Many decades ago, Mary Poppins arrived on Cherry Tree Lane to amaze and enchant the silver screen. Now, Disney has released a sequel, but is it as incredible as all those years ago?
In my opinion, this film manages to capture the essence of the original impeccably. From the high energy magic to the blurred lines between reality and imagination, the feel is absolutely astounding, and accurately captures the essence of the original, but with a few changes.
Set 15 years after the original, Michael Banks, now a father of three, is about to lose the beloved family home from a loan. This places him in some paths similar to those of his father, including snapping at his children. The arrival of Mary leads the family on a path of discovery and growth, all the while educating the viewers on remaining optimistic in dark times, as there's "Nowhere to go but up".
Emily Blundt plays a different, almost slightly colder version of the magical nanny, but it is a welcome change. The character feels unique, rather than merely a copy of Julie Andrew's version, hinting at changes that may have taken place between visits. Ultimately, Blundt manages to carry the same mystery and amazement that Andrews did, but in a whole new light. This sharper character makes the moments of magic and fun all the more interesting, and greatly adds to the film as a whole.
Now, I am a major fan of Lin-Manuel Miranda, and this performance as Jack is no exception. Again he shows just how strong a triple threat he truly is, perfectly creating a remarkable character that plays to all the magic that Bert had in the original, while remaining his own separate character.
That being said, I feel the musical numbers in this one are weaker as a whole than the original. While many of them are expertly crafted, and quite catchy, they pale in comparison to the classic songs. Perhaps it may be because they come in a similar order with similar progressions, but it also may just be the exposure to the original songs has a special spot in people's hearts that anything would fail to hold up. I did appreciate that the score includes references to the original songs, as bits of almost all of them occur in the film.
One thing that I wasn't crazy about in this one was the need for a villain. In the original, the bank was antagonistic, but never directly fought against the Banks family. Here, the new bank owner was nearly pure evil. While it made sense in the narrative of not judging by appearances, the character was so cliche in delivery that there was no doubt whatsoever about his moral alignment. Perhaps a better reveal would have come with only revealing the truth after the children find out, rather than an obvious moment where he burns a page of the share ledger, but there really wasn't a need for this element at all. The film could have been even stronger if this character was merely a stickler for logic and order, similar to the original bankers arguing to invest the money in the bank. Had this course of action been taken, perhaps the climax could have been as interesting as the original. Additionally, this could have made Dick Van Dyke's cameo all the more powerful as the solution to the conflict.
Outside of that, I feel this was a remarkable production who kept the spirit of the original. If you are looking for this, you will definitely not be disappointed.
Comments
Post a Comment