Mary Poppins Returns: Review

On the one hand, Mary Poppins Returns appears (initially) to make a set of brilliant decisions.

When I first heard about the film, I feared it would be another of Disney's strict retellings. I deem retold Cinderella a success. Beauty & the Beast: not so much.

The original Mary Poppins, with Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke (whatever his accent), is simply not replaceable.

When my viewing of DVD Mary Poppins Returns began, I was inexpressibly relieved that the movie showcased a new generation. "How smart! A fresh selection of Poppins's adventures!"

The reunion between Mary Poppins & grown-up

Jane and Michael is quite touching.

As for the casting, if anyone can replace Julie Andrews, Emily Blunt would be my choice too. She has the presence, the look, and even a hint more sarcasm.

In fact, the entire adult cast is impressively well-cast (and deserved more screentime).

On the other hand . . .

There's sort of a plot--but it's hard to tell when it seems so perfunctory. Travers's books, of which I am not terribly fond, are nevertheless packed with adventures. Disney appears to have used almost none of this available material--choosing instead to recycle the previous adventures in new guises.

As a consequence, one of the weirdest negatives to the film is the CGI. It's oddly less satisfying than the older special effects. Those original special effects--cartoon figures at a racetrack; dancing relatives on the ceiling--were charming. The CGI in Mary Poppins Returns is very, uh, CGI-ish. I think the intent was to remind viewers of the original, only updated and cooler using slightly different scenarios!

The result is that I kept wondering why I wasn't watching the original film.

I do have to praise the opening flag sequence in Mary Poppins Returns. It is impressive and even touching (and one of Travers's ideas).

Unfortunately, after the flag sequence, it rather feels like CGI is being shoved into the viewers' faces--without the satisfaction of it being new and unique. It would have been more impressive if this Mary Poppins had tried a tad more magical realism. (Hey, the balloon sequence isn't bad--I believe this is also one of Travers's.) Instead, the movie reaches "let's see if we can shove more animation into this song" levels of tedium.

Seriously. I got bored--which isn't a good sign.

So what about the main plot? Trying to save the family home?

I also didn't care. Why shouldn't the family go live somewhere else? People adjust. They move on. They learn to adapt. Isn't that a better message for today's youth than whatever this movie is trying to do?

On the other other hand, having Angela Lansbury show up? Perfect. Do she and Dick Van Dyke ever truly age (in their hearts)?

Speaking of Dick Van Dyke--showing up to play a character reminiscent of one of his previous characters but now his actual current age? Wow!

Besides, I don't care what anyone says about Bert, I still consider "A Man Has Dreams" one of the single best exchanges in any movie ever.