Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

[Legacy]

This movie is definitely dependent on long legs in the US and Europe. I think its forgotten that nostalgia is not a factor in a lot of area areas where the first Mary Poppins has never been released.

My wife and I were discussing the “nostalgia” driving this film (and others). The original Mary Poppins is on a weird bubble of time where my generation (mid-thirties) remembers the original fondly, but it’s not FROM our generation. It’s from twenty years (roughly) before I was born. Even watching it as a kid, it wasn’t something I considered “mine.” The generation that more closely associates with it is in their sixties. Dumbo is in a similar boat.

 

[Nick]

My wife and I were discussing the “nostalgia” driving this film (and others). The original Mary Poppins is on a weird bubble of time where my generation (mid-thirties) remembers the original fondly, but it’s not FROM our generation. It’s from twenty years (roughly) before I was born. Even watching it as a kid, it wasn’t something I considered “mine.” The generation that more closely associates with it is in their sixties. Dumbo is in a similar boat.

Dumbo is actually roughly 20 years older than Poppins so that will be even more interesting to watch when it’s released.

 

[david10225]

As you can see by my message count, I'm an infrequent poster, but am a daily reader. Anyway, I felt compelled to write my thoughts on seeing Mary Poppins Returns today on Christmas Day. It was quite a melancholy event as I still have memories of my mom taking me to the Arcade theater in New Bedford Mass when I was 8 years old to see the original. I guess 8 years is a time for life long impressions as I also remember my trip to the NY Worlds Fair that year, but that's another story for another day

Now at 62 with my wife and one of my 3 adult kids, we along with a theater full of "children" of all ages were spent away for a magical 2 hour journey. I honestly didn't think that Hollywood, even Disney could make this kid of film again - pure entertainment - no politics - and no offending anyone. It was beautiful and yes - practically perfect.

Since the soundtrack came out, I have been listening and it was interesting to see if my favorites and not so favorites matched up to what I saw today. On the favorite list was of course, Can You Imagine That, Stay Awake - sorry I mean Where the Lost Things Go, Underneath the London Skies, and Nowhere to Go But Up.

My two not so favorites songs which I didn't like on the soundtrack were (not sure I have the title right) You cant Judge A Book by its Cover (although I like the visual staging in the movie) and that horrid Topsy Turtle song - definite could have been cut from the movie. Surprisingly I didn't really care that much for Trip a Little Light Fantastic as there were so many closeups and cuts, I couldn't enjoy the spectacle of the dancing. I guess there was a staging reason, but seeing something like that on Broadway would be so much more enjoyable.

My wife - who never cries in a movie- and I were both shedding tears by the end. We were just so happy. Loved all the shout outs to the original in the score and the props especially those in the attic.

It's a little sad that a superhero movie - soon forgotten will make millions more then this movie every will, but will that same superhero movie hold the same memories for today's 8 year old when they turn 62. I think not.

If I ruled the world, the Royal Dalton Music Hall would be under construction at EPCOT's England starting tomorrow!

BTW - enjoy ready all of your many posts, hints and rumors. Thank you so much for the hours of enjoyment.

Now returning to obscurity
David

 

[AlexanderMBush]

As a film, I find it fine. Passable, at worst.

..but I looked around it, as a Broadway or Cirque level production. And honestly, it felt like I was watching a live production in a trippingly fantastic way.

Emily and Lin both are excellent in their characters, as the breakout to me was the kids. But man, if Trip a Light Fantastic didn't feel like a Broadway segment.

Most of the songs were catchy and fun, but that and The Place Where The Lost Things Go are the highlights of the film.

I would love to see this get a stage future, as it fits extremely well with it.

 

[Nick]

As you can see by my message count, I'm an infrequent poster, but am a daily reader. Anyway, I felt compelled to write my thoughts on seeing Mary Poppins Returns today on Christmas Day. It was quite a melancholy event as I still have memories of my mom taking me to the Arcade theater in New Bedford Mass when I was 8 years old to see the original. I guess 8 years is a time for life long impressions as I also remember my trip to the NY Worlds Fair that year, but that's another story for another day

Now at 62 with my wife and one of my 3 adult kids, we along with a theater full of "children" of all ages were spent away for a magical 2 hour journey. I honestly didn't think that Hollywood, even Disney could make this kid of film again - pure entertainment - no politics - and no offending anyone. It was beautiful and yes - practically perfect.

Since the soundtrack came out, I have been listening and it was interesting to see if my favorites and not so favorites matched up to what I saw today. On the favorite list was of course, Can You Imagine That, Stay Awake - sorry I mean Where the Lost Things Go, Underneath the London Skies, and Nowhere to Go But Up.

My two not so favorites songs which I didn't like on the soundtrack were (not sure I have the title right) You cant Judge A Book by its Cover (although I like the visual staging in the movie) and that horrid Topsy Turtle song - definite could have been cut from the movie. Surprisingly I didn't really care that much for Trip a Little Light Fantastic as there were so many closeups and cuts, I couldn't enjoy the spectacle of the dancing. I guess there was a staging reason, but seeing something like that on Broadway would be so much more enjoyable.

