Reviewing the Preview- SAVING MR. BANKS

In addition to being an obsessive movie nut (obviously), I'm also a bit of a Disney aficionado on the side; not because I think they the make the best movies though, because they certainly don't.  I think the Walt Disney Company is the most interesting of the film studios.  Their history is set apart from the other major film studios, led by the very steady hands of the Walt and Roy Disney for over forty years as a family company, then coming dangerously close to falling prey to corporate raiders in 1984 before Roy's son staged a coup to put Michael Eisner, Frank Wells and himself as the heads of the company.  Later, in the early 2000s, Roy again fought to change company leadership after Eisner had consolidated power for himself.  The stuff reads like Shakespearean drama.  But however much more or less he did than others, it is Walt's story that stands at the center of the media empire, and his story has often been tumultuously debated between the extremes of those who sing the angelic praises of Walt, a paragon of virtue and conservative, Midwestern American values, and the torch-bearing cynics who see an anti-Semitic, unscrupulous, union-smashing, right-wing fanatic under a saccharine facade of grandfatherly wholesomeness.  Often the company has been attacked for allegedly insisting on a fictionalized Walt, while hiding the nitty-gritty details behind closed doors to protect their brand.  Seemingly the most common complaint about the Disney brand is evident in the term "Disneyfy," used disparagingly to imply homogenization, or revisionary sanitation; the Disney company is accused of presenting a milquetoast, sanitized portrayal of the real world.  This complaint can easily be disregarded as cynical, but sanitary revisionism does lend itself to socially destructive, ignorant inaction; the "Lost Cause Myth" of the Antebellum South for instance and how it perpetuates racism.
In more recent years however, under CEO Robert Iger and the occasional cooperation of Walt's daughter Diane Miller, the Walt Disney Company has been making a more open effort to be forthcoming in acknowledging their history, warts and all.  These have included an in-depth, no-holds-barred biography, Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, by Neal Gabler (which Miller did not endorse, claiming it portrayed Walt's marriage in a false light), and the Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco, opened in 2009 and commissioned by Miller; both of which honor him greatly, but are more frank about his cooperation with the House of Un-American Activities Committee and allegations of racism, especially anti-Semitism.
Even still, there was a lot of speculation that Terra Nova-writer Kelly Marcel's hot script making the rounds in Hollywood, SAVING MR. BANKS, might never be filmed, and it landed on film executive Frank Leonard's popular annual "Black List," those being the most popular scripts making the rounds in the industry but not yet in production, in 2011.  The story it tells is a favorite amongst Disney historians; MARY POPPINS was released in 1964 to immense critical acclaim including five Academy Awards (including Best Actress for Julie Andrews) out of thirteen nominations (the most that year), a record unsurpassed thus far for any film released under the Walt Disney banner.  However, Walt sought to make a film adaptation of the British children's novel about a magical nanny as early as 1938, but the book's author, P.L. Travers, was disdainful of Disney's film repertoire, and only over a 20+ years correspondence did Walt convince her to allow him to make the film.  As much as the world loved, and still loves, Walt's most acclaimed production, cited in the company's marketing as his "crowning achievement," crusty Travers herself was not won over, and was in fact, openly disdainful of the finished film, denying any further film, or at all American, adaptations of her works.  She believed that she, and her work, had been given shabby treatment by Walt and his cohorts, and was particularly unhappy with the animated sequence, which she requested be removed from the final cut, but was denied by Walt, who had the final say.
It would be natural to expect reluctance on Disney's part to take on such a film that might tarnish the reputation of their founder, their legacy and one of their greatest films, but it would be practically impossible for any other studio to get the film made.  Regardless, in 2012, Disney negotiated a deal to acquire the script, and by the end of the year, filming had completed under direction by John Lee Hancock.  The Academy Award-winning pair of Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson star in the film as Walt Disney and Emma Thompson, respectively.  Now, we have a preview:

This is one of those previews that drives me crazy, not necessarily in a bad way, but in multiple different ways all at once.  Part of me is excited just to see this thing, but another part anticipates disappointment, and another part is just annoyed that it isn't exactly how I imagined it.  I just want it to be so good and perfect, but I feel like Disney doesn't seem to be quite so invested in that idea as they should be and that it probably just be harmless and good enough, but another squandered opportunity.  Nonetheless here's hoping...
