Incredible as we are transported into the world of simplicity, creativity and happiness with this beautiful work directed by Rob Marshall. There is a photograph and beautiful effects that immerses us in the adventures of the film. Emily Blunt was perfect for this role, formidable cast; particularly I would not replace anyone.
The film is thrilling and tells the story of the Banks family who are experiencing family and financial problems and end up having the misfortune to receive notice that they would be without their home if they did not take their debts to the Bank. At that moment Mary Poppins appears to take care of the children who in the face of difficulties were maturing very fast and losing the creativity of childhood.
Super recommend it! Brings beautiful reflections on the importance of seeing things with simplicity and open mind. Beautiful movie with beautiful scenes and a formidable story.
Lacks the charm of the original, Mary seems annoyed to have had to come back for the Banks' - modern storytelling doesn't do too well with this. A series like lemony snicket of the MP books could be great.
a few scenes could have been left out, the Meryl Streep segment started off with the promise of maybe an odd homage to the original's 'laughing & floating"scene. But is mostly an upside down set.
The morals of this are the complete opposite of the original... "enjoy time with your family" has become "invest money in stocks, when you're young"
My 5 Yr old danced to two songs - that I can't remember. Only at the end did a song make you want to singalong - "nowhere to go but up" - we both humming the last song in the car.
In tribute to this lovely film, I've chosen to write my review in song form:
I'm a writer
Who's a critic
A keyboard fighter whose
Life's a picnic
I'm a movie buff
Won't condescend
Sometimes I'm tough but i
Will recommend
I'm half Anglo
Half American
But for an hour or so
I was a kid again
Mary's poppin'
I'll see it again
Mary Poppins
Strong recommend
World Premiere Review:
It's a decent feel good movie, but has some rough edges. Casting Emily Blunt was spot on and Lin-Manuel is wonderful and some of the musical numbers are fantastic. Unfortunately the beginning and middle drag, with Meryl Streep's bit being not great and completely unnecessary. It was also disappointing that none of the original songs made it into this sequel. Dick Van Dyke steals the show at the end, and yes, he does all his own dance moves at 92 years old. Also seeing Angela Lansbury still with it at 93 put a smile on my face. Mary Poppin's exit is surprisingly cold and seems like a missed opportunity to tug at some heart strings. They should have cut the chase scene in the middle (that also felt completely shoehorned in) to make room for it.
If I had to sum it up in one word? Forgetable.
How can something that looks so nice be so utterly devoid of substance? I think Disney really dropped the ball here. They had a real chance to make an original story that was fun for everyone but instead they tried so hard to try to catch the original's magic that they ultimately fall flat on their face.
This movie had it all going for it: Disney money, A good cast including decent child actors and the benefit of modern effects. And all get used to an extent but not in the correct ways. Emily makes a good enough job as Poppins but for some reason in this film she upped the mean as well as the gaslighting factors that almost make her kinda unlikable (I mean, she didn't even say goodbye). Jack is Bert again, Michael is George again and Jane is Winifred lite. You see what I'm getting at right? Even the musical numbers are basically equivalents to the original movie: The Poppins first showcase to the kids song, the Poppins showoff in an animated scenario song, the song after she gaslights the kids song, the kooky house with a kooky owner song, the huge 'why is this song and dance with street strangers so long?' song, the deus ex machina song and the 'we're all ok now' song. The big problem this time is that most (to not say all) of the songs are not memorable at all.
I think what bothered me the most is that the story is supossed to be about saving Michael and trying to remind him what it's like to be a kid again but guess what? That doesn't even happen, most of the time you get Poppins interacting with the kids and Michael is nowhere close, then he snipes at the kids a bit. Rinse and repeat a couple of times, then he cries a bit and then "oh my god, you guys are not liars after all I'm all fine now!" queue resolution. So the Michael arc doesn't really happen in a satisfactory manner in my opinion. Also, I can't forget to mention the complete unessesary addition of some random mustache twirling villain type that's just jarring for the type of movie that this is supossed to be and even weirder when they dragged him into the porcelain sequence for no actual reason. No motive no real threat, he was just kinda 'there' then got deus ex'd out.