My wife - who never cries in a movie- and I were both shedding tears by the end. We were just so happy. Loved all the shout outs to the original in the score and the props especially those in the attic.

It's a little sad that a superhero movie - soon forgotten will make millions more then this movie every will, but will that same superhero movie hold the same memories for today's 8 year old when they turn 62. I think not.

If I ruled the world, the Royal Dalton Music Hall would be under construction at EPCOT's England starting tomorrow!

BTW - enjoy ready all of your many posts, hints and rumors. Thank you so much for the hours of enjoyment.

Now returning to obscurity
David

Great post and totally agreed that the Topsy Turvy song should’ve been cut. But it was Meryl Streep and Rob Marshall loves putting her in his musicals and I’m sure he was pressured by the studio to keep her in, too. If you have Streep, you normally use her.

 

[OLSinFLA]

Great post and totally agreed that the Topsy Turvy song should’ve been cut. But it was Meryl Streep and Rob Marshall loves putting her in his musicals and I’m sure he was pressured by the studio to keep her in, too. If you have Streep, you normally use her.

Its basically the "Love to Laugh" sequence, which most reviewers in 1964 felt could have been cut. There's some irony there

 

[Nick]

Its basically the "Love to Laugh" sequence, which most reviewers in 1964 felt could have been cut. There's some irony there

Definitely. She is part of the books and in the Broadway musical, I have no problem with Topsy Turvy being a part of the movie, but the whole thing felt unnecessary with how she was used. Mary Poppins could've handled the situation within seconds, but they drew it out to give Topsy a song.

 

[Alicia]

Its basically the "Love to Laugh" sequence, which most reviewers in 1964 felt could have been cut. There's some irony there

What was the name of his other leg?

 

[ChristopherSE]

Definitely. She is part of the books and in the Broadway musical, I have no problem with Topsy Turvy being a part of the movie, but the whole thing felt unnecessary with how she was used. Mary Poppins could've handled the situation within seconds, but they drew it out to give Topsy a song.

To be fair, Mary Poppins can fix about every situation in seconds and chooses not to until the last moment

Also, funny enough, Topsy Turvy was a stand out for me. Mary’s whole gig is that everything seems nonsensical until the end.

———————

Just got back from this and quite enjoyed it, even after being pretty turned off by it, lately. Blunt was wonderful and I thought Hamilton-fatigue would make me not like Manuel lol, but I enjoyed him in it, too. It really is equal parts remake and sequel, and I’m content with that. Marc Shaiman’s score was really stunning (though, I’ve always been a big fan of his work) and the costume design was really stellar. I was critical of all the patterns for Mary at first, but then I got on board.

Two things that struck me as anachronistic/bothered me a little:

Spoiler

1) In Cover of a Book (?) Lin’s verse I guess is supposed to be like a patter song, but there was just a little too much Hamilton in it for me lol

2) BMX Mary Poppins totally sent me

 

[Chicagoshannon]

I had super high expectations of this movie. I was underwhelmed. I think Emily Blunt was a good match for the Mary Poppins of the books. I didn't feel that she really loved the family though like Julie Andrews portrayal. But that matched the books for sure.

I was disappointed with the songs. I didn't leave with any in my head. Although, it's hard to live up to the original movie's score.

I loved LOVED the Dick VanDyke's cameo for sure!

 

[Sawyer15]

Overall, I really enjoyed this! Emily Blunt and Lin Manuel Miranda were both fantastic in their respective roles, and it was a heartwarming journey. The animated sections about 30 minutes in was a blast, and I thought it was awesome that they used the old-school 2D animation. I thought the entire third act was excellent, with the clock scene being a clever finale and the balloon ending calling back to the original nicely while still standing on its own. On the other hand, none of the songs came close to the originals soundtrack; the whole musical aspect of the film kind of fell flat. Also, the 10 minute Meryl Streep upside down sequence was a giant misfire. Id give this a 7/10. It was genuinely good, but I really wish Disney would start making original films again.

 

[SeventyOne]

Loved the traditional animation--to the point I'd rather this have been a Wind in the Willows or Robin Hood sequel-reboot. Surprised that I liked Lin Manuel Miranda and the kids--all were quite good without being cloying. Emily Blount was ok, just couldn't totally buy into her. I think she's too modern in her look and composure.

But the songs just didn't work. Average at best, with some not even that good, and seemingly each one trying (and failing) to be an homage to a tune from the original. Just invites comparisons to the Sherman brothers, and that's just not a fight you can win. And "The Cover Is Not the Book"--a bawdy vaudeville number with a rap breakdown at the bridge? Not sure what movie that belongs in, but this wasn't it, doesn't suit the characters or setting at all.

Actually, my other issue was tone. This is supposed to be set in some fantastical version of the 1930s, but much of the movie's style is borrowed from the original's Gay 90s aesthetic. Two very different vibes and they clash. This is a direct result of being unable to decide if it's a sequel or a reboot and for me it hampered the movie.

