Mary Poppins Returns (2018) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
971 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A good film but cannot compare to the 1964 film
weekilter21 January 2019
I thought that the film was very enjoyable, however, even though I've been cautioned not to I cannot help but compare this film to the original 1964 film with Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. There's so much to like in the 1964 film.
49 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Mostly Magical in Every Way!
CubsandCulture19 December 2018
Growing up Mary Poppins was one of my favorite films. When Saving Mr. Banks came out a few years back I re-watched the original for first time in years and found a depth I didn't pick up on as a child. So I wasn't really looking forward to a follow up given that the first movie was practically perfect in every way. More to the point who but Andrews could ever do the character justice? Nonetheless, I ventured to see this today because Rob Marshall (he directed the great Chicago) was the director so I had a little bit of hope this would be OK. It is not only OK but it is a wonderful fellow-up to the original film and in some ways closer to the books. My only complaint, and it is exceedingly minor given that it is a family film, is the overall template of Mary Poppins is rather obvious. The new adventure is a bit like the old one and there's a lot of analog scenes between the two films. But given that Mary Poppins returns to help the Banks children again it feels correct that this is the case. The film is surprising in its details, but comforting in its large familiar strokes.

I think, and I can't believe this is true, Blunt is the main reason for this. Andrews is the gold standard but Blunt is almost her equal. Her Poppins is funny, stern, warm, knows more than she let's on, has everything in hand and is utterly charming. Blunt is everything you would want from the character and more. I was most surprised by her vocal performance being as good as it is. Jack (Bert's stand in and family relation) is also a great character. Miranda gives an crackerjack performance of charm, wit and wisdom. Best (and weirdest) of all Miranda uses a bad cockney accent all the time (and while singing!) that *somehow* manages to be obviously bad yet believable and adorable. Everyone is so good in this and the thing I thought most likely to sink the picture is the best part.

Not to overlook the score because it is so good I just brought it. It is not quite as memorable as the original but it is solidly singable and ear wormy. So while, say, "Can You Imagine That?" is not quite as perfect as "A Spoonful of Sugar" it is a brilliant song in its own right. The real standout is "A Cover is not a Book" as it is clever, funny, and carries a lot of weight in the story. I think I will playing this on a loop for a while.

The film is quite technically polished. I would argue that the integration of the live-action and animation is done better here than in the original. The cinematographer, art director, and custom designer did a better job of making the various wolds far more seamless here than in the 1st film. The music hall scene is fun and exciting as well as being a marvel.

I thought this film was going to be a disaster. Turns out it is among the best of the year.
357 out of 587 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forgettable music
cwakeland23 December 2018
Excellent performances of thoroughly unimaginative music, a pale reflection of the original, which was all about the music. It's actually a little spooky hearing those lush Kostal orchestrations used on such dull new songs. The brief moments of excerpts from the original score were like glimmers in the darkness.

If you are a visual person and not concerned with hearing good songs in a musical you might like it.

It does look like they had a lot of fun making this movie, wish they had paid more attention to the score.
323 out of 566 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Such a huge disappointment
ozzy-5704728 December 2018
Story line was all over the place. Song's were boring, I wouldn't have minded the movie being that long had it been good, I only stayed because I thought it had to get better boy was I wrong. Mary Poppins movie is supposed to be magical this definitely was not. The only good thing I can take out of it was the few minutes of Dick Van Dyke. So upsetting Disney ruined what could have been a truly wonderful movie.
179 out of 307 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
schwartz-norman28 December 2018
Not even close to the glory of the original movie. A boring story, with good production and the latest technology but no heart. Not even one of the songs is memorable. Soundtrack is also a failure. Besides, Mary Poppins is now an arrogant and not the firm but sweet person from the original story. A waste of time.
140 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slow Start, Long Movie
kklein-7083622 December 2018
I can't begin to say how excited I was for this movie. I've been waiting over a year for it. We brought my daughter to see it with her friends for her 6th birthday. It was a complete disappointment. The start was slow, music was forgettable, the kids were scared during a few parts, and Emily Blunt was too cold for Mary Poppins. The movie was over two hours long. The kids were restless and never really got into it. One kid from our group wanted to go to the car instead of finishing the movie. I wanted to like this so bad. What a shame.
290 out of 516 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
No songs you'll come away from singing
jfenn5305821 December 2018
With the multiple references to the original Mary Poppins throughout this movie, and even in the title, my hope was this movie would be as light and airy as the original - a movie that had every kid in my neighborhood and school singing Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Let's Go Fly a Kite and I Love to Laugh.

