Mary Poppins Returns (2018 Film) Review
"Mary Poppins Returns" is set twenty-five years after the first film. A grown-up Michael Banks has been depressed by the recent death of his wife. With his father's house being threatened with foreclosure by the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank, Mary Poppins returns to bring happiness back to his life as well as his three children.
Emily Blunt fills the shoes of Mary Poppins this time around while Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer play the adult Michael and Jane Banks. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, and Joel Dawson play Michael's children, Annabel, John, and Georgie. Playing all new characters are Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack and Colin Firth as William "Weatherall" Wilkins, the new president of the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank.
"Chicago," "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," and "Into the Woods" director, Rob Marshall, directed "Mary Poppins Returns. Marshall, John DeLuca, and Marc Platt produced the film. The screenplay was written by David Magee. The film was adapted from P. L. Travers's four "Mary Poppins" novels. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributed "Mary Poppins Returns."
Introduction
Well, of course, I love "Mary Poppins." It's one of the best Disney films ever made, animated and live-action. So, as you imagine, I have a hard time reasoning why Disney would want to make a sequel to it. I mean, the studio's certainly not in any need of financial success and if it's because there are more books, they could've adapted those decades ago. Why only now produce a sequel? I guess that you could argue that Disney waited so long to get the technology to where it needs to be, but the technology used for the 1964 film worked perfectly for the story being told. I have a hard time thinking that this sequel would deviate from what the original did in a technical aspect. What puzzles me even more is that they handed the directing gig to Rob Marshall, the man behind the fourth "Pirates of the Caribbean" film and "Into the Woods." While the two films are not terrible, Marshall is not the man I would have picked to make the sequel to, perhaps, the most beloved Disney film ever made.Considering its bountiful awards nominations of late, I'm feeling optimistic about this sequel. I like Emily Blunt, I hope that she doesn't try to imitate what Julie Andrews did in the original film. I don't expect the film to be better than the first, but I hope that it will be a worthy follow-up. Is "Mary Poppins Returns" just that? A worthy successor?
Overall Thoughts
I'm sorry to say this, but no. Sadly, "Mary Poppins Returns" is not even a worthy follow-up to "Mary Poppins." As someone who really loved the first film, this sequel didn't do it for me. It's main problem is that it's too much like the first. Not in set-up and design, but in execution. The narrative that made "Mary Poppins" so brilliant has now become a formula. I'm not going to, but I could spend my time going into detail how similar this sequel is structured to the first. Step by step, it's almost like watching the first, but with different actors, updated production design, and new songs. I would like to say that it was still entertaining to watch, but it sometimes wasn't. In addition to following a similar pattern, the filmmakers also suck the fun out of it. You look at the first and marvel at how the camera movements made all the costumes and set design pop, but while it has the wonderful costumes and sets, the camera moves are flat and lack excitement.Throughout the story, though almost like a play-by-play of the first, director Rob Marshall adds new elements in this sequel. However, they're inclusions that don't work within this established world. For example, this sequel includes such a chase sequence and a "beat the clock" climax. I don't know, whenever I think of "Mary Poppins," chase scenes and a climax don't come to mind. Their inclusion doesn't work in a story like this. They come out of nowhere and don't fit within the tone of the film. Tonally, the film's inconsistent and that had an effect on its pacing. Sure, the first "Mary Poppins" was no fast-paced film either, but it used up every minute to help tell its story in a meaningful way. Scenes like the middle-act chase pad the runtime. I could see the thinking behind it, but it ultimately serves no purpose in the story. You could cut those scenes out and the film would flow better and be more entertaining.
On a more positive note, the sequel does share the same magic and wonder that was in the first, albeit inconsistently. The set design and costumes are fantastic. All of the actors are in the most dazzling costumes. The vibrancy of all the colors were downright beautiful. There, it felt like the sequel was evolving on the accomplishments of the first, rather than repeating them. The sequel is not without its emotional, tearjerking moments. This isn't a spoiler since he's in the trailers, but Dick Van Dyke's cameo was one such example. What he says elicits tears of joy, but the very fact that he's in the film will make you cry. In the original film, Dyke, along with playing Burt, donned makeup to play the head of the bank, Mr. Dawes Sr. In this sequel, he comes back to play Mr. Dawes Sr.'s son, Mr Dawes Jr., but without the additional makeup. It's heartwarming in a special way, adding to the film's emotional core. There were many instances where they pulled off the emotional scenes so well that I was disappointed that the entire film wasn't as well-crafted as them.
The Cast
I love Emily Blunt, but Mary Poppins was the wrong role for her because she fails to make it her own. Any actress would have had this problem. In Blunt's case, she actually tries to be as close to Julie Andrews as she can. Instead of merely continuing what Andrews did and moving the role in a new direction, Blunt opts to imitate Andrews's performance. Again, the original film's narrative structure is now a formula, so Blunt is forced to act in a way similar to how Andrews did. I watched the original film before and after seeing this sequel and Blunt imitates everything that Andrews did to great success. Though she does it well, I would have liked her better if she did things differently as Mary Poppins. Going in, Blunt seemed to be talented enough to do it, but everything she did as Mary Poppins reminded me of what Julie Andrews did.
