Mary Poppins returns: Bleh

I just watched the new film about the return of Mary Poppins.

Bleh.

Emily Blunt was a very good Mary Poppins, (more like the dour Mary in the book, and not as bubbly as the Julie Andrews version). The problem? She doesn't get to do much. Her character sort of disappears in the story, both the "realistic" parts and the fantasy sequences.

The father is an "artist" and is losing his house because his wife payed all the bills, so he never got around to paying the mortgage. And we never see him working. (in the original film the father is a workaholic, who Mary Poppins and Bert teaches to remember that his kids are more important than his job).

We only see him whining: and relying on the kids, his sister and Mary Poppins to save him from his carelessness.

The subplot of the original is to make the father remember he is a father to his children. Here, the subplot of the father needs Mary to give him a kick in the chops and tell him to grow up, but never mind. Others manage to save him and his house, and all is well. But one wonders: Who is paying the bills next month?

The Bert/Jack character is the best character in the movie. He actually works for a living and has some good lines, cares for Mary and the children, and moves the plot along.

The plot makes one think they took the original movie and did a "shake and bake" version: same scenes done differently, even though they are from the later books.

 Teaparty on the ceiling? Change it to an upside down lady (which was in book two) but here seemed to be a distorted copy of the scene in the original film). Day at the races/picnic? Here, a sequence under the sea (book three). "step in time" sequence? Ditto...

No "Feed the birds" song, which taught them concern for the less fortunate.

Yes, the sister/aunt is a SJW for socialism, but we really don't see her doing much, do we? And remember: They have servants so they aren't too poor.

The songs are Meh. The only one I enjoyed was the ditty for the upside down lady, played by Meryl Streep who shows why she is famous for her dramatic (but not comedic) ability.

And the cinematography? Some scenes are okay, but again a lot of the scenes are the same muddy colours that I noted in two previous Disney films (wrinkle in time and Nutcracker).

One could argue that since the new film is set during the depression (as was the book, by the way), that the muddy scenery is realistic. I have two problems with that: Mary Poppins is not a realistic film, and the muddy cinematography and cluttered backgrounds were in the "fantasy" parts of the film.

Earth to Disney: If you want to invent a magical world, don't pretend it is realistic by making the sets ugly.

so should you see it? Well, there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours.

I give it three out of five stars: If you kids didn't see the original movie, they'll probably give it a five.

But it's not a classic, and it could have been.

Sigh.



or try the audiobook