Written by Aaron Radcliff:
When Mary Poppins Returns was announced, I could only think of one quote that was befitting of the occasion: “That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die.” Maybe it’s on account of the 54-year gap between the first Mary Poppins and the sequel, but whatever the reason, here we are now.
During the Depression, the Banks siblings, Michael and Jane (Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer) find themselves in a tough situation. While trying to care for Michael’s three children in the months following the death of Michael’s wife, they find the house is due to be repossessed by the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank and the family is left with five days to come up with the money. In their time of greatest need, the elder Banks’ former nanny, Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), returns to help teach everyone the importance of retaining their childhood and handling their grief.
The first film is widely loved thanks to Julie Andrews’ portrayal of the titular nanny. The biggest question heading into Returns is if Emily Blunt could hold her own when it came to the iconic role. Fortunately, she is one of the best parts of the film. When on screen, she seems like she was born to play the role. From the look to her singing to delivery, she nails it. It’s obvious that her Golden Globe and SAG nominations were not a fluke with her sassy and vibrant performance and it honestly wouldn’t be too surprising to see her name listed when it comes time for Oscar nominations. Yes I’m going there and yes I’m serious. She is more than able to stand toe-to-toe with Andrews.
Mary Poppins Returns also manages to excel thanks to the way it was shot. As seen in their prior team-ups (Chicago and Memoirs of a Geisha), director Rob Marshall and cinematographer Dion Beebe manage to bring an astounding amount of color and balanced visuals to the screen. They manage to make small atmospheres seem large and vice versa while the colors are the cherry on top. The darks manage to look dynamic (a phrase I didn’t expect to say for a children’s musical) and the brights pop off the screen. It truly is a very pretty movie to look at.
Unfortunately, this is where we start getting into some issues.
The musical numbers are hit-or-miss. Admittedly, none will be as memorable as Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, but there are a few that really sit well and are enjoyable. While Blunt can sing quite well as does Whishaw, I don’t feel the same for the others, as weird as that sounds with regard to Lin-Manuel Miranda (who plays the grown-up lamplighter, Jack). With someone as talented as him, I would’ve thought I’d find his performance more entertaining, especially in the musical numbers. He shows off his Broadway dance skills and there’s a segment in one song where he sings rapidly and it’s very impressive, but I’m otherwise put off by him. I think it’s the accent. Yes, the character is cockney, but the accent feels obviously fake and hammed up. I don’t want it to sound like I’m hating on LMM because he does a great job in the movie, but maybe a different accent would’ve been a better choice is all. Or, if the character MUST be cockney, maybe get an actor who can do it a little better.
There are also a couple of sequences that just drag on. I feel like a good 10-15 minutes could’ve been cut and we wouldn’t miss much.
However, the greatest issue I have is the story. I know that stories are occasionally second fiddle to the songs when it comes to musicals, but that’s not always the case. Unfortunately, it seems like the story is third or fourth fiddle. The story feels contrived and the “villain” is given little focus other than what can best be described as, “Capitalism. Am I right?”
While I’m not really a fan of the original (yes, I said it), that one at least felt like there was some sort of heart to the story. It felt like the characters had grown and learned to appreciate what they have and each other with everything else following along to illustrate it. Here, there’s a distinct lack of growth or even concern about the characters. You know how everything is going to turn out, so the movie instead decides to focus on the “experience” rather than any “message” it tries to present in the songs or story. Sure, you SEE the struggle and sadness without the mom around, but you don’t FEEL it. It never really feels like it’s something anyone thinks or even cares about until it’s convenient for the story. Overall, it seems like the visuals and songs try to compensate and will make the viewer feel like there’s a heart when really there’s just a pacemaker.
I didn’t dislike Mary Poppins Returns but I didn’t love it either. Blunt and the visuals, as fantastic as they may be, don’t do enough to make me forgive or forget the other issues. Much like The Greatest Showman, it feels like a movie more concerned with selling soundtracks. However, don’t think it’s a movie not worth seeing. If you loved the first, you’ll surely love this and there’s plenty here to get children invested and entertained despite feeling a bit padded out. It’s certainly worth taking the family to see this holiday season…unless you plan on being the contrarian and taking them to see Vice. I don’t think Mary Poppins has a spoonful of sugar big enough to help you swallow Dick Cheney.
Score: 6 out of 10
Images via Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
The Radcliff Reviews 
Leave a comment