Mary Poppins the Return

[DisneyHardin]

I enjoyed Returns. I thought it was a cute movie and well done.

 

[scrump]

...

Mary Poppins is one of my favorite movies ever. And she just didn't do the character justice at all. Julie played her as a softer person. Strict but soft. The softness and warmness just wasn't there.
...

I agree with this. I always thought there was a sadness to Mary Poppins when she leaves the Banks household in the original. A sense of fulfillment, but a wistfulness at leaving. I saw it mostly when I was a kid, and haven't seen it in a while, but that is my recollection, I could be wrong.

I wanted to like Returns, but didn't. I like Emily Blunt, but she felt transactional to me in the role.

 

[FindingTheMouse]

Mary Poppins in the books is actually more like the way Emily Blunt played it. Disney as is tradition with all their movies makes them more light-hearted and soft for kids and adults. Mary Poppins was written during the 30's and the character is meant to be rougher and a little more stern. Also Emily didn't want to replicate what Julie Andrews had done as she would be compared to her, so she played the role to resemble the books. You can't please everyone.

 

[Kaleidodad]

Completely disagree with the OP on this one. MPR is a wonderful sequel and homage to the original, hitting so many of those familiar notes but with a personality all its own. It actually took a re-watch for me to fully appreciate the new songs, but I would put several right up there with the originals.

 

[BrianL]

Returns is very nice, I enjoy it. Mary Poppins is #6 on the American Film Institute's Top 100 Musicals of all time. Not only is the original superior to Mary Poppins Returns, it is near the top of all musicals. Walt Disney, the cast, and the Sherman Bros were at the top of their game for Mary Poppins. It is pure Disney magic.

Yeah, I mean the original is a high bar to aspire to. I don't think Returns was quite as good, but it was still fun and enjoyable. If your measurement is that "it wasn't as good as the first one," well, not many movies are.

 

[luvsJack]

Mary Poppins in the books is actually more like the way Emily Blunt played it. Disney as is tradition with all their movies makes them more light-hearted and soft for kids and adults. Mary Poppins was written during the 30's and the character is meant to be rougher and a little more stern. Also Emily didn't want to replicate what Julie Andrews had done as she would be compared to her, so she played the role to resemble the books. You can't please everyone.

Here's the thing, at least for me. This is still a Disney movie. And Mary Poppins is an iconic character for Disney. If she had been playing Mary for a new movie by another company and played it more like she was in the books, fine. But this was supposed to be a sequel to the original MP movie with the same character from the original movie. Just doesn't seem like the time to change up the character.

It would be like making a sequel (not a remake, not a reboot, not a retelling) to Snow White and making the Evil Queen her bestie. No.

If someone wants to RETELL the story and change the character, those can be really good. But that isn't what this was.

 

[Jennasis]

I found it delightful.

 

[diser_fam]

So glad to know I didn’t miss anything. The clips I saw looked dreadful. I’m glad it bombed. Mary Poppins won’t return again anytime soon!

I'm not so sure I would say it bombed. The film brought in almost $350 million worldwide and AFI ranked it on it's Top 10 Movies of 2018. Also scored a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I liked it. Not as good as the original, but the original was a musical classic.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I liked it! It took on some of the content from the other books.... has anyone read all the books?

Yes! I remember when I found them as a kid, and how amazed I was that there was so much more to her story!

I enjoyed the new movie well enough, but it wasn't a real favorite for me. It's probably just the general difference in mood - fairly "normal" problems in the original vs. more tragic ones in the sequel.

And I know it's nearly impossible to top the Sherman brothers, but even compared to other more recent movies, the music didn't stick in my head in the same way. It was OK, though.

 

[BrianL]

I'm not so sure I would say it bombed. The film brought in almost $350 million worldwide and AFI ranked it on it's Top 10 Movies of 2018. Also scored a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I liked it. Not as good as the original, but the original was a musical classic.

Yeah, it wasn't a bomb, though it did deliver lower than expectations. Still, it's securely in the black, but I doubt we'll see another go at it for a while - probably a good thing actually.

 

[Kennywood]

As of last year, a sequel to "Mary Poppins Returns" was in development. Whether or not it will get out of the developmental stage is uncertain.

 

[John VN]

DW and I went into the theater with expectations of seeing a Mary Poppins movie that we had seen a bazillion times before. DW left the theater with her glass half empty due to unfulfilled expectations but she felt the movie was ok. I left the theater with my glass "half full" in that it was not what I expected or was hoping for BUT shortly after it began I realized that I had to adjust my expectations and view the movie on its own merits as if MPs with JA and DVD was never released.

I did enjoy the movie and will watch it when it is on TV and again and again ...

 

[starry_solo]

When it gets to Disney+, I will watch it.

 

[NotUrsula]

Oh, but it was a proper sequel, based on one of the later books in the series. That's the thing about Mary Poppins the character; she got darker as the children got older (and she was pretty darned snarky to start with; the script they gave Julie Andrews totally changed her from a mysterious, somewhat socially suspect taskmistress to a prettier, younger version of Cinderella's FGM.)

Walt whitewashed the heck out of Mary (AND the Banks family) in that film. Being raised by a mother who had been in service in the UK in the 30s, I found the Julie Andrews character one-dimensional. To me, watching the film as a child, the film version's very sweet and pretty nanny was at odds with the rather louche characters she claimed association with -- I smelled a con job, and kept waiting for the mask to fall away and reveal the real Mary behind it.

What strikes me as strangest since the sequel film came out is how much more modern and child-focused the Andrews Mary Poppins is, compared to the Blount version. It's almost as though they somehow made the politically-correct version first via sheer dumb luck. To this day I find the 1964 movie saccharine beyond bearing; it's so sugary it makes my teeth ache. (I'll grant that the original songs are certainly catchier than those in the sequel, but I'm not sure they are really better. Some of the new songs are rather refreshingly subversive.)

 

[Kennywood]

Well, there can really be only ONE Mary Poppins!