Author Topic: Mary Poppins Has Come Back  (Read 2121 times)

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • My RUBBISH
Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« on: December 30, 2018, 07:12:38 PM »
Wasn't there a thread for this? Where's the thread got to?

Anyway, saw this tonight. Mary Poppins came down off the sky and back, back into our lives

Really wanted to like it, as I'm a fan of the original. But it just felt a bit...empty. Like there was no real reason for it to exist. Creatively, anyway. It's pretty much a beat for beat rehash of the original, but with far less charm and invention.

The fella playing the lamp bloke/chimney sweep replacement was a bit rubs, with none of the likeability of Dick Van Dyke, and with an even worse cockney accent. Emily Blunt was alright, though the voice and mannerisms felt a bit off at times. It didn't feel like the same character, which seems crucial for a sequel.

The songs were, for the most part, passable. Though, again, not a patch on the original's.

It was alright. Not good, not bad. Just, you know, alright. Though why anyone would ever reach to put this on over the original, I wouldn't know. Maybe no one ever will.

Three stars. Or three things out of her bag that shouldnt fit in there, but do

BlodwynPig

  • Throwing two dogs at a goblin
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2018, 12:18:29 AM »
Seemed unnecessary

Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2018, 09:50:15 AM »
The fella playing the lamp bloke/chimney sweep replacement was a bit rubs, with none of the likeability of Dick Van Dyke, and with an even worse cockney accent.

That's yer fella what wrote Hamilton, mate. I don't think we're allowed to criticise him, on account of he wrote Hamilton which apparently is the best thing ever done by anyone ever.

Shit Good Nose

  • Several bags of balls
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2018, 01:55:15 PM »
Mrs Nose and Little Nose went to see this yesterday (whilst I stayed home and watched Scorsese's Silence).  Mrs Nose enjoyed it for what it was, Little Nose preferred it over the original, which we watched on Boxing Day - she really struggled with it and wasn't as engaged with it as much as she was with the new one.

Glebe

  • So here we are, then.
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2018, 06:28:14 PM »
[tag]Nah, soz, it's just an umbrella caught in a tree.[/tag]

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2018, 08:47:38 PM »
I'll come on Mary Poppins' back etc etc.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2019, 04:43:42 AM »
I'll come on Mary Poppins' back etc etc.

You bloody well shan't, you dirty little monkey man.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2019, 05:09:39 AM »
Well if you insist.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2019, 05:51:48 AM »
Well if you insist.

I do insist!  Trying to spurt your juices upon Mrs. Poppins' back, like it's the most natural thing in the world!  I've never seen the like.  She wouldn't care for that.  She wouldn't care for that at all!

Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2019, 07:21:58 AM »
I've got a kid in my life now, so of course I saw this.

My expectations were exceedingly low (visions of Poppins twerking on her umbrella, songs about taking the perfect selfie etc.) and thankfully it was much better than that, but still a bit rubbish.  The framing plot was as stock as you could imagine, complete with Colin Firth's BAD BANK MAN who wouldn't have been out of place in an episode of Derek.  Then tying it all together were the Mary Poppins bits, where she's singing songs and teaching lessons about things which are barely relevant to the situation (like how to follow a bunch of dancing twats home if you're lost).  I liked the bit where Meryl Streep goes upside down.

Emily Blunt did alright, I suppose.  Lin Manuel-Miranda was fucking awful, I thought.  Russell Crowe levels of poor movie singing, and I only hope his shite British accent was something of a tribute to the original.  Speaking of which, the Dick Ex Machina at the end was completely unforgivable - a glaringly lazy way to end a story, coasting on the fact that the audience would be too distracted by the fact that it's Dick Van Dyke suddenly appearing out of fucking nowhere to save the day.

The musical numbers were ... fine, competent I suppose.  Good orchestration, though I couldn't hum a single tune from this even a day later.  I appreciate that they sort of tried to keep an old-school aesthetic, but a lot of it's still a blurry, green-screened, over-shot mess.

