Comments (45)Add a Comment
i thought this was a pretty good sequel. maybe not quite as good as the first one but still good nevertheless
Just a waste,Disney just wants money nothing else.There can and only will be one Mary Poppins,Julie Andrews.
Emily Blunt a great actress but not for this role,she can't sing.Sorry no stars.
couldnt even finishing watching it! this is proof that most movies do not need or should have a sequel.....
Waited a long time for this. Not as good as original with Julie Andrews. Great to see Dick Van Dyke do some soft shoe. Interesting to see a ladder mounted on lin-Manuel's bicycle to carry riders.
Big production, great work and performances throughout but strangely not compelling at all. Just about everything seems contrived. Ben Wishaw’s character is so bummed out and depressed that his good performance kind of drags the movie down with it. The screenplay and plot devices are clunky so the film never gets any rhythm and for me just didn’t work. This should have been an easy going romp but even the music was tedious. You could remember and almost sing every song from the original but I doubt anyone’s going to have that kind of luck with this one. No idea why they made this sequel or how they thought they were pulling it off. Maybe young kids will like it but it’s far darker than the original.
A good 2nd chapter to the original "Mary Poppins." The DVD even comes with a sing-along version so you can karoke along with the movie during the musicals. As an adult, I found the bonus material most interesting. Emily Blunt & Lin-Manuel Miranda were cast perfectly with the extra treat cameos from Meryl Streep, Dick Van Dyke, Angela Lansbury, and Colin Firth.
Unwatchable. Often distasteful. Not wholesome at all. My 4 year old who loves the original version calls this new continuation "the scary Mary Poppins".
Why Disney felt the need to twist and pollute such a genteel character (Ie. having Mary Poppins lifting up her skirt while singing of "Nellie Rubina" who's "roots were lush and green...when Mr Hickory saw her blossoms blooming...he took root despite her bark, and now there's seedlings everywhere")...well, the added sexual innuendos are downright lewd for a children's movie.
And apparently why Disney can no longer produce a clean plot line without adding stress/tension (ie. having the children kidnapped by wild-eyed demonic wolves and other such characters) is beyond me.
It seems that wholesomeness is dead simply to cater to the satirical interests of millenial parents.
We never made it to the end. Not worth the time.
To make a sequel several decades later with a new cast & pulling from original literature, & to score a whole-new soundtrack (accounting for music's evolution since Julie Andrews was 29 years old) seems pretty daunting. In my opinion, this stretch was achieved successfully to make a connection to, but also an original offshoot from the first movie. If one wanted a carbon copy of the first movie, that's not going to happen. But if you want an original with a highly talented cast & slightly varied story, that did happen. The only part I found untasteful was that the effects used (which are in deference to the original effects available at the time of the first movie) have a bit of a Roger-Rabbit look & synthetic feel that detract from the blithesome offer of the music itself.
I found Emily Blunt's performance both subtle & very elegantly executed, adding an emotional & empathetic side to the character that wasn't truly available in the first. She did a fantastic job, & I think Lin-Manuel Miranda's talents were excellently suited to his role.
A decently entertaining romp back into the world where a spoonful of sugar made the medicine go down under the London sky. I went into this movie with no expectation that it would be anywhere near as good as the first classic film, and I was right to.
Nonetheless, I still rather enjoyed myself. The songs, while not as catchy as the songs of the first film, were pleasant to the ear and very sweet, playing well with the story of this new generation of Banks children. Emily Blunt's performance as Mary Poppins was particularly excellent - one can easily see the similarities to Julie Andrews' performance, and yet Blunt had the presence and range to put her own stamp on the title character, and she did so very well. Dick Van Dyke's cameo in the final minutes also quite delighted me.
The sets were also very well done, particularly the Banks home. Clearly quite a lot of attention to detail was put in here, to remind us of the house that Jane and Michael knew when they were children, and yet with enough changes to remind us of the passage of time and that a new generation is in charge of the household now.
I think my favorite part was the animated sequence. I love that it was hand-drawn as another tribute/tie-in to the first film, and the whole sequence had me smiling and laughing. Very well done.
It was alright, but not as good as the original and none of the songs were as catchy.
I watched this movie specifically to see Dick Van Dyke. Sadly, I never made it to his scene. This movie is a big disappointment compared to the original. Think Disney should have just re-made the original. Very boring and convoluted.
