happy about it. In fact, she was so angry about what Disney did to her story that she did not allow any future movies based on her stories to be made. As this film shows, there were multiple things that she was against, like the casting of Dick Van Dyke as Bert or having animation in the film via the dancing penguins. But in the end, most of her objections ended up being overruled by Disney who stated that he had final say. As one might expect from a film like this, it is a little dramatized (that ‘final say’ plot point I just mentioned isn’t in here) but it also allows us to see two well-renowned story tellers try to work together despite the fact that they each have different ideas about how the film should be made. I also like that this film did make Travers the main character instead of Disney himself. Don’t get me wrong, I would really like to see a biopic on Walt, but at its core, this story is about P.L. Travers, which I like especially considering that this is a Disney film. The filmmakers could have just made Walt the main character, but thankfully they decided to focus on Travers more. The scenes of her childhood in Australia are well-done and, at times, are rather heartbreaking (particularly this one scene that I don’t want to spoil that involves Travers and her father).

Emma Thompson is outstanding as Travers, conveying the author’s emotions with both skill and grace; her connection with ‘Mary Poppins’ feels real and you understand her hesitation, as I bet most authors would have whenever Hollywood adapts their stories to the big screen. Tom Hanks is just as excellent here. He may not exactly look like Walt Disney, but he succeeds at embodying the spirit and showmanship that Walt himself was known for. For the record, I know that some of you are wishing that they explore some of the more ‘controversial’ aspects about his life, like his supposed anti-Semitic views, but trust me, you won’t see that here (this is his studio we’re talking about here; I’m pretty sure they would not be too keen on doing something like that. They didn’t even want to show that Walt was a smoker.). The two leads work off each other very well and what’s also great about it is that the movie doesn’t try to dishonor either of them. There is obviously a lot more to this story than what we see in the film, but both of them are portrayed in a positive light. Of course, the rest of the cast is excellent as well; Colin Farrell in particular does some of the best work of his career as Travers’ father, who might be suffering from alcoholism but it’s clear that he really loves his daughter no matter what happens.

‘Saving Mr. Banks’, despite a rather slow opening, is easily one of the best films of the year. The tale of the production of ‘Mary Poppins’ is an interesting one, mainly because of some of the conflicting ideas between P.L. Travers and Walt Disney over how it should be made. But one of the great things about this film is that while it’s clear that these two are very different, both are portrayed in a positive way. I mean, considering that this is Disney, there might have been the possibility that the filmmakers would have just been supportive of Walt the whole way through and try to vilify Travers for not agreeing with his ideas, but thankfully they decided to have the story be about Travers, as it should be. A terrific cast certainly helps this film succeed, particularly from Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, both of whom give extremely Oscar-worthy performances. Expect this film to be a key player in this year’s awards season race. I can’t say it’s the best film this year, but it’s extremely enjoyable nevertheless. Fans of the classic movie will no doubt be interested to see how it all came together.

Rating: 4/5