All in all, an ok but fairly forgettable sequel that tries to capture lightning in a bottle a second time but instead just catches a bit of the thunder. Looks really nice but not really much going under the hood. 6.5/10
It's not practically perfect in every way, but it does get a lot of things right. The songs are great, although they don't all stick. Emily Blunt is fantastic as Poppins, and the cast around her shine. And the upbeat tone is true to the spirit of the original; where magic and hope overcome adversity and life's trials. A genuine rarity - a sequel that is surprisingly faithful to the original.
[6.3/10] Mary Poppins Returns is technically a late sequel to the 1964 original, not a reboot. In this age of nostalgia, there is less and less tolerance for studios outright redoing their biggest hits. Instead, we demand new adventures that acknowledge the existence of the old, and extend the throughlines of the originals into the present. No soulless remakes for us, thank you!
Marry Poppins Returns, then, follows in the footsteps of so many of these late installments as more of a soft reboot in a sequel’s clothing. It is a Mad Libs version of the 1964 classic -- retaining the basic ideas of a family in need of a nanny, the structure and rhythm of the plot and musical numbers, and the archetypes from the Banks family and those orbiting 17 Cherry Tree lane -- while lightly remixing each element just enough to pass a new material. The movie never ventures too far from the familiar, while changing only so much as necessary not to play like a shameless ripoff of its forebear.
The results are aggressively “perfectly fine” rather than “practically perfect.” I rewatched the prior Mary Poppins film the evening before viewing this one, in the hopes that it would help to appreciate the little connections and call-and-response between the two movies. Instead, it only served as a reminder of how magical the 1964 release is, and how derivative and lacking in that pixie dust its 2018 successor is by comparison.
Which is not to say that Mary Poppins Returns is a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It's ably made, if workmanlike in so many elements. Its performers march through the slightly-altered beats of the prior film with aplomb. And the whimsical, joyous spirit of this (gulp) franchise, while thoroughly photocopied, remains intact. As an original piece, it would more than pass muster; it just pales in comparison to the thing it’s so slavishly recreating and nominally updating more than half a century later.
What’s remarkable about that “solid but unspectacular” bow for the film is that it gets the hardest part of this soft reboot right. Emily Blunt is not Julie Andrews and doesn’t stoop to the level of impression, but she absolutely nails the prim-yet-snippy air and the subtly puckish bearing of the title character. Andrews’s Poppins is so iconic that it’s an impossible task to follow it, but Blunt plays as a more-than-worthy successor, capturing the wit and whimsy that defined the character and making her feel like a natural part of the secretly magical world she and the ostensibly more down-to-earth players inhabit.
But little else of the movie’s retreads land with such force. Almost every song in the picture has a counterpart from the 1964 film, and practically none of them stand up to the juxtaposition. Again, none would come close to qualifying as “poor” as standalone tunes, but Topsy’s song can’t match the goofball energy of “I Love to Laugh” and “Trip the Light Fantastic” is no “Step in Time.” The grand musical score lifted so much of the original Mary Poppins, and only “The Cover Is Not the Book”, a smash-bang triumph of clever lyricism showmanship, manages to harness that same sonic virtuosity.
Neither can Returns match its predecessor’s visual panache. Everything in the movie has that odd, off-putting, computer-generated sheen to it. Whereas the 1964 movie had a vaguely stage-y quality to it at times, it’s not hard to take CGI as the 2018 equivalent. But the attempts to harness the same for the otherworldly vibe Mary’s presence brought gives the film an anodyne quality in its images, rather than one of imagination and possibility. The lone exception, again, is the animated sequence inside the china bowl, which manages to do the original film one better in its beautifully-realized combination of the hand-drawn and the real.
It’s telling that the few elements which are totally original come off superfluous or miscalibrated. The film includes a romance between a grown up Jane Banks and Bert’s young apprentice, Jack (played with an appropriately bad British accent by Lin-Manuel Miranda), that adds nothing to the film. It makes an out-and-out villain out of Colin Firth’s bank manager, since apparently every children’s film must have one now-a-days whether it fits the material or not. And it throws in a race against the clock and excuse for something action-y where Mary Poppins can use her magic powers to help save the day rather than just cause merriment and nudge those in her care toward their own good decisions.