It's funny to me that for all the flak people give Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent from the original "Mary Poppins," here Lin-Manuel Miranda is as Jack having his own cockney accent. Personally, I loved Bert regardless of his inaccurate accent and I loved Jack, despite his accent not being up to snuff. From his first scene, Miranda paints a charming character. As Jack, Miranda finally gets to exercise his musical talents in person and he excels at it. The writing for the character is weak. The character of Jack is only Miranda putting on an accent and singing and dancing to jolly and upbeat songs. He doesn't have much of a distinct character. He's a good-natured fellow, nothing more. I think that the film could've defined him a bit more, but as is, while being similar to Dick Van Dyke's Bert, Lin-Manuel Miranda brought his own sense of liveliness to Jack, upping the film's entertainment value whenever he showed up.
Ben Whishaw is one of those actors that I love more and more each movie I see him in. Without a doubt in my mind, he is the best part of "Mary Poppins Returns." With a little help from the script, Whishaw nails the role of a grown-up Michael Banks who has lost all sense of happiness in his life. His delivery is on-point, you feel the actor's passion for his role, and you see that dedication come through his performance. On many occasions, Michael's feelings represented my feelings. Whenever Michael's happy, he made me happy. Whenever he was sad, he made me sad. Whishaw goes about his screen time ruling the material given to him and executing it to perfection. Sadly, he's not in the film as much as I would have hoped, but he still dominates the film overall. Now an adult, Jane proved to be a more hopeful individual and Emily Mortimer recaptures the wide-eyed personality that Karen Dotrice once brought to the part. Certainly, she's matured, but if you were to tell me to connect the two versions of the character, I'd have an easy time doing so. While Jane herself is less important to the plot, Mortimer makes her inclusion one not to be missed. She spreads joy when there's little be found and Mortimer's rapport with Whishaw sells their characters relationship as brother and sister.
Finally, we have the new generation of Banks children. Where the first film struck gold finding the right child actors to play Jane and Michael, this film is less fortunate as the three child actors chosen for the parts of Annabel, John, and Georgie are not as gifted in their acting. They're not bad per se, but the three actors don't provide their characters with any personality traits that make them distinct individuals. Kind of like Huey, Dewey, and Louie Duck, the trio of children blend together because they're always thinking the same thing with the same goals in mind. Not one of them expresses any views or opinions that make them interesting or even different from one another. The performances were fine, but I was far more interested in the other characters.
They're still better than Colin Firth, who plays a paint-by-numbers, mustache-twirly antagonist. "Mary Poppins" proved that this type of story didn't require an antagonist, but here this sequel is with a villain who is the definition of generic. He lacks true motivation and his actions make the film hard to sit through because we've seen this type of villain over and over again. Firth is talented. You put him in a role like this and he's not able to save it because it's tired and not written well in the slightest. It's exactly similar to how Hugo Weaving fared in "Mortal Engines." I love the two actors, but their villain roles are too one-dimensional that it's hard to watch.
Music
"Mary Poppins" has one of the best musical scores of all time. It goes without saying that "Mary Poppins Returns" wouldn't surpass it, but while the songs here are far from memorable, they did capture the essence of Mary Poppins.
Most of them, at least. There was one that did not work. This song involves Lin-Manuel Miranda rapping. Yes, you read that right. Lin-Manuel Miranda raps in a film that takes place in 1935. It doesn't quite fit into the rest of the film, but the others do and they're great because of it.
Thankfully, instead of reusing the Sherman Brothers's original music, Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman create new music that capture the spirit of the duo's earlier work. It blends the music of the time with the same sense of timelessness that was in the original film's score. Again, with the exception of Lin-Manuel Miranda's bit where he raps his song. Still, this whole soundtrack makes you feel like you're returning to an old home. It capitalizes on your nostalgia while giving you something new to enjoy and writing that sentence makes it unfortunate that I'm giving this movie the following grade.
Grade: C+
Despite some fabulous performances, gorgeous costumes and sets, "Mary Poppins Returns" is a formulaic sequel, featuring wholly unnecessary elements that will make you realize how better the original film is.
Having given it a C+, there's still a chance that you might love this film. So even though I personally didn't love it, I still recommend seeing it. If you're a casual moviegoer and are wanting to see something in theaters, this isn't the one. There's far better options currently out that you should see instead, such as "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse," "Aquaman," or "Bumblebee." It's still worth seeing, just not in theaters, but sometime later on when it's available to rent. If you're a die-hard fan of "Mary Poppins," you're obviously going to want to see this film. Maybe you have already.
Conclusion
This has been my review of "Mary Poppins Returns." I look forward to hearing your thoughts, both on my review and the film itself if you've seen it. Feel free to suggest a film for me to review next. Thanks for reading, I'm Dallin, your resident Film Fanatic, and I'll be back soon with another editorial.
Comments
Post a Comment