Mary Poppins Returns (2018) review

Disney’s 1964 adaptation of P.L. Travers’ classic book series Mary Poppins is a film that needs no introduction. With a lovely visual style, iconic soundtrack by the Sherman brothers, and outstanding lead performances from Julie Andrews as the titular nanny and Dick Van Dyke as her lovable sidekick Bert, Mary Poppins is quite arguably the most beloved Disney film ever made. For starters, it achieved a studio record by earning 13 nominations at the 37^th annual Academy Awards (including Best Picture) and ultimately won 5, with Andrews winning the Oscar for Best Actress. And with a total box-office gross of over $102 million achieved through its initial release and additional re-releases, it’s safe to say that this is a film that has continued to stand the test of time. One person who didn’t like the film, however, was P.L. Travers. As dramatized in the 2013 film Saving Mr. Banks, the film’s pre-production mostly consisted of disagreements between Travers and Walt Disney over changes that the latter and his team were making to her story. And because of all these creative conflicts, Travers forbid Disney from ever making a sequel… that is, until 2015, when the studio got the approval from Travers’ estate to do a sequel to the original classic. Under the direction of veteran filmmaker Rob Marshall, who’s no stranger to musicals having directed the 2002 Best Picture winner Chicago and Disney’s 2014 adaptation of the popular Broadway show Into the Woods, Mary Poppins Returns is not just a remake of the original Mary Poppins as many feared it would be when it was first announced. And while this new film does ultimately share quite a few things in common with its predecessor, it still comes together nicely for a truly heartwarming family flick.

It has been twenty-five years since Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the magical nanny who’s ‘practically perfect in every way’, came to the Banks family and changed their lives for the better. In the years since, Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw), who still lives at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, has started a family of his own with three kids, his daughter Annabel (Pixie Davies) and his two sons John (Nathanael Saleh) and Georgie (Joel Dawson). However, since the passing of his wife Kate one year prior, the family has been dealing with serious financial troubles which have only been made worse by the onslaught of the Great Depression. And to make matters worse, Michael is notified by his lawyers that he only has a few days to pay off the loan that he made after his wife’s passing or he and his family will be forced out of their home. To try and fix the problem, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) try to find the certificate that verifies their father’s shares at Fidelity Fiduciary Bank while Michael’s kids attempt to earn the money on their own accord. Luckily for all of them, Mary Poppins ends up coming back into the family’s lives, agreeing to look after Annabel, John, and Georgie while Michael and Jane deal with their current predicament. And just like their father and aunt before them, the new crop of Banks children discover the full extent of Mary Poppins’ magical abilities, which she uses with the help of a friendly lamplighter named Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) to turn their luck around.

Now let me start by saying that, while I usually try not to directly agree with popular opinion, I will admit that I do concur with one of the most common points that are being brought up about this film in that it has quite a bit in common with its predecessor. The main plot isn’t that different from the original save for a more tension-filled climax and a more pronounced villain. Heck, even the songs in this film’s soundtrack have similar set-ups to the ones from the original, from a show-stopping dance number to lighten the mood like ‘Step in Time’ to an uplifting grand finale tune a la ‘Let’s Go Fly a Kite’. And yet, despite all this, the film does a great job of maintaining the heartwarming atmosphere of the original Mary Poppins without being a direct carbon copy of it. Even with a similar plot, this new film is on par with the original when it comes to having a strong sense of emotional depth throughout via the Banks family’s current gloomy predicament and how they overcome it with the help of Mary Poppins. This is then matched nicely with all the whimsical adventures that Mary and the Banks children go on, and just like the original, this film boasts a gorgeous visual style throughout right down to the inclusion of a sequence where the characters interact with traditionally-animated characters. As for the soundtrack, courtesy of Hairspray songwriters Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, it generally matches the Sherman brothers’ soundtrack for the original film in terms of how perfectly well- balanced it is. In other words, there are just as many great emotional melodies in this (e.g. a heart-wrenching solo for Michael, ‘A Conversation’, and Mary Poppins’ big solo ‘The Place Where Lost Things Go’) as there are grandiose show-tunes (e.g. ‘Trip a Little Light Fantastic’ which, as previously mentioned, is basically this film’s version of ‘Step in Time’).

Clearly, a lot of expectations were set upon this film given the pedigree of its predecessor, and perhaps no one felt this greater than Emily Blunt when it came to her taking on the role of Mary Poppins from Julie Andrews. Luckily for Blunt, her take on the whimsical English nanny is a wonderful performance that fully allows her to make the part her own. Specifically, she gets to go off Travers’ books a bit more by having her Mary be a bit snarkier with the Banks family. However, the compassion that she has for them, AKA the one thing that made Andrews’ take on the character vastly different from the books but iconic nevertheless, is still there, providing a unique balance between book and film. And just like Andrews did with Dick Van Dyke all those years ago, Blunt works wonderfully off Lin-Manuel Miranda as this film’s ‘Bert’, Jack the lamplighter. But just like Blunt, Miranda manages to make his character more than just a copy of his predecessor, whether it’s through an opportunity for Miranda to show off his freestyle roots or a sweet little romance that forms between him and Jane. Speaking of the Banks children, both Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer are excellent in their respective roles, with Whishaw getting some of the most understated emotional moments in the film and Mortimer making the most out of what is basically the equivalent of Glynis Johns’ role from the original as Winifred Banks. The new Banks children are great as well thanks in large part to the strong sibling camaraderie between them that is apparent right out the gate. Lastly, just like the original, this film features some highly memorable cameos throughout, including Meryl Streep as Mary’s eccentric cousin/fix-it shop owner Topsy and even the one and only Dick Van Dyke as Fidelity Fiduciary Bank chairman Mr. Dawes Jr., a nod to his secondary role in the original as Mr. Dawes Sr.  

In short, it’s true that the new Mary Poppins has quite a lot in common with the original classic. Not only does it have a near-similar plot to its predecessor, but even its new soundtrack mirrors the original in terms of both song placement and premise. As such, the inevitable argument regarding this film’s necessity continues to be in play, especially given Disney’s current trend of revitalizing some of their classic stories for a new generation. But to be clear, this is not just a ‘remake’ of the original Mary Poppins (believe me, if it was, then it would’ve been dead in the water as soon as it was announced given how intense the internet gets about stuff like this). Yes, it feels like the original in a lot of ways, but considering how great the original Mary Poppins truly is, this isn’t such a bad thing in this instance. Under the solid direction of Rob Marshall, this film nobly follows in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to achieving that perfect balance of thoroughly emotional family drama and whimsical fantasy. The soundtrack by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman is quite arguably on par with the Sherman brothers’ iconic soundtrack from the original and the film maintains the same great visual style of its predecessor. And with a terrific ensemble cast headlined by Emily Blunt’s phenomenal turn as Mary Poppins, Mary Poppins Returns is easily one of the most delightful films to come out in recent years. Admittedly, I can’t say that it’s ‘better’ than the original, but it’s still very much a worthy follow-up to one of the most beloved Disney films of all-time. And to be perfectly frank, in these dark times that we’re currently facing, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now.

Rating: 5/5!

Disney/Pixar's Cars: Double Feature Review (2006/2011)