The most noteworthy change in that regard is the film’s flip of the dynamic between father and children from the prior movie. Here, it’s the kids who are too grown up and the dad who feels out of sorts. (And yet, still needs to remember the magic of youth too, I guess?, it’s not especially coherent). There’s some power to making Michael Banks the paternal figure and shifting the poles of the generational misunderstanding.
But it’s all couched in the recent loss of the children’s mother, which leads to weird tonal inconsistencies in an otherwise spritely film. Case-in-point, near the midpoint of the film, Ben Whinshaw gives this stunning dramatic performance where he admits his difficulties in processing his wife’s death and the hardships the family is facing that both knocks you out and feels roundly out of place in the movie. Returns never manages to strike that balance between piercing sentiment and joyful wonder, instead seeming alternatingly mawkish and saccharine.
At best, it can still borrow a little of the wonder from its forebear and come out alright. The movie finds the perfect use for Dick Van Dyke who hasn’t lost a whit of his delightful energy in the intervening years, and Angela Lansbury makes for a capable substitute in a role clearly meant for Julie Andrews. There’s scads of little callbacks and echoes that prove fond reminders of favorite elements from the classic that made Returns possible.
Still, you can only get so far coasting on nostalgia. Mary Poppins Returns and its status as a late sequel implicitly promises its audience something more than just an ostensibly new dance performed with the same familiar steps. Instead, it can charitably be called a modern redress of the movie it’s now succeeding. Those same moves and flourishes were charming and delightful decades ago, but faithfully recreating them with a few minor twists makes this return engagement taste like reheated leftover of a great meal -- still tasty enough given the quality of the original preparation, but not nearly as good as when it was fresh.
It accomplishes what it sets out to do, well enough. Mainly thanks to Emily Blunt.
Good cast, enjoyed it overall as it’s just nice and easy to watch, but nothing more really.
I found the underwater scene pretty weird and not at all fitting in the Mary Poppins style but loved the bit with the bowl, great idea and a nice follow up to the painting bit in the original but still never on the same level unfortunately.
I don't know what happened but I cried really hard when the movie ended
A Magical Disaster
The new take on the old classic had the potential to be phenomenal yet it was let down by a critical mistake. Having an American play a British character, allowing his American accent to break through his pathetic British one was a shambles, ruining the character of Jack, and, subsequently, spoiling many great songs.
The original Mary Poppins was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid and it kind of still is. Thus I was indeed a bit worried when I sat down to watch this one with the kids yesterday. After all there is really so many ways a incompetent writer could have screwed this one up. Especially one with an agenda.
Luckily this was not the case and I have to say that I quite liked this movie. Disney actually managed to keep the ambiance of the original movie and it actually felt like a Disney movie from the good old days. The days before every easily offended retard tried to make every movie into a preaching mouth piece for their personal crusade.
I think I liked the first half of the movie best. It was an explosion of song, magic and, for me, nostalgia. Apart from the hugely improved technology this movie had available to make the magic bits it actually felt like it could have been made back to back with the original. They really managed to capture the atmosphere from back then.
If I had to compare the two directly I would still go with the original as the best one. It was more imaginative and it just felt a bit better two me.
The story is a bit of a rehash of the original. They could have come up with something more original. Also, the second movie seemed to fizzle out a bit compared to the first half. I would have liked to see some more Mary Poppins coolness and magic, like we saw in the first half of the movie, instead of, mostly, conventional stuff. Also the take down of the bad guy was a bit underwhelming.
Apart from that I think sequel was not bad at all.
Ended up loving this way more than I did the original. Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel were fabulous, and most of the songs were easily, annoyingly stuck in my head-and I didn't mind it at all!
Ambitious and visually stunning. Emily Blunt is a delight as well. The movie is just over long and too much like the original. While not many of the songs were memorable.
It’s hard to believe that Burt the chimney sweep and Jack the lamplighter aren’t the same person as well. Both know when to expect Mary Poppins and dress pretty much the same.
