SYNOPSIS
“Mary Poppins Returns” is the latest film in Disney’s lineup of reboots, remakes, and reimaginings it has pumped out over the last few years. Unlike some of
Disney’s other recent movies, “Returns” positions itself as a direct sequel to the 1964 classic, promising audiences a new story, but familiar faces.
Set in 1935, the film centers on an adult Michael Banks and his three children: Annabel, John, and Georgie. The family lives together in Michael’s childhood home, which is littered with artifacts paying homage to the original film. But when the actual bank comes knocking, the Banks family must scramble to pay back an ill-advised loan or else risk losing their house—and all of the memories attached to it. Luckily for our protagonists, help is just around the corner, or, more accurately, just above the clouds. Floating down from the heavens, Mary Poppins returns, welcomes herself into the Banks household, and sets to work saving the day. Equipped with a magic umbrella, a sharp wit, and a soul full of songs, Mary Poppins leads the family through a myriad of musical numbers on their quest to save the house.
Along with Mary Poppins (played by Emily Blunt) and Michael (played by Ben Whishaw), the film also stars Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack, a character who parallels Bert from the original, and Emily Mortimer as Jane, Michael’s older sister. The children— Annabel, John, and Georgie—are portrayed by Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, and Joel Dawson, respectively.
Produced on a budget of 130 million dollars and directed by Rob Marshall, “Returns” was received fairly well by both audiences and critics. While it did not achieve the universal acclaim of the original, it holds a respectable 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and made over 300 million dollars at the box office. The film was nominated for four Golden Globes and four Academy Awards. Furthermore, it is expected to be one of the last Disney films made available on Netflix, where it will probably debut over the summer.
Debbie Downer
VISUALS
The movie is very clearly oriented towards a younger, more modern audience with its plethora of distracting lights and bright colors. The CGI is beautifully done, as expected from Disney, but at times it crosses the line from glitzy to garish. What gave the original film splendor was, in part, its masterful execution of never-before seen 2D animation. However, when incorporated today, that animation style seems cheesy and altogether reminiscent of modern-day children’s television. A prime example of this is the underwater scene, where Mary Poppins takes the children on a whimsical adventure through their bathtub. Except the whimsicality that I’m certain the filmmakers were shooting for falls short, ruined by excessively showy special effects. This happens several times throughout the movie, and I often was too carried away by the flashy song sequences to remember the frankly minimal plotline—but perhaps that was the producer’s intention all along.
MUSIC
Ah, soundtracks. Those beautiful details which can often make or break a movie. It’s astounding how often filmmakers disregard music’s incredible capacity to influence a scene’s mood or a character’s story arc. Unfortunately, because this particular movie is a musical, I won’t be able to delve into the note compositions as much as the singing numbers themselves.
For a composer who has won a Grammy, an Emmy, and a Tony, it’s surprising how little of that talent shows through in Mary Poppins Returns. Marc Shaiman, who wrote the music and co-wrote the lyrics to the hit Broadway musical Hairspray, demonstrates that size really isn’t everything. The songs are fun but long and unmemorable, giving meaning to the phrase “don’t beat the dead horse.” I’ve only seen the original movie once, but “Spoonful of Sugar” and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” will stick with me to the end of my days. I can’t say the same for the sequel’s songs, none of which I can name for the life of me. However, I would like to give compliment to all of the choreography throughout the film, which constitutes the better half of it. Especially fantastic was the lamplighter dance sequence in… well, I think the song was called “Trip a Little Light Fantastic.”
PLOT
Y’all know that “can I copy your homework” meme? Yeah. That’s “Returns” with its copy-and-paste story arc, barely salvaged by some new characters. Not only is the plot dull as a box of old pennies, but it’s also entirely unmemorable to the point where you just forget what’s going on as you’re watching the darn thing. But, Debbie, you might be thinking, it’s a children’s movie, so why does the plot even matter? And you’re partially right, dear reader. Children’s movies do often have simple plotlines because kids can’t really keep up with a complex story. But this movie rides too much on that assumption and takes advantage of it. That’s what the excessive special effects and flashy songs are doing; the producers are cheating their audience from a good story with bright lights and shiny objects. It’s as though they just didn’t try to write a good plot because they thought it wouldn’t matter. All in all, the movie is quaint but lacking of any real substance, only mildly nostalgic of the 1964 original’s fantastical adventure. A spoonful of artificial sweetener, perhaps.
OVERALL RATING: 2 out of 5 Stings: “Not Worth the Buzz”
Sunny Sam
VISUALS
The standout element of “Returns” is the aesthetic. Visualy, this movie is delightful. In an era of hyper-realistic CGI-fests like Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast” remake, it’s a breath of fresh air to watch a movie that’s willing to shake it up with its artistic direction. There’s a reason this movie was nominated for an Oscar in production design; it is unlike any other mainstream movie of the year. “Returns” full-heartedly embraces its whimsical nature—from its highly stylized bathtub scene to the entire 2D animated Royal Doulton Bowl sequence, the visuals in this movie are diverse, showy, and eccentric. It’s unafraid to overindulge in elaborate dance sequences and nonsensical set pieces, and I loved every second it. While such visual playfulness is in-line with the original, it is a far cry from our current cinematic zeitgeist, and for that, it deserves praise. Just seeing hand-drawn animation on the big screen once again tugged at my heartstrings. The nostalgic factor is unquestionably this movie’s trump card.
MUSIC
Unfortunately, nostalgia is a fickle mistress, and for all the good it does this movie, it backfires on the music. These soundtracks demand comparison, and I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that the music in “Returns” isn’t as memorable as the original. However, that original soundtrack has had over fifty years to ingrain itself into pop culture. Of course this movie wasn’t going to outdo it! So instead, let’s recognize it for what it accomplished: recapturing the creative spark that made the original so famous in the first place. Like the visuals, the music in this movie is a love-letter to a past era. Overall, the soundtrack is good, upbeat, at points fantastical, and it successfully carries the film. It is enjoyable and occasionally funny, but I admit that there’s nothing in this movie that can rival “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” or “Chim Chim Cher-ee.” However, I would like to highlight “A Conversation,” a sparse and shockingly emotional song from the beginning of the “Returns” soundtrack. While out of place among the topsy-turvy dance numbers, this tragic song is, in my opinion, highly underrated. It deserved a deeper, more adult musical.
PLOT
Finally, we reach the plot, the indisputably weakest element of “Returns.” On this one, Debbie’s definitely got me beat. Still, it’s important to view this movie in the context of what it is. Ultimately, “Returns” is a children’s film. The plot has to be simple or else it might confuse the young audience. And while many parts of plot parallel the original, it is no more repetitive than the current deluge of Disney remakes. In fact, this movie breaks with the past in some key ways. For one, the movie flips the script on the original by making the children the ones lacking in imagination, not their father. In this movie, Mary Poppins helps teach Annabel and John to embrace their childishness, instead of letting the world force them to grow up too fast. This movie also directly addresses the sorrow of losing someone you care about; it deserves recognition for exploring more complex themes than the original. While the overarching plot about saving the house is rather fragile and somewhat pointless, there are still plenty of marvelous sequences throughout this film. In the end, “Returns” is not practically perfect in every way, but it is a worthy sequel to a wonderful film.
OVERALL RATING: 3.5 out of 5 Stings: “Practically Perfect in Most Ways“