This weekend sees the release of Pixar Animation’s first release of 2017, Cars 3. It is, of course, the third installment of the studio’s highly successful franchise… at least, from a commercial perspective. In terms of merchandising sales, this series has earned over $10 billion worldwide, easily making it one of Disney’s most commercially successful brands. But in terms of critical reception, the Cars films are generally regarded as some of Pixar’s weakest outings. The second film, especially, is quite infamous for being their first negatively-received film, breaking a ‘win-streak’ that had been going on ever since their first feature film, Toy Story, back in 1995. Thus, there’s quite a bit of uncertainty surrounding this new film. Will it be subjected to the same mixed reception as its predecessors, or could it potentially turn things around for the franchise? We’ll soon find out, but until then, today I’ll be doing a double feature pairing of reviews for the first two Cars films. Now, technically speaking, I did review these films before back in 2013, when I did a ‘Pixar Retrospective’ in time for Pixar’s then-newest release, Monsters University. However, those ‘reviews’ didn’t have much to them content-wise, meaning that the following reviews are going to be more constructive by comparison. Also, I’ll admit that I haven’t watched either of these films in quite some time, so it’ll be interesting to see if my opinions on them change in any way. Finally, I just want to mention that I won’t be doing reviews for the two Planes spin-off films that were released in 2013 and 2014. No, it’s not because both were subjected to generally mixed reviews and, from what I’ve read, were initially meant to be direct-to-video releases. It’s just that I wanted to focus solely on the Cars films for today’s post. Plus, the Planes films were not made by Pixar. While they were produced by Pixar’s John Lasseter (director of the first two Cars films) and are considered spin-offs of the Cars franchise, they were instead made by DisneyToon Studios, Disney’s home video division. We’re only talking about Pixar today, folks! Ka-Chow!

CARS (2006)

We start things off, of course, with 2006’s Cars, the film that spawned one of Disney and Pixar’s most successful franchises in terms of its merchandising. However, while it did do fine with critics, it wasn’t considered one of the studio’s best efforts. Thus, it could be argued that this film (and its sequel) basically went on to spawn the internet mindset which argues that if a Pixar film isn’t an outright critically-acclaimed effort (or, as I like to call it, a ‘15/10 masterpiece’), it ain’t worth a damn. Here’s where I disagree with that notion. Yes, I’ll admit that the plot of Cars is a simpler one compared to other Pixar films; in fact, many have pointed out the similarities that it shares with Doc Hollywood, a 1991 film starring Michael J. Fox which has a similar plot. And I’m also well-aware of how quite a few people have questioned the concept and logistics behind a universe in which cars are portrayed as sentient beings without human drivers. But, even with all this in mind, that doesn’t mean that the film doesn’t have any heart because it does. It’s a story about an egotistical celebrity, a racer named Lightning McQueen, who learns to have a greater appreciation for the old-fashioned charm of a simpler lifestyle when he gets stuck in a forgotten town on Route 66 while on the way to a big race. This overall arc that Lightning goes through is well-handled, and the film also does a great job of making the residents of the Route 66 town that he comes to, Radiator Springs, a lovable bunch. Case in point, I dare you not to get even a little bit emotional during the ‘Our Town’ sequence, where we see how Radiator Springs was severely impacted by the development of a nearby interstate that caused a severe blow to their town’s tourism.

These characters are portrayed excellently by a great ensemble cast that includes the likes of Owen Wilson as Lightning, Larry the Cable Guy as Lightning’s dim-witted but loyal best friend Mater the Tow Truck (I know Larry the Cable Guy isn’t the most popular comedian out there, but Mater IS a legitimately lovable supporting character), and the legendary Paul Newman in his final film role* as Radiator Springs’ resident judge/mechanic Doc Hudson, who is revealed to have been a famous racer himself back in the day known as the ‘Hudson Hornet’ before a devastating crash forced him out of the game. This, by the way, also happens to be a retroactively subtle set-up for the events of the new film, which will see Lightning go through the same hardships as his mentor. And, of course, the animation is just as great as you’d expect from a Pixar production. I do love all the ways in which the film reimagines our world through the eyes of cars (e.g. cows are portrayed as tractors (the ‘tractor-tipping’ scene… need I say more?)). So, in short, I’ll admit that my love for this film may partially stem from the fact that it was one of those films that I saw at a young age and then proceeded to re-watch numerous times when I got it on DVD. However, upon this most recent re-watch, I find that I still stand by my overall opinion on this film; that it truly is a worthwhile entry in Pixar’s prestigious filmography and an underrated one at that. No, I’m not saying that it’s one of their absolute best; some parts of it are, admittedly, kind of slow. But at the end of the day, it’s more than enough proof that not every film that Pixar makes needs to be a game-changing masterpiece.