This movie would have been much better if it was a remake of a movie. It was kind of weird in some scenes. I also hated how much Mary Poppins looked like Peggy Carter. The whole China bowl scene was weird too, especially when Lin Manuel Miranda is rapping in a British accent. And then the Fox is trying to kidnap the kids--WHY would Mary Poppins (of all people) put them in that kind of a situation!?!?!? It was also stupid how their maid said that the China bowl would be able to get them out of debt, but then the weird Russian cousin of Mary Poppins said the thing was worthless. Also they completely WASTED Dick Van Dyke. The worst part was when the chimney sweeps--I mean, the LAMPLIGHTERS-- were trying to go "back in time" and then Mary Poppins comes in at the last second. WHY DID SHE LET THE CHIMNEY-- I MEAN LAMPLIGHTERS-- ALMOST KILL THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF JUST HELPING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!
I didn't like this movie very much. It was way too similar to the first one which was so much better. It seems like they were just taking the original and switching it around. For example instead of a bird woman they had a balloon woman. Just wasn't that good.
A very well made and sometimes charming film that I would call Mary Poppin's Force Awakens. It is not really a sequel to the 1964 film but a beat for beat copy of the original much like the JJ Abram's film for Star Wars. Emily Blunt is quite good in the title role even though she can't project the warmth and charm the same way Julie Andrews could even when looking severe. If there is a downside it is probably the songs are quite forgettable and it reminds you of the genius of the Sherman Brothers who wrote such perfect and hummable songs in the first film. Also I miss the excellent character actors from 1964 who gave the film such brio and vigor compared to their new counterparts. Lin Manuel Miranda sports such a strange unplaceable accent along with a suprisingly subdued screen presence that Dick Van Dyke at 94 was able to upstage him easily in his small cameo. So not a perfect film but one with enough good moments to make it a decent watch.
This film exceeded my expectations and was quite entertaining. Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda gave solid performances. I will say that, vocally, Emily Blunt is no Julie Andrews but that's setting the bar pretty high and, also, the musical writing wasn't as good as the original.
I wasn't really a fan of Mary Poppins as a child, but watching this movie has convinced me to revisit it. I adore both Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda in general, and neither disappoints in their Mary Poppins Returns performance.
There is plenty to enjoy in the sequel to Mary Poppins. Emily Blunt is no Julie Andrews but her Mary Poppins is also practically perfect in every way and leads us and the new Banks children on extraordinary adventures as they try to save their house from the bank's greedy grasp.
Never saw Mary Poppins before, didn't think I'd like it, but it was quite delightful. I did zoom through the songs a few times.
I wanted to dislike it but I couldn't. It was excellent. Well done and not exactly like the first one but similar. I like the surprise character who shows up at the end. No spoiler.....
Great for families and kids or kids at heart.
A good follow-up to the classic movie. It's lovingly done and the acting is fine. The musical numbers are good but the songs don't quite measure up to the original. Still, it's definitely worth a look.
I'm very pleased and agree with a comment from May 16th.
In regard to how this was presented, remember we are in a different era, and
the plot went accordingly...with trying to vie for a viewing audience of the children of today.
The sequences of each song were very entertaining. We all know by now there will not be an Oscar here, but those in my home were happy with it.
Sad to say, I had high hopes for this one, but in the end couldn't even finish the movie. The plot was not 2+ hours worth of writing and just couldn't hold my attention.
Cute, but doesn't hold a candle to the original 1964 classic. Emily Blunt tries her best to channel her own 'Mary Poppins' but she often lacks the warmth and kindness of her predecessor, instead seeming more standoffish and prim; her scene where she speaks about 'where the lost things go' shows a glimmer of a warmer Mary, but not enough to carry the entire film.
Other highlights include a trip to the Royal Daulton Music Hall which comes from additional adventures in P.L. Travers' beloved series.
Watch and reminisce as you are reitnroduced to the grown-up children Mary Poppins originally entranced, as well as the incredible world that is entered into once more. We get to know more about Mary Poppins, and while the plot is not the strongest aspect of the film, the creativity, color, filmography, and pure delight make up for it. A wonderful sequel to the unsurpassed original, Mary Poppins Returns does appropriate homage to its' predecessor while at the same time colorfully taking on new life in the skilled hands of cast and crew. With subtle reminders of the original movie, as well as a plethora of guest stars (Dick Van Dyke, Meryl Streep, and Angela Landsbury are only a few), this is a delightful movie for fans of the original (as well as new fans) to enjoy. Perhaps the most satisfying moment is that of Dick Van Dyke's skillful dance number - done without aid by the talented 93 year old.
I really wanted to just love this movie. While it was entertaining, it was a little too dark & depressing, I thought. Some of the songs are wonderful, the others - not so much. Lin-Manuel Miranda's cockney accent leaves something to be desired. It just can't hold up to original, but they certainly tried. I really enjoyed seeing Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury, however.