Mary Poppins Returns Reviews
WHAT I LIKED:
- Visually beautiful. The Mary Poppins story told with 2018 special effects adds the perfect touch to make the fantasy scenes truly spectacular.
- The animated scene in the bowl was particularly well done using a great vintage animation-style you don't see often any more. I especially liked the hand-drawn style of the wardrobe in that scene.
- Emily Blunt is superb with impossible shoes to fill. But she is the perfect balance of serious and playful.
- The costumes and set design over-all were very well done. The movie was a visual treat the entire time.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
- These characters are all VERY quick to just accept Mary Poppins is here for apparently no reason. No one was trying to hire a nanny. The kids seem to have been very independent for quite some time. It's all rather random.
- Meryl Streep's scene was a complete waste-of-time, except to give her an excuse to be cartoonishly over-the-top.
- I didn't care about ANY of the songs! The best part of the original was the catchy songs burned in our brains. I couldn't name one song from the new one as I left the theater. Nothing to sing along to, no "Step In Time" or "Spoonful of Sugar." All I picture in my head is endless singing aboutÔŽ whatever. Just didn't stick. This is perhaps the biggest failure of the movie. Looked great but I just didn't connect with any of the songs. It's a musical following one of the most beloved family musicals of all time, and they made forgettable songs no one will remember. It is no surprise that none of the songs in this movie got nominated for any awards.
- The forced integration was a little blatant. I agree movie casts need to be more diverse. But this really felt like shoehorning in people of color in to 1930s England just to fill some kind of quota.
- Obsession with the bank and money was the opposite of the original. What happened to enjoy life? Now it's be smarter about your finances? And Mary Poppins didn't solve anything. She merely distracted the children from bothering their father from searching for a stock note. In the end, money falls from nowhere and we're done. Huh?
- The father, Michael, claimed to be an artist but they showed no interest in art or pursuing that as a career. How did he survive that long with three kids? Where is his art? Why does HE need to be reminded to enjoy life? He's already is living creatively according to him, but has to work in the bank part time. He doesn't quit his job in the end or become a better artist. Their problems just go away and all is well. Pointless.
I imagine this movie will be forgotten just like "Return to Oz" and more recently "Oz" have both faded in to obscurity instead of building on a classic. Instead of mining classic movies from 55 years ago, an original movie would have been a better way to go. Then there would be no pressure of living up to the original. Ultimately it was just too much to live up to and it didn't make it.