As Stewart Lee was once described, it all felt a bit "flabby and irrelevant".  Over two hours long as well, and they don't fly by.

10/10
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 07:33:50 AM by Noodle Lizard »

BritishHobo

  • That is a really reductive impression
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2019, 01:05:38 PM »
I liked that despite all the 'banks are evil' stuff, it was ultimately about a quite well-off family who never really have to worry about being out on the street because dear father had a high position in the bank and owned shares. Alright for some, isn't it?

I think I had the opposite to you. I find Miranda charming enough that I wasn't bothered by his accent - and it works in the tradition of Dick Van Dyke's character I think - but Emily Blunt felt really over-the-top in her poshness.

Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2019, 02:59:43 PM »
This was awful. Really boring, bad English accents, no memorable songs and a horrible deus ex machina to end with.

After all the good reviews and talk about how uplifting it was I was disappointed with the result.

icehaven

  • I will be in the bar, with my head on the bar
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2019, 03:49:55 PM »
I'm a bit perturbed by this notion of remaking a musical with completely different songs, I mean are the songs still at the same points in the film or are they deliberately different so they haven't, for example, had to find another way of showing the Supercalifragilisticexpialodocious incident without actually putting the word in a song?

Are there any musical remakes with new versions of the same songs from the original? I think that could potentially be a much better way of remaking a musical. Bugsy Malone first please, that has some brilliant songs almost totally ruined by shitty production and voices.

Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2019, 03:57:01 PM »
It is a sequel, not a remake

Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2019, 03:57:17 PM »
Its not a remake but a sequel. Just not that well done.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2019, 05:27:56 PM »
You'd have thought that the title Mary Poppins Returns might have suggested that this isn't a remake.

Anyway, for what it's worth, my Dad went to see this with my eldest Niece and said that it was "excellent".  It should be noted that my Dad also claims that the Indiana Jones movies are "awful" and that the practical effects in John Carpenter's The Thing "have dated horribly".

Yeah... this movie's shit, isn't it?

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2019, 05:30:35 PM »
What do they have instead of old men chortling themselves to the ceiling?

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • My RUBBISH
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2019, 05:36:34 PM »
His (in film) daughter, Meryl Streep (no, really) not being able to stop herself going upside down. That bit fell really flat (ho ho) for me

Also they should have taken out Angela Lansbury at the end, as it didn't really make sense. They offered that cameo to Julie Andrews, which sorta would've made sense and been quite nice, but she said no thaaaanks lads. I understand Lansbury was in Bedknobs and Broomsticks and was even considered to be the original Mary Poppins, but, you know, VAT IZ POINT

icehaven

  • I will be in the bar, with my head on the bar
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2019, 05:38:17 PM »
It is a sequel, not a remake

You'd have thought that the title Mary Poppins Returns might have suggested that this isn't a remake.


Well no, because...

...It's pretty much a beat for beat rehash of the original, but with far less charm and invention.


...so you can see why I'd presumed it was a remake.

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • My RUBBISH
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2019, 05:42:21 PM »
It follows the beats and formula of the original film, to an absurd degree. But it is a sequel. The kid characters from the first film are in it and now grown up and being all twee and annoying.

Ben Whishaw was a right wet dishrag in this. I just kept thinking that's Paddington. Paddington has grown a tash and is somehow living with a not as good Mary Poppins, and wanking into his dead wife's coat

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2019, 05:59:21 PM »
Kind of Home Alone 2 or Ghostbusters 2, except with Mary Poppins.

CaledonianGonzo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • No Cheeses For Us Meeces
    • DEC Syria Appeal
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2019, 06:22:52 PM »
Also they should have taken out Angela Lansbury at the end, as it didn't really make sense. They offered that cameo to Julie Andrews, which sorta would've made sense and been quite nice, but she said no thaaaanks lads. I understand Lansbury was in Bedknobs and Broomsticks and was even considered to be the original Mary Poppins, but, you know, VAT IZ POINT

I loved Lansbury's cameo and loved the ending.  Julie Walters in the same role would have made way, way less sense. In fact it would have banjaxed the whole finale.

Great movie.  I couldn't believe how right the whole thing felt. It's fucking magical.

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • My RUBBISH
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2019, 06:28:22 PM »
Fair enuff. Different strokes, an all that!

CaledonianGonzo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • No Cheeses For Us Meeces
    • DEC Syria Appeal
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2019, 06:32:09 PM »
No worries.  I'd rank it right up there with the Paddington movies as family films done right.

Whoever mentioned a 'deus ex machina', that's a callback / plot point from original.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2019, 08:20:20 PM »
Well no, because...

It's pretty much a beat for beat rehash of the original, but with far less charm and invention.

...so you can see why I'd presumed it was a remake.

The thing is that "a beat for beat rehash of the original, but with far less charm and invention" applies to a lot of sequels.  Bit perplexing to have presumed that a sequel would have offered something wonderfully original and fresh, given that decades of Hollywood sequels have, unfortunately, taught us to expect anything but.

CaledonianGonzo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • No Cheeses For Us Meeces
    • DEC Syria Appeal
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2019, 08:35:27 PM »
Fifty years have passed; succeeding in capturing the tone of the original is quite some feat.  A Mary Poppins for the 21st century wisecracking and jumping out of planes can GTF.

I wouldnt call it a re-hash anyway.  Its clearly made with a lot of love and reverence for the original and some of the beats echo the earlier film: the animated sequence; the lamplighters song, but there's enough fresh in the plot to maintain the interest.  It touches on death and grief in a way that the original doesnt.

Talulah, really!

  • O, belike it is the Bishop of Carlisle
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2019, 05:55:53 PM »
Went to see this at the cinema, first time I was pleased when they put a DVD on.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2019, 06:42:15 PM »
Went to see this at the cinema, first time I was pleased when they put a DVD on.

Why did they put a DVD on?

Phoenix Lazarus

  • Why bother writing stuff below your avatar?
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2019, 06:58:45 PM »
my Dad also claims that the Indiana Jones movies are "awful" and that the practical effects in John Carpenter's The Thing "have dated horribly".


Your Dad's a silly cunt*.  The Thing with CGI would look artificial, and nowhere near as effective as the 1982 effects.

*with all due respect, of course.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Mary Poppins Has Come Back
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2019, 07:41:56 PM »
Why did they put a DVD on?

I'm curious as to what the heck Talulah, really! meant by this too.

Your Dad's a silly cunt*.

*with all due respect, of course.

I know.  I've lambasted him for his ridiculous and frankly inaccurate statements regarding film in the past.  He also constantly tells me that I'm "overthinking things, it's just a film" when I point out subtext and interesting details when we're watching a film together.  He honestly seems to think that good filmmakers don't purposefully choose certain set designs or props, nor choose certain shots or cinematography choices with any real rhyme or reason and that it's all just entirely incidental.

Often an observation I make, which has previously been shot down my Dad, will later be confirmed as intentional via a director commentary, via a subsequent DVD viewing.  When I point this out to my Dad, to try and educate him that I'm not "overthinking things" and that there is in fact such a thing as subtext and symbolism within film, he responds that I "watch too many films to notice these things".  Yet, if he asks if I've ever watched some fairly obscure film from the 50's or 60's and I respond in the negative, he'll loudly proclaim "What?!  You haven't seen that?!  I thought that you were into films!  Honestly, Ed.  What kind of supposed film buff are you?!  You need to watch more films!".

It's very annoying but hey, I'll miss him terribly when he's gone.

The Thing with CGI would look artificial, and nowhere near as effective as the 1982 effects.

Indeed.  One only needs to look towards the 2011 prequel to see how shite CGI can look when it comes to thing transformations.