Sign in to follow this  
NipkowDisc

mary poppins returns

31 posts in this topic

When viewing Mary Poppins View Master reels on a Model D (X7 mag plus halogen back lighting) you can see the wires holding them up. :lol:

Sample photo doesn't do it justice.8cc9a88e99f09d5305e05070f302c956.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The L.A. Times today in their review,  didn't praise the film,  mainly saying it was a missed opportunity. 

It looks like the best part of the film is the very short Dick Van Dyke cameo. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Variety pointed out that while it does have charming moments, every would-be charming moment is very calculatedly made to put us EXACTLY in mind of the original '64 movie: https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/mary-poppins-returns-review-emily-blunt-1203085530/#article-comments
"Oh, look at the dancing lamplighters, they're just as good as the chimney sweeps!"

And the idea of doing a Mary Poppins sequel isn't new:  It was the thirty-year Ahab obsession of Michael Eisner's regime, back when the new heads took over in the late 80's, and had to do a New Eisner-era sequel to an Old Walt classic, to show that the studio hadn't been taken over by a ruthless conqueror.  Problem was--back in the days before VHS vidquels--the only Walt-era movies open-ended enough to do sequels to were Fantasia, The Rescuers and Mary Poppins.  And we got two out of three.

What probably got the movie out of limbo is the same Disney studio push for "house franchise" that's been giving us all those darn live-action remakes:  John Lasseter technically outlawed direct story sequels to past classics in the 00's, which means Disney can't do sequels, "reboots" or prequels to their animated movies, at least not in animation.  But thanks to "Saving Mr. Banks", they've now hit on the idea that they can make live-action movies about adults who grew up with the original Disney characters, like grown-up Christopher Robin, or grown-up Jane & Michael Banks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The L.A. Times today in their review,  didn't praise the film,  mainly saying it was a missed opportunity. 

It looks like the best part of the film is the very short Dick Van Dyke cameo. 

 

 

Good to know, since when Dick Van Dyke did his supposed tribute special to the talents of Stan Laurel, Stan basically abhorred it, rolling over in his grave and was slightly sarcastic about Dick's quasi-honoring of Laurel. Most critics also saw it as more of a tribute to Dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family and I saw it the second day on the 20th.  Before the holidays and Christmas.  Great movie.  I can’t wait to get the soundtrack.  The new story is fantastic.  The new music is fantastic and Dick Van Dyke’s cameo.  Once again as the banker.  Same character.  But this time as the uncle of the banker is fantastic too.  He sings and dances and everything.  We went to a theatre that served dinner too.  It was a really neat and really cool experience and the new cast is fantastic too.  For those of you who haven’t seen it yet.  I highly recommend it.  Go see it.  I just loved it.  It’s fantastic.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a highly spirited "sequel" to the original film.

It's as light as a feather and it never stops moving.

However -

Emily Blunt is perfect with Mary Poppins' no-nonsense atitiude, but she lacks ALL of Julie Andrews' charm.

And -

Lin Manuel-Miranda is merely adequate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as to how much time passed between the original and the "sequel", they should have seen if they could have coaxed OLIVIA DeHAVILLAND out of retirement to play Mary, and Van Dyke to reprise his role, with BETTY WHITE and RIP TORN to play the BANKS children!  ;)

Sepiatone

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rayban said:

It's a highly spirited "sequel" to the original film.

It's as light as a feather and it never stops moving.

However -

Emily Blunt is perfect with Mary Poppins' no-nonsense atitiude, but she lacks ALL of Julie Andrews' charm.

Travers' book version is just plain nasty, but when Disney wanted to sweeten the '64 version into something palatable, Julie Andrews insisted on honoring Travers' ideas by putting a little of the tartness and vanity back in, and hit the right perfect balance by accident or design.

Even from the previews (haven't gotten to the malls yet), Blunt looks like she's got the book character, but yes, doesn't have the affectionately in-on-the-joke "wink" that Andrews had when she deliberately frustrates the kids' attempts to figure out her secrets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Travers' book version is just plain nasty, but when Disney wanted to sweeten the '64 version into something palatable, Julie Andrews insisted on honoring Travers' ideas by putting a little of the tartness and vanity back in, and hit the right perfect balance by accident or design.

Even from the previews (haven't gotten to the malls yet), Blunt looks like she's got the book character, but yes, doesn't have the affectionately in-on-the-joke "wink" that Andrews had when she deliberately frustrates the kids' attempts to figure out her secrets.

In this latest version, she's a taskmaker - somebody you would probably want to avoid.

I kept asking myself - "Why is the dad tolerating her less-than-benign presence?"

Well, "spoiler alert" - he is in danger of losing the family home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I just watched SAVING MR. BANKS for the first time. A very, very good film with Tom Hanks as Disney and Emma Thompson as Travers both giving superb performances. Add kudos to Paul Giamatti as Thompson's studio chauffeur. I wasn't nuts about the casting of the Sherman Brothers, who looked more like waspy Broadway chorus boys than two Jewish fellows from Brooklyn.

As for MARY POPPINS RETURNS, when I see it (probably on cable) I will be listening to hear if Marc Shaiman used the concertina in his orchestration. That single instrument, prominent during the passages that used the "Feed the Birds" motif, to me was critical to the emotional character of Irwin Kostal's scoring of MARY POPPINS.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The true stars of this film are the Banks children -

Nathanael Saleh as John, Joel Dawson as George and Pixie Davies as Anabel -

Mary-Poppins-Returns-2.jpg?w=1000

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mary poppins aint tough. lets see her use her magic and turn herself into a 50 foot woman.

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 1:20 PM, rayban said:

The true stars of this film are the Banks children -

Nathanael Saleh as John, Joel Dawson as George and Pixie Davies as Anabel -

The child actors are indeed all terrific. I assume the casting department deserves credit for being able to spot which children are going to work out best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

The child actors are indeed all terrific. I assume the casting department deserves credit for being able to spot which children are going to work out best.

It can't be easy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 10:26 AM, rayban said:

This past weekend, the film made $28 million.

Yea, the film is doing very well at the box office,  better then I expected.  I would love to see a demographic breakdown of who is paying to see the film.     E.g.  is it grandparents who are talking their grandchildren to see the film (due to their fondness for the original)?    My initial POV was such a film would attract only a very narrow demographic,  but if that is the case,  a high percentage in that demographic must be going to see it.

Note that UCLA just fired their basketball coach.   They plan to hire one-of-the-best based on the legacy of John Wooden,  but he won all those championships in the 60s and 70s.    Many are saying UCLA can no longer use that 'too old' legacy as a draw.   See the parallel.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I went to see it, the movie theater was packed with parents and kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the new film is GREAT.

But "Mary Poppins" was destroyed for me when I watched SAVING MR. BANKS. (Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks)

Fans of Emma Thompson were amazed she won no awards for her role---maybe because Mary Poppins' creator was a raving PSYCHO.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the film. It certainly is beautifully shot. As a fan of musicals,though, only two of the songs were memorable for me. "Trip A Little Light Fantastic", a catchy tune along with some nice choreography, and "A Cover Is Not A Book", a show-within-a-show number with some nifty rapping by Lin-Manuel Miranda. Overall, an enjoyable flick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be in the minority lol. I went and saw it 2 days ago, and should be doing my review shortly. It requires a lot of prior preparation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us