In Depression-era London, a now-grown Jane and Michael Banks, along with Michael's three children, are visited by the enigmatic Mary Poppins following a personal loss. Through her unique magical sk...
Mary Poppins Returns is not quite practically perfect in every way. A nostalgic trip down Cherry Tree Lane for older audiences, and a chance for newer generations to experience the whimsicality of the eponymous magical nanny. Whilst joyful and satisfyingly comforting, this remake disguised as a sequel is not quite "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". Michael and Jane Banks are now adults and are facing a crisis when their house is filed for repossession. Mary Poppins gets caught on a kite and teaches the children the importance of family and imagination (which in turn assists in the underlying situation). Producing a sequel to one of the most beloved musicals of all-time is quite the uphill challenge. Fortunately it's good. Unfortunately it's just good, and doesn't come close to matching the charm and quality of its predecessor. In an attempt to keep the same tone as 1960s musicals, director Marshall focuses on lavish production design and stylistic showstoppers to keep viewers entertained. Whether it be graciously diving into a bubble bath or a group of energetic lamplighters teaching children rhyming slangs. Its memorability (or lack of) comes from what is onscreen, however the issue with that is the absence of longevity. I can't fault the traditional hand drawn animation that sticks by the original film. I don't take issue with the fantastic choreography, particularly the lamplighter dance routine, which infectiously retained a grin on my face. But, give it a week, and I shan't remember it. There is no staying power. There's no substance to the imaginative design that has gone into this production. And with musicals comes songs. Shaiman and Whitman's songs might be catchy, but don't even come close to the Sherman Brothers' original songs. As the film concluded, I could not sing one song out of the handful available. There were no melodic or lyrical staying power to them, which is frustrating as the production values were there. There was one about "Imagine" and another about "London Sky", but both the lyrics and tunes have dissipated from my memory.
On the upside, the acting is a definite strength that gives Mary Poppins that much needed "spoonful of sugar". Blunt, whilst not onscreen for a great deal, gave a commanding interpretation of Travers' character. She may have succumbed to a few vanity issues, but she was prim, proper and powerful. Whishaw gave the best performance, injecting some much needed emotion and humanity into a story that relied on nonsense so to speak. And God bless Van Dyke and Lansbury for their performances. Absolutely loved watching them. The same can't be said about Miranda though, who seemed to be stuck in 'Hamilton' mode. Not all theatre actors, particularly of Broadway, can make the transition into film. I found his body movements exaggerated, dialogue execution irritating and his share of the runtime far too generous. Didn't connect with him in the slightest. Chimney sweeps are now lamplighters. The animated drawings have now been substituted for a china bowl. Mary Poppins lands, saves the day, and flies away. The exact same narrative, but with a few plot continuity details added. Magee's screenplay doesn't even try to differentiate itself from the masterful original, thus feeling more like a remake quenching the nostalgic thirst that audiences (apparently) acquired. Still, the return of Mary Poppins is a joyful experience that is sure to put a smile on your face, but with no lasting power it will be overshadowed quickly by its predecessor.