I expected a good film with some nostalgia, but this was so much more than I could have hoped for... Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda were exquisite in their roles. Other characters were flawless as well.
The cameos, especially Dick Van Dyke's and Angela Lansbury's, were beautiful, as were other nods to the original. The atmosphere throughout the film was lovely. The songs were exactly what they should have been. I wasn't bored one second.
A more perfect sequel would have been impossible to create.
Following up such an iconic film was always going to be difficult especially as the original film has been around for so long. For many Julie Andrews IS Mary Poppins and Emily Blunt had a mountain to climb, so to speak. That she manages to pull it off speaks volumes and it is down to her performance that the film largely manages to succeed. The film's greatest flaw is it takes the Force Awakens route and treads familiar territory in the story, ensuring that as an audience member familiar with the original, you find yourself constantly comparing the songs, routines and dance numbers to the original. Unlike the Force Awakens however, the film doesn't really try to hide this, playing heavily on what went before, meaning it never really stands on its own. What this film needs is time and distance from the original and despite its flaws, it is still tremendously entertaining, the songs and dance routines are all great and the themes of the film will resonate in a similar way to the original. Perhaps with time, this will manage to live up to the original, for now it is enough that it works as well as it does.
The film has plenty of heart; a story of believing in yourself and that help is around the corner. And while Blunt is absolutely lovely and a bit snarky, her performance is diminished from a few things. The main problem with the film is the songs, they come often, they are long, and they all sound alike. This ties into the films length, which is just too long. When the characters aren't singing, there's a beautiful film just waiting to emerge. I say skip it, unless you are a die hard Poppins fan.
Practically perfect in every way. I've never seen any sequel as good as this one. It was different enough from the original to justify its release: There were no songs from the original, and yet the new songs were just as catchy, and in the same style.
The former apprentice of Bert from the original is Jack, the lamplighter. A job that is similar, but different. The original ended with the family flying kites, while this one ended with flying balloons. The animation used in some of the adventures is exactly the old fashioned style we all hoped for. Mary Poppins continued to use unique phrases and yet I don't remember them ever mentioning her most famous word: Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. There was so much reminiscent of the previous film without ever the need for unjustified rehashing. They couldn't have found a more perfect cast. They all did a brilliant job. My only tiny criticism is that Jack's cockney accent wasn't terrible enough! But that's only nitpicking! I'm sure there'll be many true Poppins fans that will love this film. I will continue to watch and enjoy them both forever more!
It is a worthy continuation. Emily Blunt is a hit, it looks like the first things, but it takes its own way, well for the cameos
Dos interminables horas de sinsentidos, y ni una sola canción de la que te acuerdes al salir del cine.
Para ser uno de los personajes más famosos, poco o nada se han esforzado en conseguir una película memorable.
The movie is too long. Some of the songs overstay their welcome and some aren't great. When this does work it's great. Emily Blunt is perfect casting.
It may not be practically perfect in every way, but Mary Poppins Returns delivers a heartwarming story brought to life by a stellar cast.
I really loved the movie! The music, cast, visuals, plot from the beginning to end were outstanding. Emily Blunt did justice to the original Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews forever in our hearts, of course). I was completely blown away by this spectacular movie. It was so moving and cheerful that I got out of the movie theater so happy that I couldn't stop smiling!
Oh, and also it's a film that we can enjoy with our whole family and have a great time.
I can't wait to watch it again!
Very decent movie - sometimes slightly too long, maybe they should've cut the scene with the dancing lighter guys, which dragged on for ages!. Casting was spot on though, and Emily Blunt was definitely the Mary Poppins I never knew I needed! Decent songs, too, especially the one about judging book by its covers (still humming it right now).
“One thing you should know about Mary Poppins: she never explains anything”.
This movie had a lot to live up with it being a sequel to a beloved classic. While I’ve seen the original movie on repeat as a child - it never had that massive impact on me like everyone else, but with each re-watch I found more enjoyment and appreciation for everything that went into it.
So this being a sequel made me curious and wary; I went into this expecting nothing to avoid any disappointment. I sat down, arms crossed and waited patiently for the trailers to be over. When it started, the first 10 or 20 minutes was fine, but I was still critical. After the first musical number “Can You Imagine That?”, I started to warm up a bit and relax more.
