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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.