tanman

Yeah I think this understated bit changed a lot in the movie compared with the original. It makes it a lot less subtle and unrelatable vs. the very relatable family conflict in the first.

tanman

To provide a bit of background. I absolutely love the original. Actually more than that I'm probably IN love with the original. It is Disney's finest work and one of, if not my all time, personal favorite film. I was very trepidatious when they announced they were making a sequel to this beloved film.

Overall I liked this movie. I really did. But I didn't love it, which could be seen as a major problem when comparing such an iconic film. I could tell from watching the film, and later listening to interviews, that the creators of the film were as in love with the original as I was. The care when crafting this film was evident from the absolutely gorgeous set pieces, to the way the story was written, to the costuming and attention to detail that a sequel to Mary Poppins deserved. I think one of the problems is that it doesn't have the subtlety and nuance that the first one so deftly wields. The first has so many layers to it that really only reveal itself to the viewer as they grow older (if you grew up with the original like many had). The set pieces were absolutely incredible. The Light a Little Light Fantastic is a real throw back to the golden age of Hollywood musicals with their large set piece and intricate dancing. I though the music was great as well with a lot of very unique and imaginative numbers. But I don't see children humming along to them decades down the road either. But is it really fair to compare this movie to the Sherman Bros. who are the kings of the earworm? The one part I absolutely hated was Meryl Streeps scene. It's just so obvious that it was created just to shoe horn her in the film and it just doesn't feel like part of the movie. But then again it's my 6 year old's favorite song so what do I know. Seeing Dick Van Dyke on the screen again was just incredible and amazing to watch. It made me really miss Julie Andrew's cameo at the end. I don't think it would have been too distracting and would have been a perfect way for her to be in the movie. It's just so painfully obvious that they didn't change the role at all for Angela Lansbury. Isn't it hilarious that Julie Andrews wasn't in a Mary Poppins sequel but was in Aquaman that debuted on the same day?

DWilson

Overall, I enjoyed the film, though it was more of a B+ for me. To my mind, the main difference is that while the songs complemented the story in the original, MPR seemed to be built around the songs. Reading the thread, I now understand Angela Lansbury's place in the film (it left me scratching my head).

EddieMoney

My six year old says this one was "terrible."

Abob Teff

I am shocked at the praise for this film ... This is going to sound like I hate the movie, but I think it is more a reflection on the level of disappointment I had.

Warning ... SPOILERS with NO TAGS ahead ...



It completely lacked any meaningful plot; visually it was a drab depression, the characters were even drabber, and the songs were passable ... meaning they passed right out of memory.

My first impressions of Mary Poppins Returns occurred before Lin-Manuel Miranda was done with his opening song. As he traipsed around the city lighting lamps, I wondered "what is the point of this opening? The opening song did nothing to set up or establish the story to come or even catch us up on what has happened in the years since the original. It did nothing to provide any preview the visual spectacle we were expecting (but never got). I guess it did give us a glimpse of the next 2 hours: dark, dingy, forgettable, and pointless. The dinginess and bleak grey color palette convinced me that I was watching "Mary Poppins gone full Batman" -- a more grounded, dirty, gritty version of Mary Poppins.

The story is virtually non-existent: the Banks children have grown up and are about to lose their family home to a greedy banker during an economic depression. That's it. For the next two hours Michael and Jane do nothing to actually save their home except clean out junk and look for magical bank share certificates (which, spoiler, don't even end up mattering). Mary Poppins shows up to ... do what, exactly? She doesn't reconnect Jan and Michael with their past or inner-child; she doesn't provide them with a wondrous solution to save the family home. She ... distracts Michael's children for two hours? I wish she had distracted me for two hours. Did I mention this is TWO HOURS long?!

Even the "grand finale" of the lamplighters ascending Big Ben means nothing ... as Mary Poppins finale decides to take matters into her own hands and flies (oh, yeah, why do that when we can watch the poor working dregs risk their lives?) up to save the day.

I need to try to say some nice things. I did love the 2D animation during the nursery adventure. It was a nice call back to the Disney of old, but unfortunately this movie is just Disney that has gotten old. There is no magic, meaning, or heart in this movie.

tanman

Ouch.

Did you even like the first one? Because a lot of your complaints could be leveled at the original as well. What did the original Mary Poppins really do? Nothing much, just planted seeds that allowed the family to naturally connect to each other. What did Mr. Banks and Mrs. Banks do for the whole movie? Nothing just complain about their kids for 2.5 hours. I remember a lot of gray and brown in the original too and how can you say this movie was drab and boring. It had some of the most imaginative and colorful sequences I've seen in a movie in a long time. Yeah the scenes in London were gloomy but they serve, like in the original, as a contrast to the imaginative fantasy worlds she brings them into.



I also think the soundtrack was very well done but agree not nearly as memorable as the original. But honestly how can they be? I don't think audiences would take kindly to such simple, yet infectious, songs as what the Sherman bros. came up with for the original. Remember these are the guys that wrote It's a Small World so they were masters at creating simple catchy tunes. I would have loved songs like that but not sure if others would.

It really kind of sounds like you didn't give it much of a chance if you already didn't like it from the opening number. If you're looking for a plot reason for a song in a musical then musicals might not be your thing?

fumanstan

As someone who was incredibly let down by the music in the movie, I'd say plenty of modern day Disney movies have instantly catchy and memorable songs though, so I don't think it's some impossible task.

tanman

Excellent point

GatorDeb

Moana - Shiny.
Frozen - just talk to any 5-year-old girl.


Anyone thinks this will be a successful movie-career launch vehicle for Miranda?

Hokeyboy

Good God, I hope not. He's insufferable.

joe_b

It's funny: I now consider the original a classic, but it bored the crap out of me as a kid. I didn't really give it a fair shot until I picked up the 45th Anniversary DVD a few years ago. I don't think six year old me would have cared much for this new one either.

It also seemed to be an intentional reflection of Michael's sadness and lack of artistic drive after the death of his wife. It didn't turn sunny and colorful in the "real world" until the finale after his children helped him reconcile his grief. That said, I'm also not a fan of the depressing color palette Marshall is fond of using (even the daytime scenes in "Into the Woods" looked this way), But as you said, it's an acceptable contrast to the more vivid fantasy musical numbers in this film.

GatorDeb

I hadn't seen it yet waiting for Netflix.

TomOpus

You might be waiting a very long time.

It's too bad a review thread was never created. Would've been interesting to see the poll results.

GatorDeb

Have Showtime and Starz also and HBO around April when GOT starts

TomOpus

You know Disney is starting their own streaming service this year.

fumanstan

I don't see the problem with Miranda. Insufferable

Hokeyboy

He just screams Schmucky Unlikeability. At least Steve Gutenberg had Schmucky Likeability.

Daytripper

Hokeyboy

Agree to disagree

tanman

Thinking about it some more as much as they tried to make it like the original they missed the mark on one of the most important aspects and that's the change of heart of Mr. Banks. In the original, through all the silliness and fanciful scenes what the story boils down to is about a father realizing that childhood doesn't last forever and has a change of heart. It's something that's so sublime, beautiful, and timeless that in addition to the performances by Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke and the immortal music of the Sherman Brothers, it's this that provides the real heart of the story. Her powers weren't about flying, or pulling stuff out of her bag. The real difference she made was to subtly change things so that Mr. Banks would see the error of his ways. This movie throws all that out for a traditional bad guy complete with cliched mustache and bad guy time piece and this Mary Poppins uses her powers quite deliberately, not to change Michael's heart but to save the home. It's a very slight change and I'm being picky but I think it just shows how the original is just a much better film than this one.

TheMovieman

Ultra dull but I guess harmless follow-up to the classic... which I have not seen in ages and thus don't really hold all that dear to my heart. Emily Blunt was fine though oddly the Poppins role didn't seem very well fleshed out. Maybe if I had recently seen the original I might've had some connection with this but I found it at times boring and even the songs were rather bland and forgettable, with musical numbers that seemed too long. 2.5/5

TomOpus

Well, I was wrong. Movie just dropped on Netflix.

GatorDeb

I'm still watching this (welcome to life with a toddler where a movie takes a week to watch) but so far (I'm at the point where the lighties do their dance) it feels everyone is talking the songs rather than singing them.

rexinnih

Well, finally saw this and along with my kids, couldn't get through it in one sitting. Actually when we tried to start it the 3rd time, the kids had lost interest and I just fast forwarded to the end. Enjoyed the original but this one was tough IMHO and my 7 & 10 year old daughter's opinions.

tanman

This movie and the songs grow on me the more I see it. Right now my daughter loves it. Says it's better than the original.