Saturday, December 29, 2018

‘Mary Poppins Returns’: Practically Unnecessary in Almost Every Way


     Creating a sequel to an iconic classic film is no easy task and is one that will be met with ridicule from the second it is attempted. When done right however, it could lead into a movie that not only brings back the original into the public consciousness, but also find a way to bring new depth and life into the original film. When done wrong, it just proves the point of the people against the idea of creating a follow-up that some films should just be a standalone movie and nothing more. Unfortunately, Disney’s attempt at a follow-up to a classic falls into the ladder category as Mary Poppins Returns feels completely unnecessary. It is a movie that does have some talent behind it and fortunately showcased, but efforts feel wasted with a script that couldn’t be saved with the amount of decent talent brought on to this film.
Maybe a Sequel, But Feels like a Remake

     Mary Poppins Returns take place many years after the original with Michael Banks grown up and struggling to keep his house and have his children live a happy life. Due to this, his childhood magical nanny Mary Poppins comes back to help give a little magical adventure to his children along with helping himself discover the childlike wonder he has forgotten about. Now the set-up for Mary Poppins Returns does sound fairly similar to the first movie, just with certain roles being rather reverse, and it does which tends to be a huge issue with many sequels out there. Rather than expanding upon the idea and continuing the story with the same characters to where they develop further as characters, the film unfortunately just feels like a rehash of the original Mary Poppins. It plays nearly all the same beats the original movie made making it feel too familiar and safe. Parallels to the original are fine at points and luckily there are some parallels between this film and its predecessor that do work including a very nice song by Michael Banks, in the beginning. However the film never once adds anymore depth to the original movie in subtle and unique ways that the original already did. The writing of this movie just makes it feel like they didn’t have any original ideas to add on to Mary Poppins and what they do add are some of the most cliché and uninspired things seen in a film in quite some time. Most notably a third act chase scene that feels so forced and unlike anything in a movie as timeless as Mary Poppins that it nearly kills any charming element this movie attempted to have. Even taking the new elements that fail miserably out of it, this film’s use of recreating the story of Mary Poppins feels so desperately like it wants to create that same magic the original gave us, but just fails because we have the original. The original could never be recreated even if you tried, and this just proves that point entirely.
Good Cast Makes Best of Weak Script

     Considering how long ago Mary Poppins was made, of course a new cast had to fulfill a good majority of the roles that were so iconic in the original. Thankfully the film does have a decent cast that is doing their best with the material, with the real issue being that they’re trying to live up to what the performances of the original film was. Emily Blunt is a talented actress and also a very talented singer, and she does a decent job of recreating the performance that Julie Andrews did as the iconic character. She has personality and as mentioned earlier, her singing voice does sound absolutely lovely during the musical numbers. The downside though, even though Blunt gives a decent performance, it’s sort of plague by her not having the same amount of energy and emotional Andrews did, especially prevalent in the musical numbers. Something about Blunt’s performance doesn’t feel as alive and she doesn’t seem like she’s having nearly as much fun with the role as Julie Andrews did in the original film. Lin Manuel Miranda also serves in the film as the Bert character Dick Van Dyke was in the original. His role is rather confusing as the film never expands upon how he is connected to Poppins herself that well, but Miranda does give a lot of charisma to the role, and you can’t help but smile every time he appears on screen. Ben Winshaw and Emily Mortimer are also very charming in their roles as Jane and Michael Banks, but the writing failed to make them really expand on their characters outside of them mostly learning the lessons their parents learned in the original film. Legendary actors Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury make an appearance in this film and it is great to see such iconic legends appear in a movie like this again, but again the writing makes it weaker. Dick Van Dyke’s appearance is mostly there as a Deus Ex Machina for the film’s plot and Lansbury’s role was so obviously written for a different actress; you can’t help but have that thought in your head when watching it. However, nowhere in the film has the writing failed as much as it had than it is with Colin Firth’s character in this sequel. Colin Firth is a fine actor and does his best, but the character is one of the most uninspired cliché villains to ever appear in a film in recent memory. There’s no development, arch or any sense of an actual person that Firth plays in this movie outside than a cliché one dimensional villain. It is a shame because there could have been some subtly to it, and the original Mary Poppins never had a real antagonistic force, so adding in a character as stock and cliché as Firth’s Banker character is pitiful and lazy. It is a shame because the actors in this movie try their very best to give life to these characters but the writing just kills them unceremoniously.
Production Does Show Some Love At Least

     For all the faults the script has, it is clear that in all of the other departments of Mary Poppins Returns there is some love to be have for the original. The filmmakers hired many talented dance choreographers, composers, production designers and even animators to create a world that does have a bit of passion to it. Every musical set-piece while far from the magic of the original and maybe feel a bit too grand early on, are very well made and impressive to watch. The dancing is well done and the musical score sounds lovely with both some motifs from the original film and the new one as well. It gives off a feeling of watching a Broadway musical and for that it succeeds. The highlight of the film production wise is the moment where Poppins and friends go into this 2-D Animated World that looks absolutely fantastic. Not only is it amazing that they opted for some expressive 2-D Animation instead of some realistic and bland looking CGI, but the sequence itself is made to look like a painting and it looks beautiful to see so many expressive and fun animated characters in this world. Unfortunately, the sequence does have to painfully tie back into the villain and ends on a weak note despite being so good, but it is glad that 2-D Animation is being used again for a feature film like this. As for the songs, they are rather decent in this follow-up but nothing too extraordinary. It is refreshing that there is a musical with mostly original songs for a change, especially being a sequel to such an iconic musical; you would think they would rely on just the original songs mostly. The downside is these songs are trying to live up to the masterful craft that were the songs in the original and nothing comes close to being as good or memorable as Feed the Birds, Chim Chim Chiree or A Spoonful of Sugar. In fact the weakest songs in the movie are the ones that so painfully want to be those iconic moments of the original film. But for what they are worth, the songs do have a nice melody to them and they are at the very least hummable to where elements of them can get stuck in your head in a good way. Although for as good and talented as the people behind the production of the film are, it does feel their talents were kind of wasted on a film with a weak script that didn’t need to be made. Hopefully the team behind this sequel will go on to create something much more original and creative script wise because there is some talent here that was brought down by weak writing.

Not a Poorly Made Film, But a Poorly Written One
     It is a shame that a follow-up to one of Disney’s crowning achievement is just a mediocre at best movie with the lack of sophistication the original had. Mary Poppins Returns could have been a sequel that adds to what was already a phenomenal movie with a good amount of talent and love for the original, but instead just ended up being a sequel that felt nothing more than a cash grab thanks to an incredibly poor script. It does serve as a movie with more heart than most of the other Live Action Disney Fairy Tale movies they have been putting out lately, but much like those other movies, it lacks all the subtly and intelligence that the original movies have. It could be worth seeing for curiosity sake as again, a lot of elements are fairly well done. But seeing this as a follow up to the original, if you’re any bit skeptical about it, just stick to watching the original movie that is absolutely timeless. In a world when said that Disney Remakes and a Mary Poppins sequel are a good way of introducing a new generation to children, it feels like a rather pointless sentiment given the quality of the new versions and the originals still being there to show to new generations instead.


No comments:

Post a Comment