A few decades after her original visit, Mary Poppins, the magical nanny, returns to help the Banks siblings and Michael's children through a difficult time in their lives.A few decades after her original visit, Mary Poppins, the magical nanny, returns to help the Banks siblings and Michael's children through a difficult time in their lives.A few decades after her original visit, Mary Poppins, the magical nanny, returns to help the Banks siblings and Michael's children through a difficult time in their lives.
Featured reviews
Expectations were very high for 'Mary Poppins Returns'. 'Mary Poppins' is still one of my all-time favourite films, the very meaning of a timeless classic. The cast is also a very talented one and have enjoyed some of Disney's previous re-makes/follow-ups. After watching the trailer, 'Mary Poppins Returns' did become one of my most anticipated films of 2018 and was really hoping it would be as good as the trailer was and not be a disappointment, where the trailer was great and the film was not, like another highly anticipated film 'The Nutcracker and the Four Realms'.
Found myself luckily really enjoying this on the most part after seeing it with my sister. It is not in the same league as, or have the same amount of magic as, 'Mary Poppins', which would have been a tall order in the first place with such enormously high quality to love up to. But on its own merits there were for me a lot of merits and a lot to enjoy for all ages, young and old, male and female. 'Mary Poppins Returns' is imperfect and the magic is not quite there all the way through, but for me the film was not devoid of it and there is a great deal of charm, not a cash grab.
There is not an awful lot of originality to the story, really did appreciate that it tried to be respectful, which is obvious in the numerous nods throughout the film. But structurally there was a sense of over-faithfulness and that it could have felt more like its own story. There were a few draggy stretches and scenes that felt like filler, especially the rather strange and not really needed in hindsight scene with Meryl Streep.
Really like Streep but she and her character were just bizarre and she overdoes the acting, with the character feeling like a going nowhere plot-device practically forgotten about quickly. Confess too to guessing early on everything with the shares.
However, 'Mary Poppins Returns' benefits hugely from looking absolutely wonderful, beautifully shot and with gorgeous nostalgic colours in the production and costume designs that fondly recall 'Mary Poppins'. The animation in the animated sequence shows technological advancement and how a lot of effort was made to show respect to 'Mary Poppins'. Another huge plus is Emily Blunt (closer to PL Travers' vision of Mary Poppins), who is superb and the asset that comes closest to being practically perfect in every way. She is well supported by Lin Manuel Miranda, sporting a not so great accent but immense energy, likeability, charm and a great singing voice (they work wonderfully together too, most obvious in "A Cover is Not the Book"). As well as appealing beyond their years performances from the children (evident in the tense climactic moments of the animated scene), movingly stoic Ben Whishaw and charming Emily Mortimer. Colin Firth is fun, and in the animated sequence his voice work was the standout, Julie Walters is even more of a hoot, and really loved the Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury cameos and a hilariously crusty David Warner. Only Streep didn't work for me.
A lot has been said about the inferiority of the songs. Will say that they are nowhere near the same quality of those in 'Mary Poppins' and are unlikely to become songbook standards. In their own way though, to me they were very pleasant and well composed, the best being "Can You Imagine That" and "Nowhere to Go But Up", both actually very hummable, and the one miss being the completely forgettable and pointless "Turning Turtle". They were also very well staged, neither overblown or static, the standouts being "Nowhere to Go But Up" and "A Cover is Not the Book" (didn't actually find the latter long winded). That for "Can You Imagine That" was very colourful and had immense charm. A highlight too was the Doulton bowl/vaudevillian animated sequence, loved the animation itself and it was just very entertaining and charming with a tense end. Most of the film left me completely gripped, the script had drollness and heart (with some funny moments) and there was an investable emotional impact with the Banks' story without it being cloying. It was hard not to squeal and shed a small tear at the affectionate and nostalgic nods to 'Mary Poppins' peppered throughout the film. This was clearly made by people who loved, or at least had great affection for, 'Mary Poppins', not intent on tarnishing it. It's directed with a loving hand by Rob Marshall and the instrumental score is lush and whimsical.
So all in all, as said, not practically perfect in every way but the magic almost returns. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Found myself luckily really enjoying this on the most part after seeing it with my sister. It is not in the same league as, or have the same amount of magic as, 'Mary Poppins', which would have been a tall order in the first place with such enormously high quality to love up to. But on its own merits there were for me a lot of merits and a lot to enjoy for all ages, young and old, male and female. 'Mary Poppins Returns' is imperfect and the magic is not quite there all the way through, but for me the film was not devoid of it and there is a great deal of charm, not a cash grab.
There is not an awful lot of originality to the story, really did appreciate that it tried to be respectful, which is obvious in the numerous nods throughout the film. But structurally there was a sense of over-faithfulness and that it could have felt more like its own story. There were a few draggy stretches and scenes that felt like filler, especially the rather strange and not really needed in hindsight scene with Meryl Streep.
Really like Streep but she and her character were just bizarre and she overdoes the acting, with the character feeling like a going nowhere plot-device practically forgotten about quickly. Confess too to guessing early on everything with the shares.
