Mary Poppins Returns

These days, no Disney property is safe from a live action adaptation or sequel. Their best work in this movement in my opinion so far is Kenneth Branagh's "Cinderella". I also enjoyed "Christopher Robin". The big question I had with "Mary Poppins Returns" is whether it respects the familiarity the audience has with the source material. The original film is ingrained in pop culture so much so that it put a word in the dictionary (I need not say what word that is). We know the songs, have memorized the movie itself and most importantly, we know that Mary Poppins is not just about saving children. Will the filmmakers of "Mary Poppins Returns" give us something nostalgic while at the same time providing some genuine originality? I would say that director Rob Marshall and others did pretty well considering the pressure that was on them. Some parts of the movie looked amazing, a few of the songs were good, the acting was noteworthy and I felt sincere drama here & there. I think I am too critical for my own good however because the film was only decent in my eyes. The original movie is so iconic that the filmmakers were powerless anyways to create a sequel that would equal its predecessor no matter what they did. Still, audiences will be entertained and hopefully a new generation will take a liking to the fantasy live-action musical genre.

I was quite skeptical with the idea of a sequel to "Mary Poppins" from the start. As the release approached however, that apprehension seemed to lessen. After all, I went to see "Saving Mr. Banks" back in 2013 with somewhat low expectations but came away in love with that film. After reading an article in Variety magazine about an advanced screening of "Mary Poppins Returns" for Hollywood elites, I became more optimistic about this sequel. However, I knew better than to trust a lone article. The US government of course paid to advertize a fake science fiction film in Variety magazine in 1980 as a front to sneak six diplomats out of Iran. The critical rating online for this movie was quite positive in the days leading up to release so I again had hope. After seeing the movie for myself, I liked it but not enough to fall in love with it. I believe the best cinematic comparison I can make with this sequel is "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York". I enjoy that sequel, mostly because I first saw it as a kid. As an adult, I released its biggest flaw was that its narrative structure was much too similar to that of the original film. The filmmakers did create some originality to make it work but just barely. With "Mary Poppins Returns", I could say the same thing. Each magical sequence for instance can be likened unto a corresponding sequence in the original movie. The bathtub scene has a similar story purpose to "Let's Tidy Up the Nursery" because the Banks children are introduced to the magic of the title character. "The Royal Doulton Music Hall" scene is quite reminiscent of "Jolly Holiday", "Turning Turtle" is "I Love to Laugh" and I could go on. Of course, this is where my critical eye is my own worst enemy. The filmmakers didn't copy the first film exactly and that is easy enough to avoid because they had the original books to look to. Walt Disney, the Sherman brothers and others did not use everything from the "Mary Poppins" books by P.L. Travers. Marshall and his team also had great respect for the entire source material. All I'm saying is that the narrative structure of both films is identical and it is a troublesome flaw. We got some originality but it was hindered just like with "Home Alone 2" and other remakes/sequels. One original idea that the filmmakers had was the setting of the 1930's. Another is the state of Michael's family, having lost his wife shortly before the events of the film. This is one aspect where the filmmakers really had to respect the familiarity of the audience. We have had 54 years and the experience of "Saving Mr. Banks" to understand the subtext of the father needing saving more so than the children. Thankfully, Michael is not a complete duplicate of his father. He is more loving and quick to apologize. Unlike his father, Michael has more obvious problems in this story and so I'm glad the filmmakers didn't try to be subtle, thinking the audience would be ignorant. It is too bad that the story premise of a family house being in danger is somewhat cliché in the family film genre. The focus of the first film was on the family itself. I admit there is a need to do something different for this sequel but after the first scene with the two lawyers, I just couldn't get "The Borrowers" out of my mind. Number Seventeen Cherry Tree Lane should have been bigger by the way. I don't expect the house to look exactly the same because 25 years have passed since the events of the previous film. In fact, I rather like the interior look of the house in this sequel but the Banks' house in 1964 looked a lot more spacious. That at least should have been recaptured because they did very well with Cherry Tree Lane itself.

The first film and many other Disney masterpieces became as beloved as they are because of the contrasting emotions they produce in us. For every laugh, there must be a tear. This film had drama and the acting made it quite genuine in some places. The show also had its own sense of wonder but I didn't find it as funny as I was hoping. This makes the drama less powerful. When the trailer for "Mary Poppins Returns" was released, I got excited not by seeing Cherry Tree Lane but by seeing Admiral Boom's house. He was such a great source of comedy in the original movie. He did provide a great plot point that was paid off in the climax but I wanted more humor from him. I also was hoping for more humor from Jack. When the children become lost in the sequel, they are still with Mary Poppins and this is one moment where the drama is lacking. When Jane and Michael get lost on the London streets, it was quite a scary scene. That sense of fright is lost simply by the fact that the children have an adult with them. I was expecting Michael's love of art would have a bigger payoff at the end. It did kick off the climax but I was hoping it would bring resolution to Michael's plotline. Speaking of the climax, it was much different than its counterpart. "Mary Poppins" had a very dramatic climax but its sequel attempted a suspenseful climax instead. If this was for the sake of originality then it would have been acceptable if Disney had not spoiled the ending in the trailers (more about that later). The songs in "Mary Poppins Returns" were fine, especially "Nowhere to Go But Up", however nothing beats the original songs from the Sherman Brothers after half a century of singing them. I wasn't too worried about the special effects in this film because the first film pushed the envelope in the field and won an Oscar for doing so. I wasn't expecting any such envelope-pushing special effects in this round because the filmmakers had to stay true to the original film but they did some impressive things. The best special effects sequence for me was on and in the china bowl.

