Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 1 - 10 of 10

frankqb's avatar


A few points on this remake in sequel's clothing:

1. Lacking 99% the charm of Julie Andrews, Emily Blunt tries her best, but often comes off as short-tempered, narcissistic and uncaring. Lin-Manuel Miranda is a great stand-in for Dick Van Dyke, but isn't as interesting or as funny.

2. The songs are (mostly) lovely, but they are only vaguely memorable.

3. It's clear from the opening pre-credits number that the film was a bit of a structural mess, but each scene is fine for editing. I'm not sure they knew how to piece all the bits together.

4. The Poppins magic is lost by talking about the Poppins magic. Leave it all a mystery, instead it's made into this tangible thing that is given an explanation despite claiming no explanation is needed.

5. I have never seen Colin Firth so bored-looking.

6. While the original was notable for its fun sub-plot-like adventures, this film really does turn these sub-plots into mini adventures, but some are completely illogical and irrelevant (not in the fun Mary Poppins way, but rather in a "I'm a movie executive, and i demand a chase sequence and a love story" kind of way). One major subplot is actually left unresolved, and if you think about it, it's all Mary Poppin's fault spoiler

It's all a little too anti-septic, too calculated. The joy of "Mary Poppins" was the unpredictability mixed with confident charm. Instead, we see the entire resolution to the plot in the opening 30 mins and then wait for the characters to catch up. The emotional metaphors mixed up in this hugely foreshadowed plot are thin at best. spoiler

All in all, it's fine, I just wish it took more risks, but there's merchandise to sell.

2 stars out of 5
5 years 3 months ago
peterskb45's avatar


I've never seen so many men pole-dancing in a movie since Magic Mike.
5 years 3 months ago
Rodolfo's avatar


A remake in sequel's clothing is a perfect description.
5 years 3 months ago
chunkylefunga's avatar


Pretty average, nice but forgettable songs. Andrews > Blunt.

Remake in sequel's clothing.
5 years 3 months ago
boulderman's avatar


It tries to create the feel, great effort, but the story, partially, and the fit doesn't quick click. Obviously I am no longer a child and not sure how to improve it. I think deeper characterisation would have been fascinated. Instead of immersion, they went for looks/visuals, not inviting me in.
4 years 9 months ago
Siskoid's avatar


Emily Blunt makes a great Mary Poppins in the original musical's belated sequel Mary Poppins Returns. I was immediately wanting her to be Doctor Who and put the same spin on the role. That's my standard, I'm sorry. In many ways, this film is similar to Christopher Robin earlier this year. It follows up on an old children's book/film, catching up with its child protagonists now all grown up and in urgent need of reconnecting with those childhoods. And it's saddled with a money troubles-type plot only adults will get, though not necessarily care about. But Mary Poppins is a more lively film, with memorable songs, cool dance numbers, and great-looking fantasy sequences, so the banking stuff (which I admit was also part of the original) isn't as much of a drag on the film. It hits a lot of notes old fans want it to, but isn't opaque to those few souls who haven't been touched by the original. While I can only rave about Blunt (and hope they decide to do at least one more movie with her - there were eight books after all), the film's MVP is really Ben Whishaw as the grown Michael who is touching as all get out trying to escape his genetic imperative to become just like his father. Whatever its weaknesses - why do people keep giving singing roles to Meryl Streep? - Mary Poppins Returns overcomes them, largely because everyone's having so much fun, on screen as much as in the audience.
5 years 3 months ago
Emiam's avatar


Not as good as the one from 1964. It is clear that it is difficult for Blunt to take over after Julie Andrews' classic role interpretation and singing, even though her voice is surprisingly good. But in-depth characters, more memorable song numbers (I remember mainly one, the introductory one), a lot of "surface" in money-raising quick production, sniffing small short events instead of a longer in-depth coherent story & the fact that they forgot to sort out a subplot around a soup bowl (do not want to spoil more), lowers the rating. Otherwise, of course, the Disney-cozy environments and costumes are there.
3 years 6 months ago
danisanna's avatar


There's no replacement for Mary Poppins legacy, nor is there for Julie Andrews' performance as Mary Poppins. There's no use comparing them because it's set up to fail from the beginning.

Judging this as a just another movie ... catchy tunes, sweet story and all round heartwarming movie. I liked it.
1 year 6 months ago
xianjiro's avatar



oh. yeah

4 years 11 months ago
Armoreska's avatar


Mary ought to learn in 2019 that balloons cause pollution, especially if you let them fly off.
4 years 9 months ago
View comments