Skip to main content

I think we’re in china, so to speak.

Mary Poppins Returns
(2018)

(SPOILERS) This 54-years-later sequel has to be admired for its dedication to replicating the look and flavour of the beloved Julie Andrews original, and it gets several elements very right – most importantly the recasting of the title role – but the side-effect of such devotion is that its comparative deficiencies are unflatteringly laid bare for all to see. Most particularly, the songs. They don't outright suck, but only one of them is remotely memorable, and you need them to be if you're to make the all-too wholesome medicine go down. The other biggie is Rob Marshall, the choreographer who rose to the status of sought-after Hollywood director while exhibiting negligible discernible talent in the field. He's certainly no Bob Fosse.


Indeed, Marshall's foursquare direction is only remarkable for how pervasively unremarkable it is. Any point where the film might potentially take off (and characters do so quite consistently), he's there reigning in any flight in by treating the whole endeavour as if its bound by the limitations of the stage. And that isn't him diligently adopting the approach of 1964; he's always been this uninspired. As such, that the picture is as watchable as it is, and even approaches a measure of dramatic engagement during the final half hour or so, can't really be attributed to his (lack of) efforts; rather, the stop-start listlessness that characterises the first hour is exactly the flavour you'd expect.


Notably, to get this made, Disney had to wait until PL Travers was no longer alive and objecting to a sequel (she hadn't liked the first movie, and rejected a proposed follow up both subsequent to its release and twenty years later when Jeffrey Katzenberg floated the idea again, his being much along the lines of the one we've got). Ruthless Mouse House cutthroats who'd trample over someone's dying wishes (her will didn’t explicitly say a sequel wasn't to be made, despite some sources stating otherwise, but it's pretty certain she'd have vetoed it if still alive)? Never. Just watch Saving Mr Banks to get their sanitised, official version of Travers for evidence.


There are nods to her novels – Mary returns attached to a kite per first sequel Mary Poppins Comes Back – but Mary Poppins Returns focusses on Michael's trio of kids requiring a super nanny's sure touch this time, along with her restoring bereaved dad (Ben Whishaw) with his lost brio and joy. Oh, and matchmaking for sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) with Dick van Dyke substitute Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda). 


All fairly straightforward then, even more so through signposting the solution to the Banks' financial woes almost immediately (some elusive inherited shares in the bank Michael works for – only in something written expressly for kids, as their little monkeys and won't notice goes the thinking, would you get the head of the household ignoring an obvious financial solution for a whole year, leading to the imminent disenfranchisement of his children). I suppose, yes, the deus ex van Dyke of the final scene – not that the nanny isn't one floating finger-snapping Mary ex machina herself – provides the actual solution, since he made some investments on Michael's behalf, but none of it is very edge-of-the-seat.


The closest we get is a turn-back-the-clock sequence as Jack scales Big Ben to prevent arch rotter Colin Firth from snatching the house away at midnight. Which ultimately comes to nowt as Mary has to intervene (one might ask why she didn't just do that in the first place, but I guess nannies works in mysterious ways). 


The best sequence, though, is the embrace of original-evoking traditional animation as Mary and Jack accompany the kids into an antique china bowl, complete with Firth voicing a nefarious, kidnapping wolf. Another underwater number is much less successful, and suggests Marshall would have been wise to consult James Wan about simulating sub-aqua moves.


The best song meanwhile – as noted, there aren’t many contenders – is the leerie-infused Trip a Little Light Fantastic. And while the choreography throughout is fine, without the accompanying creativity with the camera it isn’t as memorable as it ought to be. 


It's fortunate then that with Blunt and Miranda as leads, the picture instils a lot of goodwill straight off the bat. Blunt is perfect, very proper, mischievous with a straight face, and appealingly vain; I can't say I was ever Julie Andrews' greatest fan, so her lack of a cameo didn't leave me wanting. I could have done without Angela Lansbury too, to be honest (although I have to admit she still has a fair set of pipes). Van Dyke gets a free pass, though, and it's impressive to see his knees still function. David Warner's returning Admiral Boom is an extended side gag that consistently fails to land, alas. 


Miranda is suitably chirpy, and his mockney appealing, if understandably less absurd than Van Dyke’s was. Firth's villainy has a certain clipped relish. Julie Walters plays exactly the same part she's been playing for the past twenty years, while Meryl Streep appears because she’s contracted to appear in all movies form now until the end of time. 


As for grownup Michael and Jane, Mortimer is hugely appealing, but unfortunately Whishaw delivers a rare bust, either wretchedly maudlin or obnoxiously authoritarian, and so unable able to elicit a through line of empathy for his predicament. Even at the end, when he comes over all jubilant, it doesn’t feel authentic; alas, he's no David Tomlinson when it comes to essaying the passage from uptight to relaxed. The kids are fine for the most part, although I nearly broke ranks and fled for the exit when moppet Georgie (Joel Dawson) launched into a heartfelt solo.


The buzz surrounding this sequel suggested it would break the bank, some even projecting a Best Picture Oscar nomination, but I can't see either of those things happening (albeit, it may well have the legs do very respectably at the box office). Mary Poppins Returns is overlong and sloppily paced, without the songs to do its performers justice. It isn't a problem that it's trying so hard evoke the innocent Disney vibe of yesteryear (I can't remember the last time I went to see a U certificate), but rather that it isn't trying hard enough elsewhere. 



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism