Unfortunately the entire point of the film is to make us care about Travers
(Emma Thompson), the Australian author who famously fought Walt Disney (Tom Hanks)
for years before she'd allow him to adapt the first of her Mary Poppins novels.
When the movie begins she's in dire financial straits and has started to listen
to Disney's offers, albeit reluctantly. She has no desire of selling the rights
to Mary Poppins, and at first we're expected to believe it's just another case
of a creator protecting the integrity of their work. When she arrives in Los
Angeles to negotiate, it might as well be a hostage negotiation for all the
enthusiasm she displays. Not only is she snotty and rude to Disney, who is
merely hoping to fulfill a promise he made to his daughter, but she's a
complete snot to the screen and song writers (Bradley Whitford, Jason
Schwartzman, B.J. Novak). She's even dismissive of her well-meaning driver
(Paul Giamatti), an everyman always "keeping on the sunny side of
life" so to speak. 
Disney does what nobody else can understand, allowing her to take part in
the movie's production even though she hasn't signed a deal. She takes every
opportunity to point out how repulsive she finds the entire ordeal, and
arguments over every bit of minutiae she can find play out ad nauseum. She
doesn't want any songs...or any animation...and she has a problem with the
color red so there can't be any of that. The entire purpose of the film up to
this point seems to be showing just how ugly Travers was, and well, they
succeeded because she's absolutely awful.
The trouble is that the ultimate goal is to make us sympathize with her, and
to uncover the reasons she's holding on to Mary Poppins so tightly. Thus a
parallel narrative unfolds through flashback, chronicling her childhood in
Australia where she worships her fun-loving, frolicking drunk of a father
(Colin Farrell, never been better really). Directed lovingly by John Lee
Hancock, these scenes are at first a welcome, very Disney-esque look at the
influence Travers' imaginative father had on the surreal world she created
around Mary Poppins, and explains in some way why she considers the work so
sacred. However, they quickly become a distraction as her father's personal
demons begin to take over, dampening the film's jovial spirit without shedding
much light on Travers' unforgivable attitude as an adult. The script by Kelly
Marcel and Sue Smith heaps on one mawkish beat after another before but never
quite makes the connection between the hopeful young Travers and the older one
who is busy scolding everybody.
Since this is a Disney movie and Hanks is playing Walt Disney, one can be
forgiven for assuming his portrayal would be a little thin. But Hanks is too
good for that, and with a script that treats Disney far better than it does
Travers, we're allowed to see him as both kind-hearted and a shrewd
businessman. His outgoing, wizened Jiminy Cricket personality makes for a
soothing, calming presence and, although he's very much a supporting character,
the film loses much of its warmth when he's away. That's because the film gets
mighty chilly every time Thompson is on screen. They're much better together
when they can bicker and quarrel like an old married couple from two vastly
different worlds. Thompson, whose Nanny McPhee movies were clearly
inspired by Travers, gives the role everything she's got but is consistently
let down by the script. She's been a hater the entire movie and her
transformation into a kinder, gentler Travers never feels earned.The film bends over backwards for a happy-ish ending; giving the impression Travers was mostly pleased with Disney's completed work. She really wasn't, but to say otherwise would be to throw a wet blanket over everything. Better a happy ending than the truth, right? While Saving Mr. Banks may be must-see viewing for Mary Poppins fans, others won't find anything magical about it.
