- Mary Poppins Returns review by CG
Best film I’ve seen in a long time. Feel good easy to watch. Watched with two older friends and both glued to the screen all the way through. The film was as good as the original.
1 out of 2 members found this review helpful.
Surprisingly great and faithful as a sequel to the greatest childrens movie
- Mary Poppins Returns review by Tej
The first film is in my all time favourite holiday film. It is a true classic that justifies its status. I never tire watching it simply because its such a magical film filled with the beautiful songs, and a practically perfect cast (yes Dick Van Dyke included! His cockney accent is way over criticised and although no one on earth sounds anything like that, it's charming and I am a born 47 year old Londoner!) and of course Julie Andrews voice and demeanour is mesmerising and unmatched.
So this sequel was a must see for me but I was realistic about my expectations for it. I don't expect it to be anywhere as good as the original but I hoped it would be at least an enjoyable film in its own right.
So, after watching the sequel, I was completely floored. I was on cloud Poppins. It's a huge shock to find that this movie captures the same feeling and quality as the original in almost every way. The songs are stunningly delightful, each one brilliantly performed with the most sumptuous lyrics but absolutely fitting for this surreal world of Mary Poppins. It's as if Robert Sherman was back from the place that "lost things go" to scribe all the songs with his brother. Each song holds its own to match the first film's songs yet one rehash of any of the original songs either.
The characters are as charming as the original in their own way and Mary Poppins herself was ALMOST practically perfect in every way. The versatile immensely talented Emily Blunt is not quite the match for the purity of Julie's voice and she does overdo the shoulder swinging a tad whereas Julie was far more natural in her demeanour...surprising giving Emily's elite standard of acting but she was terrific in her own way with a slightly edgier and aggressive but still playful portrayal. The rest of the cast is lovely with two DIsney legends popping in with a wonderfully substantial contribution of their own and such a joy to see them on the screen in what almost feels like a complete circle of life for those two legends. Streep, a relatively younger legend once again nearly steals the show too. Ben Wishaw is especially excellent as the grown up Bank's son with grief and troubles of his own. The children are lovely too.
The story and atmosphere is somewhat a reflection of the first film but it's not a complete rehash. It's simply a natural follow up and this is a sequel where we don't want drastic changes, we want familiarity and it delivers just that, beautifully,
This is as true a Mary Poppins sequel expansion that you could ever want, maintaining the magical feeling of the original. Quite outstanding.
I still advise you not to expect the quality of the original if you are a fan of the original but to just enjoy everything this love letter has to deliver.
Standout ballad: "Lost Things Go". Standout wacky song: "Turning Turtle"
1 out of 2 members found this review helpful.
Dreadful Movie Designed to Cash In + with AWFUL 4th Rate Songs.
- Mary Poppins Returns review by PV
The 1964 Mary Poppins was a classic with GREAT melodic songs written by the brilliant Sherman Brothers - way better songs that Greatest Showman R&B anthems, too. Dick's accent was gloriously bad, the cartoon sequences interesting and fun, the kids great (sad the actor who played the boy Michael died aged 21 after getting infected with a liver-destroying parasite after eating bad meat on a trip to India...)
But this... I usually really like Ben Wishaw and Julie Waters, but their presence here and the whole set up only serves to remind the viewer of Paddington which was a genuinely funny film. This isn't.
And the songs are DREADFUL - 4th rate rubbish, totally forgettable. Compare with the wonderful songs in the original.
And, seriously, if this is set around 1929 or so, would there really be a black solicitor? Or a black secretary at a bank? REALLY? Utterly absurd casting - film makers MUST respect reality or the audience cannot suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. Casting so many black characters is as daft as casting white actors to play Zulu warriors of native Africans, and I didn't see any white faces in Black Panther...
SO the story's weak and derivative, the songs are terrible and unmemorable, so is anything good? Well I liked the scene where the characters 'enter' the world of the ceramic pot - that is fun and clever, and that gets the 1 star.
The rest - JUST AWFUL. I just do not understand how anyone can give this 4 or 5 stars. The critics said the songs are not up there with the songs in the original, and they are right - the songs are down there with the worst I have ever heard!
This is all style over substance - expensive CGI and animation won't fix a film with a weak foundation.
AND no way in 1929 would people use the word 'snuck' as the past tense of 'sneak' - the past tense is SNEAKED. Still is. 'Snuck' is Americanese.
2 out of 5 members found this review helpful.