Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Mark Kermode reviews Saving Mr. Banks
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 ноя 2013
- Mark Kermode reviews Saving Mr. Banks. A biographic, comedy drama set during the adaptation of author P. L. Travers' novel Mary Poppins.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark's review of the film below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5...
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live.
"They made it for me" lol
Mark's comment about comedic performances deserves to be hammered into certain heads. It's true: A great comedic actor can probably play a dramatic role very well, while the opposite isn't necessarily true.
Case in point (and relevant to this movie): Tom Hanks, who of course began his career with strictly comedic roles. Also, too: Bryan Cranston.
Even Jim Carrey. He's done some great comedic performances, some annoying comedic performances but also some truly fantastic serious roles. The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are two of my favourite films.
Great review. I enjoyed hearing Mark sound so happy and enthusiastic about a film.
Just watched it for the first time on BBC2 and agree with all he has said.
I disagree, I thought the 54th and 67th things he said were poor observations.
LOVED THE MOVIE TOO
"And that's that". 🤣🤣
Good video, lovely enthusiasm.
5 Broken Cameras deserves a review
"They made it for me..."
Mark Kermode is just a baby sometimes.
in the bad or in the good way?
popc52
Well it's definitely funny.
ANSWER THE QUESTION!! *DRAMATIC MUSIC*
popc52
Funny is good right?
I guess you are saying he is a fun baby...
The film’s very well acted, well characterised, realistic, stylish & is A very well crafted & light hearted biopic. (83%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
'Alright....no red in the picture'
Thankyou..you summed up the film well and described the scenes and meaning brilliantly..i am an amateur writer and i think it is impossibile for others to trully interpret your work because the vision of It and its real truth Is only in the writers mind and others interpreting and understanding It is oftern musunderstanding It so its austomatically changing it.
the ORIGINAL books were not about Mr. Banks tho...
nice not too weird
Pipe down and show!
There's an easy way to solve an author not understanding a film adaptation that completely changes the book, y'know. Don't call it anything to do with the book. If the Shining isn't the Shining, it's just as good a film if you called it the Something-else. If Mary Poppins isn't Mary Poppins then have all the magic and the songs and the everything, and don't call her Mary Poppins. It's bloody simple. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to grasp for adapters - if you don't actually want to make an adaptation, then don't make one! If you want it to be a remix, make a remix! You want a loose inspiration, make a loose inspiration! You want it to contain odd scenes here and there but otherwise have nothing to do with it, then come up with your own film title, and licence those bits, alongside a message at the end saying "several scenes taken from". Why not just be straightforward.
Of course I DO know why not. It's name recognition. You want a name to hang your product on. That's always why. Whenever it's significantly different from what it's calling itself, that's always why. They want a built-in audience, and they don't want to earn it. I just call that dishonest.
Two words: Law Suits
Even if the author doesn’t like the final product, they would still recognise the similarities between their work and the new film (flying nanny in Edwardian London, man goes crazy after working in an old hotel) and take legal action.
@@callumdoherty7204 just one of the many reasons why one of my strongest political views is to get rid of the bogus concept of "intellectual property" altogether.
@@Torthrodhel Hmm.. "bogus concept of intellectual property"? I might use that if you would explain what you mean by that.
@@TheKamikazenaz I think of it as a bogus concept basically because it uses terms that don't translate well when compared to normal "stuff" type property. The main thing being, if it's taken from you, you haven't lost it. To me that's a fundamental enough difference to make calling it property a bit daft. And beyond that, assigning it all the same considerations as we do to regular property, also a bit daft.
I'm not necessarily on-board with all the other types of property. For instance the concept of owning land has always sat a bit awkwardly to my mind. But at least that's a thing you can point to and say whether or not you have any more. If someone takes your land, you don't have it. So I can see why that's argued in favour of. I can't really see why the notion of owning ideas is argued in favour of. From what I've seen, all it's ever caused is the suppression of ideas.
Look they have a fart gun
Oh, this is not jelly, sunshine.
lol Mark likes Marry Poppins a little too much.
I find Mark's sort of "Oh well, she was just a miserable old cow anyway"-attitude towards the author kind of distasteful here. She created the character therefore Mary Poppins belongs to her, not him or Disney or anyone else for that matter.
I believe the point he was making was that the film was created for all of us, not specifically for the author. Would you go around telling children who've just been spellbound by the film that 'No no, this isn't how Mary Poppins should be portrayed at all'.
If Travers didn't want her 'vision' tampered with then she didn't need to take the Disney money then, did she? Mark actually appears sympathetic to her and realises how tied up with the character she is. But he also understands that movies are a whole different ball game and that being unable to let go of your creation can be a harmful thing (Steven Kings madness regarding The Shining is a perfect example here). It would appear to be a fair critique.
Travers had her version of Poppins. But Disney gave the world a spin that clearly put a bit of magic into Marks childhood. Characters become part of our common culture and we all own them, whether the author likes it or not.
When an author releases a book, or licenses a film, the story becomes more than just their own. It belongs to the audience, to the reader.
Bizarre that *this* is your take on his review. It seems to me you’ve entirely misrepresented his view on Travers.
I find myself feeling very anti red
There is no bias towards this movie is there Kermode? None whatsoever. Let's not mention the fact that his second favourite actress ever is starring in a drama about his second favourite movie ever after The Exorcist.
The fact that Kermode doesn't even mention Tom Hanks or anyone else says it all. His fawning over Mary Poppins and Emma Thompson (who he's always raved about) has blinded him from the fact that Saving Mr Banks is a flimsy mediocre drama.
I think if you look at the coucelor you'll know he won't be nice if it's bad.
Everyone has bias, but i think even we his bias Mark is fair with the movie, maybe you just dislike so much that you can understand how anyone could like it
I've just been to see this movie and to be honest I was underwhelmed. It wasn't a bad movie by any means. But it was overlong and I felt no connection with the characters, never getting sucked in or loosing myself. Overall just average, which is really disappointing.
this is pretty sycophantic. first kermode review I have actively been embarrassed by, or even disliked.
girayne agree with your second sentence entirely, think he is a great reviewer and usually love his enthusiasm. I just got the feeling that he let his liking of Mary Poppins and Emma Thompson get in the way of his review for this film. Not to say the film itself is bad.