This is not that. Sadly, no one came out of the theater humming or singing any of the songs - not our grandchildren, no other kids, no adults...that tells the tale. In fact there are some suggestive lyrics in 'The Cover is Not the Book' that is over the heads of the kids, but it surprised and disappointed the adults in our group.

That said, the visuals are generally amazing, and there were several things to smile about, but it was a bit like washing your feet with your socks on...gets the job done, just something isn't quite right. One person near by was overheard to say as he left, 'That was excruciating to sit through', while a roughly 12 year old girl was overhead saying "I thought it was really good." Same with these reviews which range from 10 to my 3, so you'll experience the same range I would guess upon seeing the movie.
358 out of 645 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
drod_produce26 December 2018
Long and boring! Fell asleep several times and I just wanted it to end. None of the songs made any sense and they are totally forgettable.
239 out of 426 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thank you Mary Poppins for warmly reminding us that anything is possible
Ed-Shullivan20 December 2018
Mrs. Shullivan and I treated ourselves to a special early Christmas present by attending the opening night of Mary Poppins Returns. Our anticipation for this night was more than just rewarded, we received a very pleasant reminder that although we are more than half a century old we are all still children at heart if we just allow our imaginations to wander as when we were children.

Emily Blunt was perfectly cast as Mary Poppins as was Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack the Lantern lighter. The story line surrounds the now adult Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) who lost his wife just a few years ago and is trying to raise his three (3) young children in the original Banks family home at 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Michael's sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) is single, never married, and has her own apartment while she fights for the rights of the low income workers.

Michael Banks three children are Anabel,John and the youngest Georgie. The three Banks children love their father and sooner than they should have to worry about losing their home through a bank foreclosure , Mary Poppins magically appears. Mrs. Shullivan and I, as well as the rest of the theaters audience let out a noticeable sigh of relief because we realized that the magic of a Walt Disney movie is now upon us, and we were not disappointed in our faith in Mary Poppins. Quite the contrary, the evening was perfect as the films songs were beautiful, the dance numbers choreographed and animated to as many animals as were on Noah's Ark, the cinematography magical and the story of Michael and Jane Banks and the children that warms one's heart.

We especially loved the Banks childrens first afternoon bath with Mary Poppins and their most colorful and animated underworld adventure with song and dreams of a magical world. Just believe and anything is possible!

