Hold on to your seatbelts, dear readers! What follows is my harshest review to date:
Julie Andrews is irreplaceable. Emily Blunt is a fine actress. What distinguishes a good movie from a great one is everything in between, from the script to the set design to the directing and the supporting cast.
This, ultimately, is what Mary Poppins Returns (130 minutes, directed by Rob Marshall) lacks. Released on December 19, 2018, the film is evidently a holiday by default, for its well-timed release date essentially obliges audiences to go see it. Walt Disney Pictures certainly has a knack for maximizing its box 0ffice revenue. However, this time around, it fails to do what Andrews did for the original Poppins in 1964: make it memorable.
Don’t get me wrong – Emily Blunt is absolutely fine as the titular character. Her adoption of Andrews’ distinctly old-fashioned, ladylike voice is brilliant, and the affection she feels for the (new) Banks children (played by Joel Dawson, Nathanael Saleh, and Pixie Davies) shines through with utmost sincerity. The sequel’s themes are the same as its predecessor’s: the need to remain forever a child and believe in one’s imagination, rather than succumbing to the corrupt realm of adulthood.
These themes make for a heartwarming, universally-applicable tale, but the issue with them is that they are blatantly unoriginal. Save for a few memorable songs such as “A Cover Is Not the Book” and the ever-inspiring “The Places Where Lost Things Go,” the film is generally repetitive of the original and surprisingly disorganized. Notably, an animated sequence with an evil wolf (voiced by Colin Firth, who also plays William “Weatherall” Wilkins, the evil bank president, in live-action) is quite disjoint. Suffice it to say it is shocking that this sequence survived editing.
The film’s primary virtues lie in its two principal stars, Emily Blunt as Poppins and Hamilton‘s Lin-Manuel Miranda as lamplighter, Jack. Blunt and Miranda’s chemistry is discernible right from the film’s onset, and Miranda adopts a Cockney accent in stride as though he were Michael Caine – alright, maybe not that accurate, but close. The film’s visual effects are quite creative(see the scene with an ocean inside a bathtub) and believable, and the general aesthetic – as observable in the film’s trailer – is more than fitting. The costumes, as well, are both colorful and delightful. The film, for all intents and purposes, looks good.
A good aesthetic…
I am sorry to say this, but my greatest disappointment with Mary Poppins Returns was the film’s portrayal of the grown-up Banks children from the original. Ben Whishaw, one of my favorite actors, plays Michael Banks and Emily Mortimer plays his sister, Jane. Mortimer is completely respectable in her role – pleasant, if you will. While I believe Whishaw was indeed the perfect choice for Michael, his performance is unexpectedly and inherently flawed. In my earlier review of Skyfall in which I praised Whishaw’s performance as James Bond’s Quartermaster, Q, I addressed his use of youthful wit and intelligence to lend relatability and personability to his character – quite a feat in front of Daniel Craig’s oft-stern Bond! Whishaw’s Michael is excessively introverted and narrow-minded. If he were able to sympathize with Mary Poppins’ ideals of creativity and imagination, the story would be solved! Sure, Michael lost his wife, but the only reason Mary Poppins must return, as the title states, is because Michael is turning into his father in forgetting the ways of his childhood – and, most importantly, losing joy and optimism.
Back home in Maryland, I read The Washington Post nearly every day. I will admit, I was fairly shocked upon reading Michael O’Sullivan’s initial review of the film for The Post prior to the holiday season. He gave the sequel 1.5 out of 4 stars, to my great bewilderment and dismay. After seeing the film, however, I now understand why it was poorly received – well, maybe not on Rotten Tomatoes.
I believe that a movie must be worth making for a reason other than merely financial gain. In Mary Poppins Returns, Blunt beautifully reincarnates the iconic character of Poppins. Indeed, Poppins reappears.
However, she left her spirit back in 1964.
Image Credit:
See the all-new #MaryPoppinsReturns character posters. pic.twitter.com/xnZbVSYaET
— Walt Disney Studios (@DisneyStudios) November 15, 2018
https://movies.disney.com/mary-poppins-returns
Two star image: https://stream.org/review-13-hours-isnt-benghazi-movie-waited/
I was never a fan of the original Mary Poppins film, maybe because I watched it at such a young age, but I never thought a sequel was needed. I had no intention of seeing this movie, so I’m glad that I don’t seem to be missing much. I like that although you talked about the flaws within the film, you also mentioned the smart moves made by the directors and casting crew. I’m surprised that a sequel was even made, given how iconic the original film is. I look forward to reading more of your reviews!
It’s hard to believe, but I have never seen the original Mary Poppins, so I can’t really say much about the new movie. While I am a huge fan of Disney, I’m not particularly surprised with how Mary Poppins Returns did not deliver. Especially, with the newer movies Disney is releasing now, it seems that they are kind of going downhill; they’re kind of flat. Did you see the trailer for the new Kim Possible movie? It’s honestly a joke.
I love reading a negative review, and this is a pretty good one. What makes it so good is that while you criticize the movie, you are still willing to give credence to certain parts of it that you thought were acceptable. Many reviews I see reject or accept the movie entirely, but I really like how you firmly distinguished between what you liked and what you didn’t like. I was also shocked to see the Rotten Tomatoes score you linked, especially considering your review and the 1.5/4 review you referenced.
As a Disney fanatic, Mary Poppins Returns was hard to watch. I personally believe that my expectations were too high going into the movie. It was unrealistic to think that the sequel could live up to Julie Andrews and the original film. I think your rating of 2 out of 4 stars is very fair. While I enjoyed parts of the movie, it was not memorable.
Another solid review that I ultimately agree with…which, to note, my parents and sister did not. I think you hit the nail on the head – the visuals of this movie were quite impressive, and Blunt and Miranda have quite the chemistry between them. I, too, enjoyed Miranda’s accent as well. However, in my opinion, the plot seemed a bit predictable and unoriginal and thus, as you said, not memorable as a result. Well written!