Mary Poppins Returns (Sequel)

JP Liz V1

Rob Marshall directing Emily Blunt in the title role with Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer also cast

I suppose Blunt is a good choice over Keira Knightley as I think she was rumoured for the role

Let's hope if possible Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke pop in for a cameo

razorblunt

Definitely more warmness to Blunt than Knightly.

Perfect role for Colin Firth too as Hugh Bonneville was the Dad in Paddington.

Littlefinger

Can't wait to see Lin-Manuel Miranda in this! He is flawless

JP Liz V1

Angela Lansbury joins

Agent Coulson

Hande hoche!

Surprised they didn't go for a gritty reboot.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson

MilesMorales1

I am unconvinced so far.

Agent Coulson

https://twitter.com/DisneyStudios/status/886292575342043136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalspy.com%2Fmovies%2Fmary-poppins-returns%2Fnews%2Fa833205%2Fmary-poppins-returns-teaser-emily-blunt%2F

Agent Coulson

Latest pic released.

youngblood

I really think this movie could be pure magic

Lin Manuel has certainly had the midas touch with all his endeavors & Blunt seems to capture that practically perfect image (which may also include the slight menace/hard persona seen in the books, which can be quiet dark at times)

I do think Julie Andrews missed a beat in handing over the baton to Blunt (could've been a slight but powerful nod) but maybe she was right in letting it be her movie and not overshadowed by a cameo

Fair play to Angela Lansbury, she was there right at the beginning of Disney Magic in the movies

This movie certainly has me intrigued

Mr E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzcaR1N0pTI

Mr E

Full trailer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jsfXDZLIY

youngblood

If that trailer doesn't warm your heart you're dead inside...

expectationlost

saccharine

decky1

They'll hardly be singing about 'A spoon full of sugar' in this one, the way things are going.

donegal_man

Gawd 'elp us, that's a right bit of puke inducing Disney syrup right there and no mistake.

Wedwood

I'm going to see this one for a number of reasons, but mainly because I want to say I saw Dick Van Dyke singing and dancing in a brand new Disney Musical in the cinema !

Agent Coulson

Special look trailer

Falthyron

Fúcking hell... stealthy onion peelers...

Wonderful film and definitely made by people who absolutely love the original.

Serious eye-sweat stuff going on during that film.

9/10

SharpshooterTom

Better than the original do you think? Most people I speak to think it is.

Currently doing at 77% at RT.

johnny_ultimate

Disney has spent so much time and money weaponising nostalgia they’ve never stopped to wonder if they should.

Mary Poppins Return is a lively, colourful film that never overcomes being a mere cover version of the original. It’s the same trick Disney pulled with The Force Awakens, but that at least had the not insiginificant task of restarting a series after some truly dreadful films. This though just feels like a photocopy of a well-regarded original without much grander purpose (commercial or otherwise), with just enough tweaks to call it a sequel rather than a remake.

The primary problem here is a simple one: the songs are ****e. In a film where characters frequently burst into song, the music hitting the mark is crucial. But here they all blend into each others’ mediocrity. You can see more or less every song is attempting to be a direct follow-up to something in the original, but whereas that’s full of silly earworms, these ones get lost in uninspired melodies or forced wordplay (reaching a nadir with the tangential, misjudged Meryl Streep cameo as Mary’s obnoxiously wacky cousin). There’s a bit in the animated segment - admittedly the most satisfying stretch in the film - where Lin Manuel Miranda is allowed do a minute or so of Hamilton-style pop-rap, and it kinda made me wish this film even had a fraction of that musical’s intelligence, ingenuity and craftsmanship.