Loved it! A perfect 10 out of 10!
213 out of 398 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Practically imperfectin every way
reisen5528 December 2018
There was once magic - 1964 when Walt Disney produced and oversaw Mary Poppins. There were once great actors, Andrews, Van Dyke and the late David Tomlinson among many others. Once there was a plot about a dysfunctional family that needed repair. Once that was a long time ago. Now Walt is gone and Disney, the corporation, faceless now, produced a cold immitation of the original film with zero heart, soul and love. Songs? Boring and meh. Acting? Blount was fine but everyone else was a zero save David Warner. But missing was the guiding hand of Walt. The first one had a quasi-Villain named Mr. Banks but he needed repair. And that was the plot, not the non-threat one in this film. I found this cold and heartless film a total train wreck compared with the first one. Like a remake or sequel to Oz. Won't work. Did not here. There was no huge chase to the bank, in the first a wonderful sequence of Mr. Banks walking to the bank in the evening dark of London. The Baloon lady was a pale immitation of the Bird Lady. And she was a point in the first film. She was the heart of the thing. The talking umbrella only in the last scene. And the Penguins were far better in the original than this sequel. Oh, it is a remake? Perhaps. I wanted to like it and 5 minutes in it was history. A spoonful of sugar missing. And in this chore that must be done there was no element of fun. And Van Dyke was wasted in his cameo. Sad indeed.,
110 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Mary Poppins is Imperfect and Cocky
smi9901427 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, I was cringing by the end of this movie and would have left if I weren't with a large group. Mary Poppins didn't really do anything to help the kids or family- frankly she was a snot towards them and spent the entire movie looking at her reflection in any surface she could find. My mother said she was "looking for some character." The music was awful and boring and scenes were just silly. For instance, at the end Mary Poppins looked on as these men risked their lives to help the kids then she got annoyed at them for failing and simply floated up with her umbrella to save the day...well why didn't she do that to begin with instead of letting them risk their lives and then acting all bratty that they couldn't magically float around like she could? Worst part about it was Mary Poppins- she spent the entire movie acting like she was incredible and like everyone else was a bother to her. No caring for the kids, let alone anyone else. Save your money on this one!
154 out of 285 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A bad idea to the nth degree
juanmoorebeer-532-7750192 January 2019
I am a big fan of the original and went into the sequel with exceedingly low expectations. I was surprised at the actors, the characters, and the production. Each going out of their way to pay homage to the earlier versions, so much so that they lost any spark of creativity, which was the magical component of the original. I liked many of the actors, though the characters seemed flat. The story tried to wind around the original but couldn't stand on its own. Trying to mimic the effects of the first was a bad choice. The last 10 minutes was great, precisely because of the characters that did not follow the formula of the rest of the movie.
61 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
rexandshelley19 December 2018
This film will be a classic one day! It was great! Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins was the only person I would have picked for the role. Its a great movie! I even got tear eyes .... Overall this is Disney as its best.... GO SEE IT! Its not going to be the original film, but this is something new and exciting. Don't go into this film this is going to be the same film.... treat this as a new experience. THE MUSIC and SCORE was FANTASTIC. The movie will put a smile on your face and make you feel like a kid again. That's what a movie should do.... GO UNDER THE LOVELY LONDON SKY .... imagine the impossible.
230 out of 437 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a major disappointment
donna_maria_kelly22 December 2018
The acting was good. The characters were likeable but the music let it down. This film wasn't necessary.
198 out of 375 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dare I Say It??
comedy_claire200128 December 2018
Ignore the negativity. Ignore the "how dare they mess with a classic?!". And, most definitely, ignore the "unforgettable music".

Mary Poppins Returns is practically perfect in every way. It has great characters, a fantastic score, memorable songs and ... dare I say it? ... a storyline! There are nods to the original without being a carbon copy; but its originality does shine through. It's colourful, it's fun, it made me smile. Don't tell me you all walked out of the cinema in the 60s remembering all the words to "Sister Suffragette" and "Stay Awake". They're cultural songs, that's why they're unforgettable. A couple more watches and you'll be "Looking Up" with "Imagination" and remembering that "nothing's lost forever".

Give it a go... you'll be pleasantly surprised. Oscar for Miss Blunt please :)
90 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Practically Perfect
ferguson-619 December 2018
Greetings again from the darkness. The 1964 classic Disney film MARY POPPINS is much beloved and has been shared across generations for more than 50 years. It won 5 Oscars on 13 nominations, and shifted Julie Andrews from a Broadway star to an international movie star, as she won the Oscar for Best Actress while becoming the ideal nanny for most every boy and girl. Rarely do reboots, remakes, or sequels to the classics make much of a dent with the movie-going public, but it's likely director Rob Marshall's (CHICAGO, INTO THE WOODS) film will be an exception. Marshall balances nostalgia with contemporary, and benefits from a marvelous successor to the Mary Poppins role ... Emily Blunt.

The film opens in low-key fashion as we follow Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) through town as he performs his lamplighting duties singing the melancholic "Underneath the Lovely London Sky". It's actually a bit of a dry opening that may have some impatient kids wondering why their parents dragged them to see this. Soon after, we are at the familiar 17 Cherry Tree Lane - the Banks' home - easily recognizable from the original film. We meet grown up siblings Michael (Ben Whishaw) and Jane (Emily Mortimer). Jane is a labor organizer following in her mom's footsteps, and Michael is a struggling artist and widower raising 3 kids. He has taken a teller job at the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank where his dad (now deceased) worked, but mostly he's an emotional wreck. In fact, the only way to save the family home from foreclosure is with proof of his father's bank shares ... something the evil new Bank President, William Weatherall Wilkins (Colin Firth), conspires to prevent.

