[S Clark]

Sometimes its best not to follow up on a classic.  It's not that "Returns" fails to measure up, it just fails.  Weak dialogue, songs that you won't remember 5 minutes after the movie, and a plot that simply lifts the original and changes a few things here and there.  The acting was good to decent, but there is just not enough to save this.  If kids have seen the original, even they will be unimpressed with Disney's poor follow up.  This feels like a movie created in the accounting department to cash in on a popular classic.  Maybe something happened to save it in the last 30 minutes.  I don't know.  My wife mercifully turned it off. 

[wushuliu]

Going to disagree somewhat. We just watched it this weekend. Mary Poppins Returns is about as good a sequel as one could make to one of the best films ever made. To say they shouldn't follow up on a classic doesn't work here since these films are based on a series of books. Wouldn't be fair to say you can't make more Mary Poppins just because of the first film and disregard the books which a lot of people love.

The acting is more than decent: Emily Blunt and Ben Whishaw are outstanding actors in their own right and they both deliver top notch performances. Blunt has the enviable task of following Julie Andrews and frankly I thought she owned the role right away. She takes a slightly different approach more in line with the character in the books, but commits to the performance 100%. Lin Manuel Miranda is basically the equivalent of a younger Bert (Dick Van Dyke) from the first film and brings more wonder and innocence than Bert, who was more like an accomplice to Mary in the first film.

The production design is flat out phenomenal for the most part. Rob Marshall is brilliant at making cinematic stage pieces that rival a Broadway spectacle and there are some truly great moments, like the lamp lighters number. The practical effects, costume design, etc. are all top notch. It's a beautiful film to watch.

Where the film stumbled for me was any sequence that called for CGI. Marshall showed a real weakness for working with it in those sequences. The bathtub/underwater sequence and the big tent number inside the bowl resembled typical Disney kids movie effects and cheapened the film IMO. But then again I see the same thing in Marvel movies and audiences don't seem to care. Mary Poppins Returns is also an example of how older cinematography created greater spectacle. The original had a wider film format, classic lenses that gave scope - you just don't get that in ANY movies anymore except from folks like Christopher Nolan. It's the kind of thing you can't put your finger on until you learn what different lenses do and how they impact the image. The original Mary Poppins absolutely wins in that regard.

As for the songs, that was another stumbling block for me because the original wasn't a musical, but this sequel IS. This is probably the biggest and most polarizing difference between the two. I wasn't prepared for so many songs, and although they're not bad, I do think the film would have been stronger if they followed the original. That way the really strong numbers would stand out and not be diluted by the weaker stuff.

Too bad you didn't finish it because the end cameo was really moving. ********* showed just how much casting can bring to a role [....] still captures your attention and steals scenes. But it was done in a way that elevated the ending and a clever plot twist to boot taken from the first film regarding tuppence. Well done.

So, no not a classic, but that's a bar that no remake/sequel can be expected to achieve. On its own terms, MP Returns is an excellent film IMO.

[mix4fix]

It didn't need to be remade. Most if not all of these classics should not be touched.

Hollywood is running out of ideas and we are allowing them to get away with it.

[wushuliu]

It didn't need to be remade. Most if not all of these classics should not be touched.

Hollywood is running out of ideas and we are allowing them to get away with it.

It's not a remake, it's a sequel. I think a lot of people (in the US) forget that this is based on a SERIES of books. So this film is exactly what you should approve of, adaptation of original literary material.

The film is not a reboot or remake of the original 1964 film; in this film Mary Poppins revisits the now-adult Banks children from the first film and takes charge of the three children of Michael Banks. It is loosely based on the other seven Mary Poppins books by Travers, and expands beyond them

EDIT: For some background, I highly recommend the excellent 'Saving Mr. Banks' with Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson - all about author P.L. Travers and Walt Disney adapting Mary Poppins. Great film.

[S Clark]

We certainly agree that "Saving Mr. Banks" is a well done film.  My complaint isn't that Mary Poppins shouldn't have been expanded, it's that the overall quality of  "Returns" was poor.  That dialogue! And although I agree that most of the acting was good, we disagree about the performance of Mr. Whishaw. 
I had a friend that wrote most of the music for "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas".  She got a call from Disney to work on a musical version of Dumbo.  She finally walked away from the project in spite of the substantial money. All things music and script were done by committee, and the results were dreadful.  To me, "Returns' felt like an overworked piece of art.  Both my wife and I really disliked the way it came together. 
But I am glad you enjoyed it.  Some like chocolate, some like vanilla. 