Not to say all’s bad here. It never goes above passable and is persistently unimaginative, but it’s entertaining enough on its own limited terms. Marshall doesn’t put much unique personality into it (a strange bmx-infused number aside) but the film looks and feels expensive and vibrant, even if it’s all gloss. Blunt is really good, dialling up Mary’s trolling in a performance that lacks emotional warmth but makes up for that in stern-faced playfulness. Her chemistry with Miranda (who largely won me over despite cartoonish cockney-accent) is actually really strong, and their characters’ mischievous friendship is more endearing and credible than the actual romance that emerges in the latter half of the film. I guess overall it stays true to the spirit of the original film: it certainly doesn’t tarnish its legacy, and is true to its themes and spirit (even if it could have benefited from more of its own identity).

It’s in many ways the quintessential modern Disney film. It’s big and old-fashioned and reasonably charming, but also commercially cynical and weirdly redundant. The medicine goes down alright, but don’t expect to feel much better after it.

Falthyron

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Better than the original do you think? Most people I speak to think it is.

Currently doing at 77% at RT.

That's a tough question. I'm not sure if it's better, but I do think it is close to being equal with the original. Blunt and Miranda are excellent, as are the children. The music is very good, and some of the songs are quite powerful, beautifully written. I felt it 'explains' some of the more imaginative side to Mary Poppins' adventures in a better way than the predecessor - Or maybe I just 'got it' in this film! The messages being conveyed are clearer and really resonate, particularly the ones about being a child and the importance of having a strong imagination.

At the same time, the film does, generally, follow the same structure as the original. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, because this is what Mary Poppins does - she arrives during a turbulent period and realigns/corrects people's perspectives, and perhaps there is a methodology to how that is achieved. Having said that, the original songs are not in this film, so if you are hoping to hear updated renditions of classics you might be disappointed. It is much more a sequel than a remake. I suppose, one could argue that it is like The Force Awakens and A New Hope, much of the structure is the same, but the content is different.

Overall, it is a perfect Christmas film. You will leave the cinema feeling really positive, safe in the knowledge that the film did not destroy the original, but simply added something more to the world of Mary Poppins.

santana75

Positives: Emily blunt is absolutley fantastic.
As is the guy playing the modern day Dick van dyke character......id even go as far as to say he stole the film from under Emily blunt. The kids are also very good and not annoying which is always a danger. Theres some good songs aswell

Negatives: Theres pretty much no real plot. I came out not really knowing what the whole thing was about. You could argue it doesnt matter about plot for a film like this but you just end up with dessert but no real substance. If they hadve come up with a meaty storyline this wouldve been the perfect film. As it stands its the lack of any strong narrative that lets it down.
Shame, couldve been so much better.

SteM

The young lad loves the original so we took him and my Mum to see it last Friday. 3 generations in the cinema, my Mum loved it and my son loved it. They're going back tomorrow to see it together. I think it's far too close to the original. Maybe the songs will stick over time but it's not up there with the original imo. The most effecting song for me was the one Michael sang in the attic about his late wife, saw a tear in my Mum's eye during that too.

homerun_homer

Johnny Ultimate sums it up perfectly. Mary Poppins was always like Sound of Music for me, in which I'd rarely have seen it in full (i.e. the first time I'd seen it) and just kept watching bits of it here and there every Christmas or so when it was on the telly. It certainly had great songs that I love from childhood but I knew there would be references lost on me in the sequel since I've not watched it as much, or in full as say... Willy Wonka.

I couldn't help but feel like Mary Poppins in this was a bit of a non-character. I came out of it thinking "what did she really do for the plot?".

The kite and what goes along with it obviously, but not sure the effect she has on the family compares to the first. I can't help but feel the father only remembers and believes in all his childhood experiences with her again because he got dug out of a tight spot, rather than having and enriching experience with her.

The songs are boring and not one earworm in the lot of them. Surely with the talent involved they could have worked up some magic there. Me and a lot of my family went on Christmas eve and all of them loved it so Disney at least are making people relish in the nostalgia, but it was lost on me and one sister.

I found it annoying that the plot centres on a father who couldn't find a cert when it's staring him in the face. I saw the picture on top of the box as the son went to move the box, and when he took it out I thought to myself "there's the maguffin right there".