However, halfway through the movie I noticed something about myself - there was tears streaming down my cheeks, and for a rare moment, I breathed a sigh of relief and enjoyed the ride. This is the first time in awhile I would call my experience escapism.
Emily Blunt was an absolute delight as Mary Poppins. Blunt never imitations Julie Andrews portrayal and makes the role her own. I honestly couldn’t think of anyone else to fill in the shoes of the character than Blunt. Her sassy and deadpan wit makes this super nanny pure magic.
The other cast members were also solid: Lin-Manuel Miranda delivers a theatrical performance that elevates the films charm and brought a smile to my face. Ben Whishaw, on the other hand, was so heartbreaking as the grieving Michael Banks. You can feel the pain and stress in his voice. Emily Mortimer is good as Jane Banks , but felt under-use and didn’t offer anything to the story.
Also Dick Van Dyke dance scene, while short, was unbelievable. He’s got more energy than any wanna be dancer, and he’s 93 years old.
Rob Marshall gives the movie a Broadway-like touch similar to his previous work. The musical sequences with songs like “Nowhere to Go But Up” and "Can You Imagine That?" being colorful and a blast to watch, which adds to the escapism. The production design and choreography - mwah. He also tackles the more serious elements where the emotions from the characters are expressed through songs and the performances.
For issues: The songs themselves while fun, yet not super memorable and doesn't hold a candle to the 1965 film. After the movie was over, the songs didn't stick with me as I hoped. This might change over time.
The main villain played by Colin Firth is so cliched and cartoonist. I started to question why a movie like this needs a bad-guy - although I guess the climax needed to be more intense. He's even got a twirling mustache. When the character first appears on screen, I knew straight away there was something unpleasant about him and the foreshadowing involving an animated sequence was so painfully obvious. His character could have be great if it was written better.
Meryl Streep short appearance is so pointless and could've easily been cut out from the final daft. I wasn't sure what accent she was going for.
Overall rating: It's not flawless, yet it wasn't an abomination like some expected it to be. I would go as far to call it a satisfying sequel.
Perhaps we've learned when day is done, some stuff and nonsense could be fun.
While the film may have suffered in pacing, accents (we can call that a tradition) and some slower moments it still held it's charm. The story did an excellent job at taking some very real world fears and sorrow and putting a tear jerking uplift to it, something that most recent Disney films have been afraid to do.
The cast did an excellent job, the toes tapped, smiles were had at certain cameos (for us older lot)
Without saying to much I feel the end JUST missed the mar, in part due to a turn down cameo (which I have the utmost respect for) and for a few tear jerking moments lost.
I feel this is one of those films that won't live up to the original but will be a very welcome classic for a future generation of film buffs and big kids to come
This movie’s story feels like an afterthought to the songs. Instead of writing a story and having the characters sing about what they are doing. The story goes to places to make the songs make sense. It’s incredibly obvious and makes the viewer just suffer through the songs because they are definition of pointless.
The most boring thing I’ve seen this year I couldn’t connect with the movie because it was too silly for me
Who does not know Mary Poppins? The one and only nanny who makes everything magical and helps us overcome our difficulties in life with a spoon full of sugar.
Since I was little my grandmother, who loves Julie Andrews, made me watch “Mary Poppins”. However, only today I could watch the 2018 “Mary Poppins Returns”, with the wonderful Emily Blunt and the amazing Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack.
To be honest, I was not very hopeful about this film. It is hard to make a sequel of a musical which is so loved and dear to many hearts. A film which makes us recall our childhood. Still, I was very surprised about the outcome that today I watched.
Two moments in this film made my heart thump. One was the first scene, when we see Jack turning off the lights of the streets of London. It made me think how we are not grateful for our lives. He was a lamplighter, a simple job. However, with his job he spread joy wherever he was and knew everybody. The second scene was the scene of the “A Cover Is Not the Book” song. Well, you can understand why I loved it. It made me think about how much we can, sometimes, judge a book, a film, someone, by its appearances. We live in a more tolerable world, but we still judge people by their looks.