It's at this point that the kids' popcorn should just about be gone, so it's fortunate that our beloved nanny makes her timely appearance ... literally floating (with practically perfect posture) into the park where Georgie (an adorable Joel Dawson) and lamplighter Jack are flying a very recognizable kite. Jack, having been an apprentice under Bert the Chimney Sweep, is quite familiar with the significance of Mary Poppins' arrival. Back on Cherry Tree Lane, Michael and Jane are shocked to see their childhood nanny back in the house, and Michael's two spunky twins Anabel (Pixie Davies) and John (Nathanael Saleh) aren't sure what to make of this mysterious visitor.

Director Marshall wisely utilizes the template from the original film, so many of the subsequent sequences have a familiar and cozy feel to them. Mary Poppins' "Off we go" kicks off a fantastical bathtub adventure and leads to the first of many smile-inducing, visually spectacular moments. A broken porcelain bowl guides us to a beautiful hand-drawn animation (from Walt Disney Studios) sequence with horse-drawn carriage, penguins, and more. Meryl Streep performs "Turning Turtle" in her topsy-turvy studio, and there is an extended (perhaps a bit too long) dance sequence featuring Jack and the other lamplighters singing "Trip a Little Light Fantastic".

Julie Walters appears as the Banks' housekeeper and David Warner is Admiral Boom, the Banks' canon-firing neighbor; however it's two cameos that will really hit home with the older viewers: Angela Landsbury (not in the original) is the balloon lady singing "Nowhere to Go but Up", and the remarkable Dick Van Dyke (a huge part of the original) plays an elderly Mr. Dawes Jr from the bank - and even performs a dance routine atop a desk. All of the actors perform admirably, yet this is clearly Emily Blunt's movie. She shines as the practically perfect nanny, whether debating with her umbrella, digging in her mystical baggage, filling heads with 'stuff and nonsense', teaching life lessons to those in need, or singing solo and with others. It's a wonderful performance and she becomes Mary Poppins for a new generation.

Director Marshall co-wrote the story and screenplay with David Magee and John DeLuca, and they have created a worthy sequel (a quite high standard) from P.L. Travers' original books that is delightful and a joy to watch. The group of original songs by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman serve the story fine, but the one downside to the film is that none of the new songs are as catchy or memorable as those of the Sherman Brothers (Richard and Robert) from 54 years ago. They won Oscars for Best Score and Song ("Chim Chim Che-ree"), and left us singing others such as "Spoon Full of Sugar", "Let's Go Fly a Kite" and of course, "Supercalifragilistic". These new songs including "Can You Imagine That", "The Place Where Lost Things Go", "A Cover is not the Book", "Nowhere to Go but Up" all contribute to the story and to the viewer's enjoyment, but none leave us singing or humming as we depart the theatre.

This is a film where those behind-the-scenes are crucial to its success. Oscar winning cinematographer Dion Beebe (MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA) and Editor Wyatt Smith both are at the top of their game, and Costume Designer Sandy Powell delivers stunners, not just for the singing nanny, but for all characters. The core of the story remains rediscovering the magic in life, and finding joy in each other - and this sequel also provides the adventures to match the original. It's simultaneously familiar and fresh, which is key to a successful follow up to a beloved classic. Director Marshall has signed on to Disney's live action THE LITTLE MERMAID, but it's with MARY POPPINS RETURNS where he has delivered a film that is practically perfect in every way.
188 out of 359 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Everything you were afraid it would be, and worst
raidatlanta6 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this, against my basic instinct, because I thought the original film was so marvellously good that they couldn't go so low as to produce a cheap and saddening "part 2".

They did.

Let's start with the story. There is none. There are two parallel "stories" that happen. The first is the younger Mr. Banks, recently widowed, who learns overnight that if he doesn't come up with an insane amount of money, or find one specific paper, he will lose his home because of a debt. The second is "Mary Poppins, this one street lamp lighter and the little Banks children go around and sing songs with no link to anything". The first song goes along the lines of "Hygiene is important", the second, "it's important to read books", and the third "if you feel off, look at things with a new perpective". There is no link between them, and come out as absolutely random. There is absolutely minimal coherent link between them and the "story" in itself. These two "storylines" don't really ever merge, and you kind of wonder why each is happening, and how they will be linked. Sorry if this ruins the film : they essentially aren't.