However, 'Mary Poppins Returns' benefits hugely from looking absolutely wonderful, beautifully shot and with gorgeous nostalgic colours in the production and costume designs that fondly recall 'Mary Poppins'. The animation in the animated sequence shows technological advancement and how a lot of effort was made to show respect to 'Mary Poppins'. Another huge plus is Emily Blunt (closer to PL Travers' vision of Mary Poppins), who is superb and the asset that comes closest to being practically perfect in every way. She is well supported by Lin Manuel Miranda, sporting a not so great accent but immense energy, likeability, charm and a great singing voice (they work wonderfully together too, most obvious in "A Cover is Not the Book"). As well as appealing beyond their years performances from the children (evident in the tense climactic moments of the animated scene), movingly stoic Ben Whishaw and charming Emily Mortimer. Colin Firth is fun, and in the animated sequence his voice work was the standout, Julie Walters is even more of a hoot, and really loved the Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury cameos and a hilariously crusty David Warner. Only Streep didn't work for me.
A lot has been said about the inferiority of the songs. Will say that they are nowhere near the same quality of those in 'Mary Poppins' and are unlikely to become songbook standards. In their own way though, to me they were very pleasant and well composed, the best being "Can You Imagine That" and "Nowhere to Go But Up", both actually very hummable, and the one miss being the completely forgettable and pointless "Turning Turtle". They were also very well staged, neither overblown or static, the standouts being "Nowhere to Go But Up" and "A Cover is Not the Book" (didn't actually find the latter long winded). That for "Can You Imagine That" was very colourful and had immense charm. A highlight too was the Doulton bowl/vaudevillian animated sequence, loved the animation itself and it was just very entertaining and charming with a tense end. Most of the film left me completely gripped, the script had drollness and heart (with some funny moments) and there was an investable emotional impact with the Banks' story without it being cloying. It was hard not to squeal and shed a small tear at the affectionate and nostalgic nods to 'Mary Poppins' peppered throughout the film. This was clearly made by people who loved, or at least had great affection for, 'Mary Poppins', not intent on tarnishing it. It's directed with a loving hand by Rob Marshall and the instrumental score is lush and whimsical.
So all in all, as said, not practically perfect in every way but the magic almost returns. 7/10 Bethany Cox
I thought that the film was very enjoyable, however, even though I've been cautioned not to I cannot help but compare this film to the original 1964 film with Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. There's so much to like in the 1964 film.
Have finally caught up with this and enjoyed it thoroughly. The only reason I've not scored it higher is for the song in the Music Hall, too sleazy for Mary Poppins and a flatness and wordiness of some of the other songs. But others were light hearted and catchy and beautifully done. I never liked the Mary Poppins books, she lied and was way too weird. I enjoyed the Julie Andrews/Disney version, much more likeable. Emily Blunt based her Mary much more on the book but happily also managed to make her more likeable. I just wish someone would help Disney song writers realise that people enjoy good melodies and don't need loooong songs that are too wordy. Plus when doing a movie for children keep it clean and good. The sleaziness of that 1 particular song was so out of step with Mary and the whole tone of her story.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children's fantasy cinema? Some would say "You shouldn't try".
As I've said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age.... I was said to have bawled my eyes out with "THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!" as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I'm relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it's by no means the disaster I envisaged.
It's a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy "strike a light" lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it's fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children - John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) - in her own inimitable fashion.
I know musical taste is very personal but my biggest problem with the film was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number "A Cover is not the Book". Elsewhere they were - to me - unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of "The Greatest Showman". (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman - now 90 - was credited with "Music Consultant" but I wonder how much input he actually had?
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
'Mary in the mirror' - check 'Bottomless carpet bag' - check 'Initial fun in the nursery' - check 'Quirky trip to a cartoon land' - check 'Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative' - check 'Chirpy chimney sweeps' - check ("Er... Mr Marshall... we couldn't get chimney sweeps... will lamplighters do?" "Yeah, good enough")
Another thing that struck me about the film - particularly as a film aimed at kids - is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it's a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It's worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60's we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were - I think - much longer as a result!)
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder once again whether the 'society of cockney actors' must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw's Michael didn't particularly connect with me, .
Also watch out (I'd largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the "Jolly Holidays" segment of the original. That's a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain's film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It's therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer. In case you haven't seen the trailer, I won't spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Frank Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn't completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that's all that matters.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).
As I've said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age.... I was said to have bawled my eyes out with "THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!" as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I'm relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it's by no means the disaster I envisaged.
It's a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy "strike a light" lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it's fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children - John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) - in her own inimitable fashion.
I know musical taste is very personal but my biggest problem with the film was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number "A Cover is not the Book". Elsewhere they were - to me - unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of "The Greatest Showman". (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman - now 90 - was credited with "Music Consultant" but I wonder how much input he actually had?
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
'Mary in the mirror' - check 'Bottomless carpet bag' - check 'Initial fun in the nursery' - check 'Quirky trip to a cartoon land' - check 'Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative' - check 'Chirpy chimney sweeps' - check ("Er... Mr Marshall... we couldn't get chimney sweeps... will lamplighters do?" "Yeah, good enough")
Another thing that struck me about the film - particularly as a film aimed at kids - is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it's a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It's worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60's we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were - I think - much longer as a result!)
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder once again whether the 'society of cockney actors' must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw's Michael didn't particularly connect with me, .
Also watch out (I'd largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the "Jolly Holidays" segment of the original. That's a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain's film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It's therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer. In case you haven't seen the trailer, I won't spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Frank Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn't completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that's all that matters.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).
I found this movie to be quite enjoyable. It's not quite as good as the original but it holds it's own. Emily blunt as Mary Poppins is amazing. I think Julie Andrews would be pleased. I guess my only disappointment is the lack of memorable songs. But that's okay....it's hard to capture that magic twice. Twas a great effort. The cameo got me in tears. I love Dick Van Dyke.
More to explore
Editorial lists
Related lists created by IMDb editors
User lists
Related lists from IMDb users