“Mary Poppins Returns” does not try to retell the story of the Banks children needing someone to recall their father what is a childhood. By the contrary, it remembers us that children should be children when they. It makes us relearn that we should, on our toughest times, remember the good memories of our past. With this film one recalls how we can make rememberable moments with the simplest things in life.
"i danced with penguins!" "i killed a kid on page four"
"Disney's magical nanny narrative starring Emily Blunt is a sparkling reprisal of a classic."
They should have stopped at the original. I really enjoyed the original but this second part was just utterly boring and a really bad copy of the original.
Acting was fine, except for what Meryl Streep did. I usually adore her, but this role was just utterly nonsense and her performance was really sad…
In general a very boring story, music that tried to imitate the original but did so very poorly. The effects were well made, but that's about it…
Raises nostalgia, wonderfully animated part, made me smile and laugh. Horribly cut around including an actor for 2 minutes. Didn't like the deus ex Mary Poppins. It doesn't fit her. Besides that, a wonderful movie for children to look at with wonder, just like I did with the original.
Desperately trying to recapture the magic of the original, and failing, Mary Poppins Returns is a whimsical family film with no heart. The fates once again call on Mary Poppins when Michael Banks, now a widower, is about to lose his house and his children are despite to help him save it. Emily Blunt takes on the iconic role of Mary Poppins, but as good as she is she’s no Julie Andrews and comes off as a little more stern and less kind. And the musical numbers aren’t nearly as catchy and fun as those from the original film. A couple are alright, but most of them go on too long, are over produced, and try too hard to be charming and lighthearted. The writing isn’t that good either, as much of the film seems forced and contrived. While it’s entertaining and has a bit of the original’s spirit, Mary Poppins Returns doesn’t have its passion or its sincerity.
Nobody could ever beat Julie Andrews but DAMN if Emily Blunt doesn't channel her fantastically! :grin:
Some moments in the movie had me smiling ear to ear... Other's had me wondering why we needed BMX Poppins lol. Overall fun!
It was good and fun and had moments. Everyone did pretty well, but DVD really steals the show.
The music was good, but none of them seem to have the "sing along" quality of the originals. A little more complex on this ones lyrics.
Mary Poppins Returns is in a tough spot...the film will forever be in the shadow of the original Mary Poppins. Even with "Returns" looked at as its own film, it is still lacking the Disney magic. The songs in the film are forgettable and, with the exception of Mary Poppins and Angela Lansbury's balloon lady (for personal reasons), even the characters are not good. I am highly disappointed with the route film went and will always prefer the original Mary Poppins, which was iconic on so many fronts. One cool thing to note about "Returns" is the use of real..hand drawn...animation in parts of the film!
Finally got around to watching Mary Poppins Returns, and for the most part I liked it.
The main idea of the movie is similar to the original, with dance numbers and songs. However, those songs were extremely forgettable and not as awe inspiring as the original.
Lastly, I love Emily Blunt in this, but she no Mary Poppins at best she should have been Mary Poppins sister. For being the same unaging character Emily Blunt is no Julie Andrews, and the idea that Mary Poppins was the same was laughable.
Quite disappointing. Nothing like the original movie. I turned it off after 1 hour.
Hmmm...I didn't hate this movie, the whole first act was such a rush, it felt like everyone was just whipping through their lines and sets and what not! I could never ever hate that entire China Bowl animated scene (although I will say the "A Cover is Not the Book" number was...interesting.) Emily Blunt gave an evocative performance, Lin was infectiously fun as ever and my heart soared at seeing Mr. Van Dyke once again. The Place Where Lost Things Go was my favorite song. It was a fun flick! However, I don't think it has the same re-watch-ability as Dame Julie Andrews...but I did enjoy my time here and don't regret it. :)
I enjoyed the movie more than expected. It was sweet and little bit weird. I expecially liked attention to detail of London city scenes, very atmospheric.