The second is the characters. They don't hold up, in any way. The kinds are, at first, very responsible, and as soon as Mary pops up, they just end up being less and less mature. Mary Poppins is supposed to be a proper British nanny who teaches good values, etc., while having fun ("We are not a codfish"). In this film, she doesn't appear to do anything except bring the children to be less mature. The street-worker sidekick basically becomes the main character because he is the only one who actually does anything - he guides Mary and the children through everything. Mary Poppins most of all, is not Mary Poppins. She puts no focus on manners, she lets the children run around and do basically anything. She is the nanny, she is there to care and educated, but she has none of her manners. The character is not the character. Let's mention side characters like the mean banker. Is he mean? He rips out Mr.Banks' name out of a banking ledger in order to destroy proof that Mr. Banks own's shares at the bank, in order to reposess his house. Then, right after, he stays at the bank until midnight so that Mr.Banks and the children may bring a document which they may or may not find to the bank. How does this hold up? Yes, the screen writers are trying to build useless suspens, but a mean banker would go out of his job at quitting time, not stay there until midnight.

In a mix of "non-story" and "lack of character", the question of "what is Mary Poppins' role"? She serves essentially very little purpose until the very end. She isn't Mary Poppins, she serves little purpose... what is she there fore? I'll tell you - she is there because of her name. She is there so that one will say "oh look, it's Mary Poppins!" and be content with that. She is nothing but a name to attract audiences.

Let's get to the songs : after walking out from the theatre, I could neither remember nor hum the melody to any of the songs. And having tried for over a week, I still can't. On the other hand, I saw the original for the last time over two years ago, and I can still remember the melody to essentially all of them. The song writing in this one shows cheap song writing techniques used nowadays in musical drama. That is to say "I will start off this song by talking in rithm to some light musical background, and the we will simply go along some 4/4 partitions with a strong bass marking the first and third mesures". If this sounds technical, it's just in words what your ears will find ordinary, uninteresting, and bland.

May we go on to the aspect of "we won't copy the original, but we will try to copy the original"? In the first there is a hilarious scene with an old man on his ceiling and they had to sing to get him down. In this one, they are in an upside down apartment, and they have to sing to get it right side up. In the first they went into chalk drawings where they were in an innocent but amusing race. In this one they go into a porcelaine pot where they go to a theatre (only so that Mary Poppins and her main-character-side-kick can sing about the importance of reading books), where the children run off to have a over-the-top, American chasse with villainous animals who were trying to rob them. The chasse is imbecilic, lacks imagination, serves no purpose and does not "thrill". It is random, and has no place in this film.

Should we also go into what this film tries to teach? We've mentioned the values of "bathe regularly" and "read", but what else? The Mr.Banks is a painter who now works in a bank because there is an economical recession and art doesn't pay (though it could. ps. don't follow your dreams). At the end they all become magically rich out of nowhere, supposedly due to a micro investment that Mr.Banks made in his childhood (capitalism pays off; own stocks and invest, children!). It tries to teach some things, but the meaning of it all is quite... blurry and distorted.

Do I go on about everything that is wrong in this film? This is already long and negative.

I should mention the only good things : the sets, decors and animation. They are very nice, the 2D animation in the porcelaine scene was very beautiful and appreciated. Nonetheless, nice sets and animation does not compensate for an utter lack of everything else. It's what the french would call "powder to the eyes". Some sort of magical powder made to distract and blind to the fact that the film lacks everything else.

Here is a tip if you saw this one. Watch a scene from the original ,and it's parallel in this one. You will see that it the first, there are minimal sets, and the production value went into worthwhile dialogue and well written and catchy tunes. you will see that in this one, it is the exact opposite. The sets will put you in some magical re-imagined-passed universe, while the dialogues don't hold up, the songs are bad, and if you actually pay attention to what's going on, you are bored.

Let's cut it short : this movie is horrible. If I hadn't gone to see it with my family, I would have asked for my money back halfway through. I most certainly would not have appreciated it when I was little - this being said, I watched the first over and over again when I was a kid. P.L. Travers is probably rolling over in her grave. If you are wondering if you should see this movie - don't. Why does it have a good ratting? Probably for 2 reasons only 1) the name Marry Poppins is on it, and 2) Powder to the eyes.
135 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
ImDave6922 December 2018
I believe that 'Mary Poppins Returns' is the soulless Disney nostalgia cash-grab number 112? I don't know, I lost count long ago.