[wushuliu]

I had a friend that wrote most of the music for "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas".  She got a call from Disney to work on a musical version of Dumbo.  She finally walked away from the project in spite of the substantial money. All things music and script were done by committee, and the results were dreadful.

Ironically, the same could be said about the original Mary Poppins. PL Travers hated, HATED the original. Only Walt's personal power of persuasion kept her involved (and thus preventing bad press). Disney anything, by definition, is product by committee - especially since Walt's passing (see: Star Wars, Marvel).

I don't want to seem like Returns is a must-see though. I can see why someone would not care for it. Not likely to watch it again anytime soon.

[S Clark]

Ironically, the same could be said about the original Mary Poppins. PL Travers hated, HATED the original. Only Walt's personal power of persuasion kept her involved (and thus preventing bad press). Disney anything, by definition, is product by committee - especially since Walt's passing (see: Star Wars, Marvel).

I don't want to seem like Returns is a must-see though. I can see why someone would not care for it. Not likely to watch it again anytime soon.

I rather doubt if Disney's LIon King committee told Elton John which notes to cut.  And the power of each director determines how many fingers are in the pie. 

[mix4fix]

If it is another book in the series, it now becomes one of those things of should they continue it after all these years.

[S Clark]

It didn't need to be remade. Most if not all of these classics should not be touched.

Hollywood is running out of ideas and we are allowing them to get away with it.

I'm curious.  Have you seen it?  Or are you simply saying that sequels in general are a bad idea?

[mix4fix]

Let's be honest: most sequels suck. We don't complain about "Police Academy" sequels because they are meant to be silly. "Jaws", "Die Hard", "Caddyshack", "Speed", and "Blues Brothers" are classics but the sequels suck. There are exceptions. I think "Die Hard 3" is good.

I have not watch the new movie. I caught the "Mary Poppins" commercial and assumed it was a remake since Hollywood remakes things all the time. We don't need a female "Ghostbusters".

I remember watching the original as a kid. I did not know it was a series of books. Harry Potter was a series of books but they made it all at the same time so we had the same people and it had continuity. So, do we really need a different Mary Poppins 54 years later? At least with a final "Bill & Ted", we will get the actual Bill and Ted. But, reunion shows such as "Raven's Home", "Fuller House", "Roseanne", and "Murphy Brown" are hit and miss. "Cobra-Kai" is an exception.

[Tyson]

I agree that most sequels aren't as good as the 1st movies, with a few exceptions (Godfather, Star Wars).  However, I think reboots serve a different purpose.  IMO, remakes in movies (just like cover songs in music) perform an important function.  Namely, it makes a whole new generation aware of the original. 

A recent movie that was excellent for this was Bohemian Rhapsody - it was a good movie, but most importantly it showed my 12 year old daughter how awesome the music of Queen is.  Same with movies like Ghostbusters.  It lets us have conversations like "Oh, that was pretty good, did you know there was an original movie that's even better?"  Stuff like that.

[mix4fix]

In general, modern day Hollywood is disappointing. I don't get excited on too many current movies or shows. You know it is sad when I start to look at the older stuff that I never cared for in the past. I rarely go to the movies. To expensive and is sometimes a pain.

The way they are stream-lining the release of DVDs (and downloading), it doesn't take that long to get your hands on it. Watch it in the comfort of your own home on the sound system you like. Plus, you will be able eventually watch it on TV since most of us have Cable or satellite.

But, It seems like these "fake" autobiographies (Queen, Elton John) is just the latest trend and is just a way to exploit those artists. Wouldn't a good concert DVD better demonstrate them at their best?

[Tyson]

In general, modern day Hollywood is disappointing. I don't get excited on too many current movies or shows. You know it is sad when I start to look at the older stuff that I never cared for in the past. I rarely go to the movies. To expensive and is sometimes a pain.

The way they are stream-lining the release of DVDs (and downloading), it doesn't take that long to get your hands on it. Watch it in the comfort of your own home on the sound system you like. Plus, you will be able eventually watch it on TV since most of us have Cable or satellite.

But, It seems like these "fake" autobiographies (Queen, Elton John) is just the latest trend and is just a way to exploit those artists. Wouldn't a good concert DVD better demonstrate them at their best?

Concert videos only work if you're already a fan, IME.