Saving Mr. Banks -- Another Example of Distory?

So a couple of my friends have posted this review of Saving Mr. Banks from LA Weekly on Facebook: "Saving Mr. Banks Is a Corporate, Borderline Sexist, Spoonful of Lies." A bold title, for sure.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about LA Weekly -- or its reputation. Wikipedia tells me it's a "tabloid-sized alternative weekly" -- whatever that means.

I didn't read much of the review -- just the first few paragraphs -- but it was more than enough to get the gist of it. Basically, Tom Hanks' Disney is glorified, and P.L. Travers is vilified. She is completely unsympathetic and the audience has no choice but to hate her.

My favorite line might be this one:

Saving Mr. Banks, a fictionalized account of two weeks Travers spent on the lot in Burbank, is proof that Walt has thawed and secretly reclaimed Disney's reins.

Strongly worded the review may be, but I do appreciate the reference to the Walt-is-cryogenically-frozen myth.

Now, like I said, I didn't read the whole review because I'd like to wait and form my own opinion. I'm currently reading Valerie Lawson's Mary Poppins, She Wrote -- the book on which Saving Mr. Banks is (loosely) based. That way, I can go and see the film knowing the truth -- or, at least, both sides of the truth -- and form my own opinion.

I do know that when the first trailer appeared, I was a bit confused. I knew that P. L. Travers didn't like the Disney movie, but I didn't know the specifics. And the trailer(s) make it seem as if the heart-warming tale has, in true Disney fashion, a happy ending.

So is this another example of Distory -- another example of Disney's convenient repackaging of the truth where historical accuracy gets lost? I'm sure I'll find out in a week or so.