I suppose I'll start my list of complaints by mentioning how insufferable the acting in this movie is. Every time one of the child actors opened their mouth I wanted to break all the things. The terrible acting applies to the adults too of course. I think the father character (forgot his name) was the only notable one because of how fake his performance seemed - the rest of the cast were so devoid of character that I really couldn't care less about any of them.

I don't usually care about special effects in movies, but my god are they noticeably bad in this one. It was so distracting throughout the whole thing. You would think that Disney would have some kind of ability when it comes to special effects considering how many live-action remakes they've been doing but apparently not.

Every single song sounds the exact same with absolutely nothing memorable about them at all. They could have just used the same song for every number and I would not have noticed. The songs go on for way too long and don't progress the story at all. It was as if they just chose a random place in the script and shoved a song in.

The sense of conflict that the writers try to create is shattered by the fact that Mary Poppins can just swoop in and save the day anyway. That's one of the main sources of boredom. There isn't much enjoyment you can get out of a film when you know exactly where the story is going to go.

Mary Poppins Returns, like other nostalgic Disney cash-grabs, is a boring, soulless movie that is not worth your time and money. I can't think of anything positive to say about it, and I'm sure you couldn't either.
216 out of 421 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I amde a mistake - I saw this movie
bdvise27 December 2018
I make a policy of not going to remakes since they are never as good as the original. I will occasionally go to sequels. I made the mistake of thinking this was a sequel to the original Mary Poppins - it was not, it was a remake. Emily blunt does not compare to Julie Andrews - she does not have the charm, style and grace of Julie Andrews. And Lin-Manuel Miranda does not have the personalty of Dick Van Dyke. The scenes in the "new" movie paralleded the scenes in the original - interacting with cartoon characters, a dance scene with the chimney sweeps, etc. Earlier this year I saw the original Mary Poppins on TV. It was pleasant to see this old classic again. The new verwsion pales in comparison. The high point in the movie was the cameo role played by Dick Van Dyke. If you want to watch an entertaining movie called Mary Poppins, watch the original!!!
96 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disney Corp ruin Walt's Masterpiece
elliotwatson5 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
For the last ten, if not fifteen years, the Disney Corporation have believed that if they throw enough money at their movies (Pirates of the Carribean - 2, 3, 4, 5 etc) then they will work. Sadly this is again the case for Mary Poppins Returns and we are left disappointed.

As a young child I would watch the original Mary Poppins, then as soon as it was finished I would rewind it and watch it again and again. I can confidently say that I will never watch Mary Poppins Returns again.

Even though the writers copied the first movie (going into the painting, topsy turvy on the ceiling, going to the show versus the races, the chimmy sweapers versus BMX riders, a new Burt called Jack) the magic of the first movie is nowhere to be seen. The writing is weak, the lyrics are terrible and no song will be remembered - except maybe for how bad they are when compared to the originals. This movie requires a spoonful of sugar just to watch it till the end.

Emily Blunt does a great job but with a bad script and bad lyrics, it doesn't save the movie.

Disney please start loving and believing in your movies again. If you put the love in and stop focusing on profits you will actually make more money because your fans will love your products and watch them over and over again.

P.S you are doing the same thing to the Star Wars franchise, please stop.
41 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Total opposite of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
fatima_salamah23 December 2018
It took all of me not to get up and walk out...and I've sat through some bad movies! But the story & music were just awful. Also, I never write reviews but considering this was a Disney classic, I was greatly disappointed not to mention bored half the time. Love Emily Blunt, just not this movie.
188 out of 367 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A wherehouse of sugar wouldn't help this Turkey to go down.
nortonflynn9225 December 2018
The great irony of this disaster is that this is basically the movie that P.L. Travers wanted to make. She loathed Walt Disney and his "Hollywood" talent(Dick Van Dyke) She ridiculed to scorn the brilliant Sherman Brothers who wrote the music for Mary Poppins. She wanted theater performers(like Lin-Manuel. The only thing that P.L. Travers loathed mire then Disney's feature leangth production of Mary Poppins was the visionary genius himself Walt Disney. Now all these years later we have the P.L. Travers version of the story that Walt Disney turned into a masterpiece. With the exception of Emily Blunt and a cameo by Dick Van Dyke himself, this thing stinks up to the clouds that Mary Popinns sits on. By far and away the most disastrous performance by cinematic legend Meryl Streep. First of all she looked like the trans version of Johnny Depp's character from Alice in Wonderland. The musical number itself was any thing but musical. Lesson learned, don't mess with a masterpiece, don't try to add on to the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, afterall, there's probably only one Michelangeloand there is definitely only one Walt Disney
167 out of 324 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I've seen some shockers in my time..... this tops the lot
simonpeterbennett4 January 2019
I love films. I love the Cinema. 14 of us congreagated at the Cinema for this one as a family Christmas treat having begged not to have to go to the Pantomime.