Author P.L. Travers may have relented in allowing the first film to be made but she did not like the final result (with the exception of Julie Andrews' performance) and wouldn't allow Walt Disney to make a sequel. She even stood firm when Jeffrey Katzenberg wanted the same thing in the 80's. I guess the currently trend Disney is on made for good timing to try again. Travers passed away in 1996 and her estate gave its blessing. Rob Marshall is a hit and miss director in my opinion (with his directorial debut being his best work so far). I really hated "Into the Woods" so when I found out he was the director of "Mary Poppins Returns", I was nervous. The best aspect of this film is the performance of Emily Blunt (who previously worked with Marshall in "Into the Woods"). The recasting of Mary Poppins was probably the scariest part of making this show but I really can't think of any other Hollywood star whose persona seems pretty close to the title character except Emily Blunt. She made the character her own but didn't deviate too much from what were expect. Julie Andrews denied an offer to have a cameo so as to not be a distraction and I agree with this. If finding a new actress to portray Mary Poppins wasn't daunting enough, the filmmakers had to find a male actor who embodies Bert. You need a jack-of-all-trades in real life to mirror his on screen character. Lin-Manuel Miranda can sing, dance, act and write music so he was a good choice. He did well enough but his character wasn't all that funny as I mentioned. I did enjoy the romantic angle between his character and Jane. The second best performance in this sequel goes to Ben Whishaw. Even though I still favor him more as the voice of Paddington, his dramatic chops were amazing in this show. That particular scene when he breaks down in front of his kids is where he shines. All three child actors who portrayed Annabel, John and Georgie were so good in their roles and are worthy to be in this franchise. I last experienced Emily Mortimer in 2011's "Cars 2" and in "Hugo" the same year. She looks and sounds very much like an adult Jane Banks. Another actor from the Paddington franchise appearing in "Mary Poppins Returns" is Julie Walters and she is the housekeeper once again. I didn't expect to see the character of Ellen and so that was welcome. I didn't expect to see Colin Firth in this kind of role either so it was a nice change. Meryl Streep had also been in Marshall's "Into the Woods" as the lead character and I was worried she would upstage the whole thing. Thankfully, that was not the case and she played her part well. Another fun fact, Blunt got her breakout role in Streep's "The Devil Wears Prada". The biggest problem that I had with Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury was not that they appeared in this film but that the advertizing spoiled it. They had such lovely roles to play and I loved both of them in this show but I would have been much more entertained if they had been excluded from the marketing. The first film hid the fact that Van Dyke was Mr. Dawes Sr. very well so why did Disney not keep secret these two icons of Disney history while advertizing this movie? If they had done this, the climax would have been even better also because we all were waiting to see Mr. Dawes Jr. and knew he would save the day. Van Dyke had to find an amalgam between his performance of Dawes Sr. from 50 years ago and the performance of Arthur Malet as Dawes Jr. The fact that Van Dyke is over 90 years old helps a bit and the final result is just fine in my book. Karen Doctrice (who played Jane in the original film) also has a cameo but I failed to recognize her. I saw a few familiar names among those working on the 2D animation. Marc Shaiman and Scott Shaiman wrote the songs for this film and they have worked on Broadway together before. My favourite past work of Shaiman's was the musical score for "Patch Adams" and that earned him an Oscar nomination (he has four additional nominations by the way). I was hoping he would reprise the old song themes a bit more than he did but then there wouldn't have been any room for his new themes. One of the songwriters of the original movie, Richard Sherman, acted as a music consultant by the way (he did the same for "Saving Mr. Banks").

With there being a maximum of ten films that can be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, I was wondering if "Mary Poppins Returns" would appear in the same category that its predecessor appeared in back in 1965. I had the same wish with "Saving Mr. Banks" but it didn't work out the way I wanted it to with either film. "Mary Poppins Returns" did earn four other nominations however: production design, costume design, musical score and song. Just as I found other songs in "Mary Poppins" to be better that "Chim Chim Cher-ee", I didn't think "The Place Where Lost Things Go" was the best song in this sequel. I still was hoping it would win. This sequel did have a lot going for it and I am betting the audience will come away feeling just fine. I wanted the filmmakers to respect our love for and insight into the first film. I would say they did a respectable job but I'm a victim of my own critical eye. I don't think any attempt at making a sequel would have matched the standards of the original film but I admire Rob Marshall for not letting that fact deter him or overwhelm him. I give props to the songs, acting, special effects and dramatic moments but if Julie Andrews' version was "practically perfect in every way", that sense of power casts a big shadow.

3.5 Stars out of 5