Rating: 4.5/5

(*It’s recently been confirmed that Doc Hudson will appear in Cars 3 via unused audio of Paul Newman taken from this film)

CARS 2 (2011)

And here we are… Cars 2, the film that effectively killed Pixar’s ‘winning streak’ as their first effort that garnered generally negative reviews from critics. Sure, it did solid enough at the box-office and it did continue to impact the franchise’s impressive track record when it comes to merchandise sales. But as for Pixar fans, some felt that this was a betrayal (a criminal offense, even) from the legendary animation company to put out an ‘inferior’ film like this after all that they’ve done. Seriously, I wish that I was kidding about this, but my friend and fellow blogger Kyle Ostrum (kylesanimatedworld.blogspot.com and kylelovesanimationnmore.wordpress.com) has informed me that he once saw comments like that in online forums. Now that I have finally seen this film for the first time ever since I saw it at the Wellfleet Drive-in in Cape Cod back in 2011, what do I think about it now? Well… it’s honestly not THAT bad. Granted, though, it’s far from perfect. Ultimately, the biggest issue with Cars 2 is that the overall narrative is a messy one. The main plot consists of Lightning McQueen participating in a worldwide Grand Prix after he’s challenged by a hot-shot Italian formula racer named Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro). This then leads to him, Mater, and the Radiator Springs crew going on a world tour to spots like Japan, Italy, and London. Now that alone would be a cool idea for a Cars sequel, as it allows us to see this world of cars expanded upon in fascinating ways. But then there’s the other plot of the film, which involves Mater unintentionally getting caught up in the world of espionage when two agents, veteran Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and rookie field agent Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), confuse him for one of their contacts. This is also a rather cool route for a Cars film to explore. I mean, sure, maybe it’s a bit ‘out there’ given this franchise’s simpler roots, but it does lead to some fun action sequences.

But ultimately, that’s the big problem here… when paired together, these two plotlines don’t properly co-exist. Despite what I said earlier about the World Tour/Grand Prix being the focus of the plot, it’s ultimately the other way around. It’s the spy plot that comes first, basically making Mater the main character of the film. And remember what I said earlier about how not everyone is a fan of Larry the Cable Guy? Well, if you aren’t... then you’re probably not going to like this film for this exact reason. As for me though, as I noted before, I am a fan of Mater the character, so I personally didn’t mind him getting more screen-time in this film. However, this also means that Lightning, AKA the MAIN CHARACTER OF THE SERIES, is relegated to a supporting role along with the other members of the Radiator Springs gang. And yet, based on the film’s teaser trailer, it seemed like Lightning was going to be involved in the spy stuff as well… that’s ultimately not the case here. With that said, though, I do genuinely like the arc that Mater goes through in this film as he tries to prove to everyone that he’s not just some goofball. Plus, the animation is excellent, as one can always expect from Pixar, and the racing scenes are entertaining as are the action sequences involving the spy characters. Thus, in conclusion, Cars 2 seriously isn’t as bad as the internet has consistently put it out to be. I mean, to be fair, if I had to rank this amongst the other films in Pixar’s filmography, it would admittedly be near the bottom of the list… in fact, maybe even the exact bottom. Still, in my book, that’s not too much of a bad thing because I don’t hold Pixar to the same high standards that the internet holds it to. And from what I’ve heard, a lot of this film’s shortcomings were just the result of Pixar being somewhat rushed into getting this film completed. Hopefully, that isn’t the case with Cars 3, which is set to re-embrace the series’ roots.

Rating: 3.5/5

And those are my [potentially controversial] thoughts on the Cars films. Thanks for following along and stay tuned, as a review of Cars 3 will be posted sometime in the next week. Until then…

KA-CHOW!