To me it's just a children musical. it's not meant to be complex or anything. It does what it's supposed to be, entertain children
i wish i could watch it
I was dying to see this movie, but also nervous I wouldn't like it compared to the first one. But now that I have watched it, I must confess I'm relieved and surprised. Emily Blunt was marvelous, I couldn't think of a better substitute for Julie Andrews. The actor who plays Jack was also a fine substitute for our dear-old Bert. The movie was certanly magical in its own way, but it also gave us the right amount of nostalgy, by betting on similar (yet new) scenes with the first one. For all those involved, I can only say Congratulations on the good work and thank you, oh thank you so much for this movie... dazzling and touching, like a good Mary Poppins movie should be. (Also, how great it was that Dick Van Dyke appeared??? Oh, I just wish Julie also had...)
If that movie can't bring a smile to your face I don't know what can.
I've never seen the first one, I wasn't born yet and as a teenager I quite possibly didn't care. I have to remedy that. But this movie is like the Disney movies I remember from my childhood. This is something that they are still great at.
Emily Blunt is phantastic, you can't help but fall in love with her. Don't look for plot holes or other errors. If you do that it isn't your movie anyway. You're supposed to enjoy it and forget the real world for a while.
if you are binging both movies on the same day,
the 2nd one seems awful.
that's all.
I had a marvelous time.
This is a good movie that doesn't measure up to the original...but how could it? Great cast, beautiful visuals, animation was good...but the music merely so/so. I'm sure I'll like it more in future screenings, particularly for Blunt that does a great job with the role, but for now...I'm luke warm. 7/10
Mary Poppins Returns was a lot of fun. I actually saw them filming it in Covent Garden a few years ago. It was nice to see the finished product.
I liked the music and choreography. And the way they combined the live action footage with 2D animation.
It was great to see London landmarks and familiar places, though I felt like the setting was perhaps a little over-emphasised.
But yeah, I think, on the whole, it captured the spirit of the original, and in some ways actually exceeded the original.
I really loved this movie! The nostalgia was alive... Emily Blunt was perfect in the role and Lin-Manuel Miranda was exceptional too, he sings and dances and makes it looks so easy! Ben Whishaw was really good too. But the standout point for me was the music, not only the incredible new songs, but the score. Marc Shaiman did a beautiful job here, I may cried a little everytime the original melodies appear in key moments of the movie, that touch was just lovely This was everything I expected and everything I needed. Also, love me some Angela Lansbury, as marvelous as always!
It's not even fair to compare Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda to Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke but both Blunt and Miranda did a fantastic job, songs are good but not as good as the ones in the original plot is good but not as good as original this movie is good all around but not great all around I think this movie suffers mostly from having to be compared to the original but still a very good movie.
A worthy sequel to a classic musical. Emily Blunt was well cast as the title role, and the children are just darling. The musical numbers are reminiscent of the first film. It was potentially even more whimsical than it's predecessor and I'm sure it will be a classic in it's own right.
The new Mary Poppins was really made good it remained me of the old mary poppins with the clothing and back ground that was really nice to see how they brought the old movie into the new one. In the beginning it was slow then it pick up great cast . All ages will love this movie . And it brings out the kid in the adult so have fun watching the movie i did.
I loved the original, which made be a bit skeptical coming in, but I loved this version as well. I loved that it kept the spirit and feel of Mary Poppins without trying to be an exact replica. It had its own feel to it, it's own quirks and nuances which made it feel more real. The story itself was well written and enjoyable. The songs were great and most of them had a great message as well. And I liked that this deals with the next generation, so they weren't trying to replicate classic characters from the first film. Add in two amazing guest appearances and I found this movie to be an overall pleasure to watch. Well done!
Shout by Nancy L DraperVIP 8BlockedParent2019-01-02T00:31:07Z
Absolutely perfect in every way. Exceptional cast (although I scratched my head why they cast a Yankee to play a iconic London character but Lin-Manuel Miranda finally won me over). Emily Blunt was spectacular. Wonderful supporting cast with some very distinguished featured artists (the last one was a particular treat). The new music was complex but brilliantly written. The animation was a delight. The choreographed numbers were both an homage and lovely. There just didn't seem to be a false step. I give this film a 10 (perfect) out of 10. [Musical Family Fantasy]