It is recommended that the film is more effective after watching "Mary Poppins". Two films, unfortunately, I watched the film first, and then watched "Mary Poppins". When I first played it, I noticed that the film was produced by Disney. I didn’t have any "vigilance" and no worries, because I watched the film with the mentality of "this is a feature movie" and watched it. I even believed this story. After watching it, I even thought it was a good movie, and I could give it five stars. I didn't write a film review right away until I finished watching "Mary Poppins".
Like biographies, realism, or "adapted from real people" or whatever you name, these kinds of films, no matter how good they are, whether they are true or not will directly shake my evaluation of the film. In this film, we can learn that Mrs. Travers (hereinafter referred to as T) has many requirements for adaptation (so many "NO"s), but the actual film "Mary Poppins", in my personal opinion, is a big disappointment. The: Mary Poppins does not sing. (Walt (Walt for short) takes a compromise: She sings, but not frivolous or bounce (also considered to meet the requirements of the original author), the music is really good) A live-action film. No animation. No Dick Van Dyke. No grand house, but normal one. No hint of romance between Poppins and Bert. No hint of romance between Poppins and Bert. Then a little "ambiguous spark") Mr. Bank is cuel. (He still tore up the children's advertisement in person and threw it into the fireplace, and later compensated with happy ending, which can also be said to be a compromise) ..... The above is to omit those requirements that may be chosen because of anger or anger: "No red in the picture." This alone is enough for her. T tries to prove that no one understands her work better than her. It turns out that she was also right, because these people who tried to put her work on the screen did not understand the meaning of the original work until they really collaborated with T: it was not the two children that were to be saved, but the child's father. This film also got its name.
Indispensable "The big shot's special requirement": Mr. Bank's mustache. Although the film does not directly explain why W requires such a requirement, from the observation of the film, my personal guess is: he must use his own iconic mustache. Is the doorman's logo put in the film as a kind of publicity? The means of marketing?
In this film, T is an old woman who is bitter, critical, and obsessed to the point of madness. She is finally influenced by the efforts of W and his team. To be precise, W is still the MVP, and finally handed over the work "as family". , Accepted the "remake", but the premiere of the film was not invited?
It can only be said that I am not the person involved, and the authenticity of this story cannot be studied. I don't know how many plots have been adapted. But the audience, including me, should be able to feel that W and his Disney empire are too perfect, and everything about T is so unbearable. It was as if Heavenly Father stretched out his hand to the wandering soul at the gate of hell, and this soul was finally sublimated and ranked in heaven.
Wash white tablets. Talk to yourself. The main theme of Disney. In an instant, all these words came to mind. For an instant, W remembered those actions, just make me feel sick.
One of the most disgusting points: A spoonful of sugar "All they need is a spoon and some sugar and a brain full of fluff and they equipped with life's tools." "She(Marry Poppins) doesn't sugarcoat the darkness in th world that these children will eventually, inevitably come to know."
All I see is: "Mary Poppins" is a spoonful of sugar for the children. "Saving Mr. Banks" and Walt's Disneyland is a spoonful of sugar for the adults.
Maybe sometimes I need this spoonful of sugar, but not today.
View more about Saving Mr. Banks reviews