This film was so appallingly bad. I disliked it. My two Sons hated it. Others in the group fell asleep.

Seriously next year I'll be crawling over glass for Pantomime Tickets if anyone suggests something as shocking. On a positive note, no one could pick a film worse than this next year so it's 100% guaranteed to be better.

Shocking film. Sorry!
91 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I heard someone shout finally its over
invalidcomment30 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Just five minutes and I knew the movie is bad. I was never the one who wrote review. usually I use imdb to keep note of movie I love and hate. however the movie is bad enough that I could no longer be the quiet point guy on imdb.

the songs are forgettable and too complex for children to sing along. the Mary poppin is so dark here, other than her bags of magic there is no reason for the children to love her.

I have loved the original movie and this is terrible. I feel like I'm watching a terrible stage musical, please don't bring your date to watch, or your mother. but buy the ticket for your enemy.

save the money and watch aquaman instead
87 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great cast, terrible story
jeffandkatie28 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I wanted to love this movie, I really did, but i just couldn't. I enjoyed it while I was watching but every so often there would be a jarring feeling of, "Woah! That's not what happens with Mary Poppins!!"

Emily Blunt is enchanting, and a wonderful Mary Poppins. I loved that she made her own stamp on the character and wasn't just a parody of Julie Andrews' version of Mary Poppins. She was actually quite a but more like the personality of the character in the books, which I really enjoyed.

I also truly felt Michael's despair, and the children's willingness to do anything for him, which is a testament to the excellent acting that was prominent in almost all of the performances.

The real problem is that it was if someone on the production had a checklist, and they were going down it, ticking things off: there's the magical things that Mary does when she first arrives to show the kids what she's really like, there's the adventure in an animated realm of some kind, there's the visiting a funny relative, there's the song and dance with the Not-Bert and his cronies where Mary joins in, there's the problem with the unsympathetic bank manager, there's the last scene in the park, etc., etc., etc.

The worst problem is that I don't think one person in the production truly knew anything about Mary herself and what kind of person she is. When the children were in the "bowl adventure" and they were separated from Mary, Georgie gets kidnapped by a scary wild and his henchman and the other two children have to rescue him while speeding down a treacherous road that is being cracked. This was somehow supposed to teach the children that you can't trust everyone and not to take people at face value, but was just awful and scary. At this point my six year-old started to cry, asking where Mary Poppins was, and was she going to save them?

Note to everyone involved with this production:


That is what makes them "adventures." When Mary Poppins takes you on an adventure it might be crazy, like floating on the ceiling, or getting sucked up a chimney, or even walking up a staircase made of smoke, and you might wonder if you are safe, but you always are. ALWAYS. That is why Mary Poppins isn't just magic, she's discovering the magic around you.

And Mary Poppins is not a dance girl, and she certainly does absolutely NOT do/say/sing anything that has sexual innuendo. The dance-hall number was well done but so disappointing because they tried to take the fun of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" and instead they just made it tacky. And Mary Poppins is NEVER tacky.

The villain was completely useless. All they would have had to do was to make him a supercilious person obsessed with technicalities and it could have been the same result. Then you wouldn't have needed the awful part of the adventure where the wolf who started out nice got mean and scary.

When I was sitting in the theater I enjoyed myself, which is again, I think, due to the fabulous performances, even though there were those jarring moments, but after I left the bad parts overshadowed the rest, until that's all I remembered. And the songs are completely forgettable. Not a "Chim-chim-cheree" in the bunch.

I think that my 14 year-old daughter said it best when on the way home she asked if we could watch the "good" Mary Poppins when we got home.
28 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed