Sequel? Reboot? A guaranteed nostalgia evoking film
Starring Emily Blunt, Emily Mortimer, Lin Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw and Colin Firth, Mary Poppins Returns acts as part sequel, part reboot and entirely a shootout to its predecessor.
The movie also sees Dick Van Dyke (Bert in the original) and Karen Dotrice (Jane Banks in the original) and Angela Lansbury make special appearances.
Mary Poppins Returns picks up 25 years after the events of Mary Poppins. Set in the 1930's depression London, the dark and gloomy mis en scene serves the purpose of setting the mood of the film as well as the time period post which the snow melts and before the first blooms of spring. All the "too dark" complaints are just preposterous.
The plot centres around the now fully grown Michael Banks and his three children, John, Annabel, Georgie Banks, their aunt Jane Banks and housekeeper Ellen. Michael has to pay off a loan amount in five days time. The Banks are struggling... They need help. Enter Mary Poppins.
She descends from the skies, slides up the banisters and helps the children enter a fantasy world where she plants seeds of ideas in their heads with various fantasy based activities.(No I'm not talking about Inception) She then helps the adults with a little bit of magic.
Children are more likely than adults to engage in escapism- the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.
Are all the escapades in the bath tub and the bowl just Mary Poppins telling the children stories? She is literally asking them "Can You Imagine?"
The children in the film engage in escapism, just like Michael and Jane did as children in the original. But now the parent Michael and aunt Jane dismiss such ideas of escapism. Why? The movie shows the evolution of children into adults.
Does that mean Mary Poppins isn't actually magic and only seeks to help others discover the magic through imagination?
Disney appear to have attempted to rectify the discrepancies between the way they presented Mary Poppins in 1964 to the way the character was presented in P.L.Travers series of novels.
Mary Poppins(Emily Blunt) seems a tad stern from Julie Andrews' version, yet it feels uplifting. She is practically perfect, repeatedly checking out her reflection and refuses to acknowledge the existence of a fantasy world. Her character seems exasperated when asked to join in the dancing and then consenting with a "oh very well."
Her presence on screen seems so reminiscent of Julie Andrews(though not so good, so as to make audiences think that this portrayal was better) as well as the Mary Poppins described to audiences by Emma Thompson's P.L.Travers in the film "Saving Mr. Banks." The rather frightening aspect is left out.
All the precursors point towards Emily Blunt receiving a nomination for The Academy Award for Actress in a Leading Role.
Lin Manuel Miranda's Jack the Lamplighter makes the audiences yearn for and miss Dick Van Dyke's Bert the chimney sweep from the original.
Good editing could have seen a good 25 minutes shorter runtime.
The movie could really have done without one of the songs for after the fourth or fifth musical number it just seems tedious to sit through them.
A really funny criticism of a musical. But neither is the music spectacular nor can one easily summon the lyrics from memory. The songs are good but fall way short when compared to songs from the original. Stuff like, "A spoonful of sugar", "supercalifragilisticexpialidocius", "Chim Chim Cheree" or even "Let's go fly a kite" which are still adored and would be adored had we heard them for the first time today.
To be honest, such songs will always be better than anything new as we have been hearing those songs for years. The songs had soul and meaning and were just delightful, unlike the present day where we are flooded with dozens and dozens of songs and "songs."
In the entire runtime I spotted just two songs that feature dialogue lyrics. One song was part of a completely unnecessary scene the other song "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" (I had to use Google to help me with the name) featured the best choreographed song of the movie. Though honestly based on the pattern of the movie, we could see it coming, the setting, the side characters and the way it would start.
If the songs couldn't have been edited out, then surely the unnecessary scene featuring Cousin Topsy (Meryl Streep) could've been done away with. We don't get any closure from that scene nor is it revisited at a later part in the film or relevant to the films climax. The film would have remained the same had that scene not been there and someone else given the two crucial lines in another scene.
Mary Poppins requires every second Tuesday off yet she was working on the day before the visit to Topsy's which was the second Wednesday. Does Mary Poppins forget to take her holidays?
Disney has yet again refrained from introducing Micahel and Jane's siblings, the twins John and Barbara Banks and their youngest sibling Annabel.
Dick Van Dyke' s cameo appearance is one of the moments of the movie that does not fade away with the end credits like the rest of the film would.
Nostalgia in the form of the almost non existent 2D animation and a few characters and even the progression of the story make the film a must watch for fans of the original. The film is also worth a watch for ones wishing to enjoy a light film with good visuals. Kids below 10 would enjoy it.
The acting performances are good, but the singing isn't on par with the original, but on it's own and watched as a standalone, it is a good movie.
P.S. Please do not watch the original immediately before watching this one as you will struggle to like this film. For it is abundantly clear that the magic of the predecessor cannot be recreated.
Rating: 3/5
Starring Emily Blunt, Emily Mortimer, Lin Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw and Colin Firth, Mary Poppins Returns acts as part sequel, part reboot and entirely a shootout to its predecessor.
The movie also sees Dick Van Dyke (Bert in the original) and Karen Dotrice (Jane Banks in the original) and Angela Lansbury make special appearances.
Mary Poppins Returns picks up 25 years after the events of Mary Poppins. Set in the 1930's depression London, the dark and gloomy mis en scene serves the purpose of setting the mood of the film as well as the time period post which the snow melts and before the first blooms of spring. All the "too dark" complaints are just preposterous.
The plot centres around the now fully grown Michael Banks and his three children, John, Annabel, Georgie Banks, their aunt Jane Banks and housekeeper Ellen. Michael has to pay off a loan amount in five days time. The Banks are struggling... They need help. Enter Mary Poppins.
She descends from the skies, slides up the banisters and helps the children enter a fantasy world where she plants seeds of ideas in their heads with various fantasy based activities.(No I'm not talking about Inception) She then helps the adults with a little bit of magic.
Children are more likely than adults to engage in escapism- the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.
Are all the escapades in the bath tub and the bowl just Mary Poppins telling the children stories? She is literally asking them "Can You Imagine?"
The children in the film engage in escapism, just like Michael and Jane did as children in the original. But now the parent Michael and aunt Jane dismiss such ideas of escapism. Why? The movie shows the evolution of children into adults.
Does that mean Mary Poppins isn't actually magic and only seeks to help others discover the magic through imagination?
Disney appear to have attempted to rectify the discrepancies between the way they presented Mary Poppins in 1964 to the way the character was presented in P.L.Travers series of novels.
Mary Poppins(Emily Blunt) seems a tad stern from Julie Andrews' version, yet it feels uplifting. She is practically perfect, repeatedly checking out her reflection and refuses to acknowledge the existence of a fantasy world. Her character seems exasperated when asked to join in the dancing and then consenting with a "oh very well."
Her presence on screen seems so reminiscent of Julie Andrews(though not so good, so as to make audiences think that this portrayal was better) as well as the Mary Poppins described to audiences by Emma Thompson's P.L.Travers in the film "Saving Mr. Banks." The rather frightening aspect is left out.
All the precursors point towards Emily Blunt receiving a nomination for The Academy Award for Actress in a Leading Role.
Lin Manuel Miranda's Jack the Lamplighter makes the audiences yearn for and miss Dick Van Dyke's Bert the chimney sweep from the original.
Good editing could have seen a good 25 minutes shorter runtime.
The movie could really have done without one of the songs for after the fourth or fifth musical number it just seems tedious to sit through them.
A really funny criticism of a musical. But neither is the music spectacular nor can one easily summon the lyrics from memory. The songs are good but fall way short when compared to songs from the original. Stuff like, "A spoonful of sugar", "supercalifragilisticexpialidocius", "Chim Chim Cheree" or even "Let's go fly a kite" which are still adored and would be adored had we heard them for the first time today.
To be honest, such songs will always be better than anything new as we have been hearing those songs for years. The songs had soul and meaning and were just delightful, unlike the present day where we are flooded with dozens and dozens of songs and "songs."
In the entire runtime I spotted just two songs that feature dialogue lyrics. One song was part of a completely unnecessary scene the other song "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" (I had to use Google to help me with the name) featured the best choreographed song of the movie. Though honestly based on the pattern of the movie, we could see it coming, the setting, the side characters and the way it would start.
If the songs couldn't have been edited out, then surely the unnecessary scene featuring Cousin Topsy (Meryl Streep) could've been done away with. We don't get any closure from that scene nor is it revisited at a later part in the film or relevant to the films climax. The film would have remained the same had that scene not been there and someone else given the two crucial lines in another scene.
Mary Poppins requires every second Tuesday off yet she was working on the day before the visit to Topsy's which was the second Wednesday. Does Mary Poppins forget to take her holidays?
Disney has yet again refrained from introducing Micahel and Jane's siblings, the twins John and Barbara Banks and their youngest sibling Annabel.
Dick Van Dyke' s cameo appearance is one of the moments of the movie that does not fade away with the end credits like the rest of the film would.
Nostalgia in the form of the almost non existent 2D animation and a few characters and even the progression of the story make the film a must watch for fans of the original. The film is also worth a watch for ones wishing to enjoy a light film with good visuals. Kids below 10 would enjoy it.
The acting performances are good, but the singing isn't on par with the original, but on it's own and watched as a standalone, it is a good movie.
P.S. Please do not watch the original immediately before watching this one as you will struggle to like this film. For it is abundantly clear that the magic of the predecessor cannot be recreated.
Rating: 3/5
No comments:
Post a Comment