Le Retour de Mary Poppins

I enjoy musicals, I always remember the original Mary Poppins with relish, and I would listen to Emily Blunt even if she was just reading the TV guide, but this nostalgic remix is so empty that it hurts. ___ Mary herself has a scandalously marginal role in the film. The filmmakers do not work with her as a full-fledged character of the story, but merely as a symbol (so, of course her shadow has to appear on Big Ben). This is beneficial for the story in that it pushes the minute hand back at the right time. Otherwise, she would not have to be in the film at all. Eighty percent of the plot is equally useless, as it is composed of carelessly arranged educational (in the better case) songs that do not in any way advance the plot. The musical numbers mainly represent only technically more advanced, longer and more ostentatious variations of scenes from the original film – instead of dancing animated penguins, the whole zoo; instead of tap-dancing chimney sweeps, a gang of lamplighters. ___ One of the most superfluous scenes is simultaneously the only memorable one, because in it Meryl Streep, as a slightly deranged gypsy from somewhere in Eastern Europe, sings a totally nonsensical song about frogs (Shaiman’s word games are the main reason to at least play the soundtrack). Another painful example of wasted talent is Colin Firth, who plays – as the original – an evil banker who enriches himself at the expense of his clients, which, however, is not as horrible an offence as the fact that he suffocated his inner child. As if society was no longer infantile enough. ___ Mary Poppins Returns is the same kind of peg on which to hang expensive music/dance numbers as Into the Woods and Nine. The sad thing is that, thanks to the set design and music, this hopeless clunker will in all probability be nominated for enough Oscars and make enough money that Rob Marshall will be able to continue committing crimes against cinema (we can already “look forward” to his The Little Mermaid). ___ You’ll be better off watching Paddington again with your kids. 40% (20/12/2018)

It took Pamela Travers 54 years to publish her Mary Poppins stories, and just as long to make a movie sequel. On the one hand, such a project makes perfect sense, on the other, it is complete nonsense. At the same time, it's a true sequel (Mary returns to watch the children in the next generation) and it's an almost identical copy and homage at the same time. It's cycled and not everyone is necessarily comfortable with such an experiment. Wherein the original film is a classic, people will probably be happy, wherein they also loved the Broadway musical, they will be delighted... the rest of us can put the phenomenon on ice for a while. Because we learned the really important stuff in the biopic Save Mr. Banks (2013). (08/09/2019)