But for commentary on what we know and what we've now seen in this preview:
This is the first footage we've seen so far of a film that was finished several months ago, and I'd think Disney would be a bit more hyped about the first onscreen portrayal of Walt Disney by an actor, and not just as a minor or supporting character, but as the male lead in a feature film.  Maybe they're planning to pull something bigger out from their sleeves later in the year.  Anyway, from the moment they announced that two-time Academy Award-winning actor Tom Hanks would be playing Mr. Disney, I had, and still have, no complaints.  As far as I'm concerned, he's the only actor for the job.  You want a well-known name, someone with lots of experience, plus a reasonably similar build, but Hanks in particular has that old-fashioned Midwestern charm (despite being a native Californian) that is so crucial to the essence of Walt Disney.  Even while possessing a proper sense of gravitas, Hanks has a down-homey, harmless, friendliness that matches the Uncle Walt image.  It's unclear if, and then how far, the film may deviate from that image, but supposing they do, I doubt it would present much of a problem for Hanks.  The preview doesn't give an especially varied view of Hanks' performance, but it doesn't look like they're going for actual imitation, as Hanks has little outside of his usual appearance beyond Walt's signature mustache, but he's sporting the Midwestern accent and is showing a suitable easiness, bordering on cocky.  Travers' persona is certainly not so well-known, but what is common knowledge for those who've bothered to find out, she was well-learned, old school proper, and to call her terse would be putting it mildly.  Emma Thompson's repertoire suggest her as fitting for the part, considering that it's not all that different from many other characters she's played; intelligent, eccentric and terse types.  Thompson's part is much more difficult to read in the preview, although they show much more of her, because her character is naturally on the more unlikable side, though undoubtedly, some painful and personal revelations about her character will be used to make her more sympathetic.  I'm inclined to expect the production itself to be more milquetoast than not at this point, but in any case, the acting will be a bragging point and a point of acclaim.
My big case for apprehension to this film is the director, John Lee Hancock, a man who isn't a bad director, but isn't all that good either.  When he isn't dangerously sentimental, he has a tendency to be bland.  That said, he does have the potential to turn out something really great, but some of that would be up to chance.  He specializes in the sports genre of films, the films of which I rarely have strong feelings one way or the other about, including Hancock's own, which include a previous Disney film, THE ROOKIE (2002), and the decent but overrated audience favorite, THE BLIND SIDE (2009).
Something in particular that caught me off guard in this preview was the light, comedic tone.  At least for where I'm at right now, it doesn't feel quite right to me; I don't want a comedy, I want a drama!  On the other hand, the "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" gag in the songwriting session was really very funny.  Incidentally, Richard and Robert Sherman, played by Jason Schwartzman (SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD) and B.J. Novak (NBC's The Office), who wrote the songs for MARY POPPINS (as well as dozens more of the catalogue of classic Disney songs from films, television and theme parks), have been openly disdainful about working with Travers, who, when in the politest company, they've referred to as "difficult."
An undeniable weakness to the preview though is one that's more common amongst movie previews these days, in that it tells too much.  It is a true story, so it isn't like there's much in the way of actual "secrets," but to the general public, and even just as a preview (especially the first preview), it feels overly indulging.  Understandably, some of that helps explain the title, but they might have at least waited for a later preview to go that far, if they really had to at all.
I was a bit curious to see whether this would be released as a "Disney" film, or under one of their alias brands, i.e. Touchstone, because it is obviously a very Disney-centric film, but it doesn't seem to be made particularly with families in mind, including those who turn out in droves for Jack Sparrow's adventures.  Indeed, as indicated on the MPAA trailer "greenband" at the front, the film is rated PG-13 for, "thematic elements including some unsettling images."  Disney crossed the PG-13 Rubicon ten years ago with PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL and has since released six more PG-13 Disney features (three of them sequels to POTC), but those were all adventure films and mitigated by pulpy elements, and only a couple of years ago did a Disney film, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, first get a PG-13 for something other than violence or scary content (in this case "sensuality/innuendo").  I suspect SAVING MR. BANKS involves some themes involving domestic abuse and substance abuse that are the main reason for its rating, which, perhaps undeservingly, are sometimes considered a greater concern to parents than adventure-genre violence, but their younger kids probably won't be interested in SAVING MR. BANKS anyway.  For myself, I do have a little bit of nitpicking in this department, primarily that Walt was infamous for using profanity (no doubt helped through the grapevine thanks to his family friendly public persona), and clearly they've written him at a PG-level, plus he should be smoking in almost every scene (he died of lung cancer).
That's about all I've got for now, but sometimes a movie trailer just gets the wheels in your brain turning.
SAVING MR. BANKS opens nationwide on December 20, 2013.