First, a warning: Mary Poppins lives very close to my heart and is quite emotional for me. So when they’d announced in 2017 that they were going to do something with the Mary Poppins story, I was apprehensive. Really apprehensive. I didn’t want Hollywood ruining it like they’d ruined Willy Wonka.
However, when the first trailer dropped a few months ago, it excited me. Not just because it looked good, but because it seemed like they’d done it right. They kept the things that made Mary Poppins unique and quintessential.
I’m happy to say that I wasn’t disappointed. There were many, many nods to the original film, which I always love in sequels. In the Banks home, Mary takes the up-banister again to get to the second floor, sending her carpetbag and talking parrot umbrella to float and meet her at the top. The children’s beds are identical to the originals, with their white pipe frames (although there is one additional, of course). And the choreography of the lamplighters’ dance was so very reminiscent of the chimney sweeps! All of these little touches made it feel as if they were respectful of the original, giving homage to it often.
Photo courtesy of the Walt Disney Company
But it was also a distinctly modern movie. The original was about reminding Mr. Banks that there are more important things in life than working, about finding the joy and silliness that is in the world around us all the time. And this sequel tried for that same message for Michael Banks, the son from the original, who is facing foreclosure on his home after the death of his wife.
And that message would have been fine, but it seems that modern movies must have a bad guy. It can’t just be about overcoming modern apathy or re-prioritizing relationships over work. There must be someone to blame.
In this case, it is Colin Firth as William Weatherall Wilkins, the nephew of Mr. Dawes, Jr. (played by Dick van Dyke). Wilkins is foreclosing on Michael’s house, but there’s no good reason given in the film, aside from being a “greedy banker” (and even that excuse isn’t explicit, but inferred).
It is almost as if creating a bad guy was an afterthought. Perhaps they’d run focus groups and weren’t getting the results on the general “find joy in the world” message that they were looking for. As such, this original message about finding joy in life felt diluted. The movie was no longer about reclaiming child-like wonder, but about defeating/outsmarting the bad guy. Because the focus was split and the bad guy’s motivations didn’t make much sense, neither message of the film felt particularly strong, which is a shame.
This bad-guy theme also caused the film’s cohesion to suffer as well. The magical bits (which were quite lovely) felt disjointed plot-wise, as if they were just strung together in a random mishmash, with the bad-guy aspects tacked onto the last half of the story.
I found the music to be hit or miss. Some of the songs I enjoyed very much, but others either fell flat for me or seemed to be trying too hard. The one in the dance hall, “A Cover is Not the Book” feels like it was made to be the “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” of the sequel but it doesn’t quite get there, sadly.
However, “The Place Where the Lost Things Go,” set in the nursery when Mary comforts the children who were missing their mother, was a beautiful song.
Another notable song, but one that may not really be noticed much, was Michael’s speech-as-song when he is in the attic and also missing his wife as well as lamenting on having to raise their children on his own. His sadness and his fear that he can’t do it without her is very clear and tugs at the heartstrings. While I am not a parent, it still got me right in the feels.
I will likely buy the soundtrack so that I can listen to all of the songs with more intent.
The animation was probably the most nostalgic thing in the entire film! Fans of the original will see the barnyard animals in the balcony seats of the music hall and of course the penguins make an appearance! I was so pleased that they went with the 2D animation rather than something more modern! I feel like this was the biggest tip of the hat they gave to the original and it was a great decision.
The acting was absolutely spot-on, and I adored all the guest actors. Meryl Streep was very funny as cousin Topsy. And I have to admit, I actually clapped and squealed when Dick van Dyke made his appearance. The fact that the 90-year-old actor got up on that giant desk and danced all on his own made me feel a little bit better about aging — not the purpose of the movie, but something amazing, nonetheless!
Mary Poppins Returns isn’t the original, of course. It will likely not be the iconic film of the day as the original was, either. And that’s okay. It pays respectful homage to the original while creating a new story for people to enjoy. Overall, I’m happy with the movie and will watch it again and likely buy it when it’s released online. (Who does DVDs anymore?)
And I’m relieved that my tender heart was not broken.
I agree! I found the film very charming. At first I was startled by the new songs, but I think it was the right choice to not try to recreate the magic of the songs from the original (especially since no one else has a voice like Julie Andrews). I liked that they used the original songs as instrumental transitional music, and I loved all the connecting touches you named. It really felt like a fan’s movie – there was such a deliberate effort to parallel the beats of the original closely, but to recast each big musical number in a fresh way.
I didn’t mind the outside villain as much as you did – it had the advantage of making Michael more sympathetic throughout than George Banks was, and less of a caricature. (Although, of course, Colin Firth’s evil banker takes on that caricature role.)
I thought Emily Blunt was excellent, really embodying the spirit of Mary Poppins without trying to be a clone of Julie Andrews. Her facial expressions were gold throughout.