I am aware that Hanks is a lefty, and I have vowed to never see his films again several times. BUT, you have to admit that he is a terrific actor and able to portray a wide range of different characters believably, unlike many in Hollyweird who just play the same character over and over again. Hanks is outstanding in this particular film. You come away very sympathetic for the long-suffering Disney in his negotiations with Travers.
As a ‘lefty’, Hanks could have made Disney look like a right wing jerk, or worse, in subtle ways as the left loves to portray WD. Instead, you come away loving Disney and appreciating him as a hero.
As a ‘lefty’, Hanks could have made Disney look like a right wing jerk, or worse, in subtle ways as the left loves to portray WD. Instead, you come away loving Disney and appreciating him as a hero.
I’m still shocked that he did “Return with Honor.”
I have often wondered why it is that people are lionized for pretending to be something else (acting).
They are elevated as heroes, far above those who die in combat for the sake of this country.
I remember when Tom Hanks made "Philadelphia". I suppose he acted well; but it was one of the first movies to normalize homosexuality. So which is to be weighted more heavily...praise for the acting or criticism for the message?