A movie for the hard-core fans but too much of a muddled cash-in to be the timeless classic the original was. Sad we still have Dumbo, Lion King, Aladdin coming; truly no creativity left in Disney movies,

 

[Alicia]

It could have been worse. I liked it. I didn't love it like I wanted to, but I liked it.

And I think "The Place Where Lost Things Go" was as good as the songs from the original. And "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" came close. The rest may not be as good on first viewing, but time may change that.

In my head this film is like Toy Story 2. Not as great as the original, some story re-treading, but it introduces some good new characters, has a few moving moments, and one really good emotional song.

 

[OLSinFLA]

I just watched it a second time (I liked it a lot) and i noticed a few things about Mary... she's much sneakier than I thought! There's a reason Michael "forgets" his briefcase.

 

[Alicia]

I just watched it a second time (I liked it a lot) and i noticed a few things about Mary... she's much sneakier than I thought! There's a reason Michael "forgets" his briefcase.

I noticed she slammed it into the maid's hands so slyly.

I think her plans were always a little too obvious this time. Maybe I need to re-watch the original, I don't remember all her lessons being so spelled out all the way through.

 

[Nick]

I just watched it a second time (I liked it a lot) and i noticed a few things about Mary... she's much sneakier than I thought! There's a reason Michael "forgets" his briefcase.

I watched some interviews that Emily Blunt did and she said she purposely didn’t watch the original movie before filming to get in character. Instead, she read the books, which portray Mary far less “perfect” as the original did.

I’m very glad she took this approach to the character.

 

[belloq87]

Just got back from this.

I think it's held back SIGNIFICANTLY by its screenplay, but I still found it a pleasant enough, wholesome effort. It very admirably attempts to retain the charms of the original film, and it’s a very good-looking movie (the production design and cinematography are particularly strong); from a musical perspective, it also sounds pretty good, too, and while I don’t think any of the songs will get frequent play outside of the movie itself, they (mostly) do work very well in the context of the story. "The Place Where the Lost Things Go" works like gangbusters in the actual movie.

Blunt is wonderful, and she makes the right choice of not attempting to do a Julie Andrews impression, but instead somehow finds a way to make the character her own while feeling completely like she should. If only the screenplay followed her lead! Therein lies the film’s central problem -- in attempting to recapture the feeling of the original classic, the script actually copies the original’s structure almost exactly; all of the beats, vignettes, and adventures have corresponding counterparts (a visit to a hand-drawn animated world populated by anthropomorphic animals... a visit to an eccentric family relative... a visit to a bank where something questionable is going on... a father reconnecting with his family... a showstopping dance number involving a group of London laborers... and more!) to the point that it basically starts to feel like a facsimile, a reproduction.

It’s ALMOST enough to sink the whole picture, because it just doesn’t display enough imagination or invention. Blunt, the music, and the visual aspects of the production (I really can’t say enough about the big animation sequence, which was a pure delight to witness) provided enough charm to pull me through, and it certainly could have turned out far worse than it did, but with only a few tweaks to the script, this really could have been special.

 

[Alicia]

Just got back from this.

I think it's held back SIGNIFICANTLY by its screenplay, but I still found it a pleasant enough, wholesome effort. It very admirably attempts to retain the charms of the original film, and it’s a very good-looking movie (the production design and cinematography are particularly strong); from a musical perspective, it also sounds pretty good, too, and while I don’t think any of the songs will get frequent play outside of the movie itself, they (mostly) do work very well in the context of the story. "The Place Where the Lost Things Go" works like gangbusters in the actual movie.

Blunt is wonderful, and she makes the right choice of not attempting to do a Julie Andrews impression, but instead somehow finds a way to make the character her own while feeling completely like she should. If only the screenplay followed her lead! Therein lies the film’s central problem -- in attempting to recapture the feeling of the original classic, the script actually copies the original’s structure almost exactly; all of the beats, vignettes, and adventures have corresponding counterparts (a visit to a hand-drawn animated world populated by anthropomorphic animals... a visit to an eccentric family relative... a visit to a bank where something questionable is going on... a father reconnecting with his family... a showstopping dance number involving a group of London laborers... and more!) to the point that it basically starts to feel like a facsimile, a reproduction.

It’s ALMOST enough to sink the whole picture, because it just doesn’t display enough imagination or invention. Blunt, the music, and the visual aspects of the production (I really can’t say enough about the big animation sequence, which was a pure delight to witness) provided enough charm to pull me through, and it certainly could have turned out far worse than it did, but with only a few tweaks to the script, this really could have been special.

Agreed. To me, the Big Ben set piece near the end felt original, and I don't believe it really has a similar counterpart from the original film.

 

[belloq87]

Agreed. To me. the Big Ben set piece near the end felt original, and I don't believe it really has a similar counterpart from the original film.

True! Though one could also view it as an extension of the "Step in Time"-y shenanigans with the lamp-lighters.

But yes, in terms of the narrative there is a (literal!) ticking clock element that does not exist at the climax of the original movie.

 

[UNIrd]

I watched this last night and thought it was very good but absolutely none of the songs stuck out for me except "Trip a Little Light Fantastic."