Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MARY POPPINS RETURNS Post-Release Thread
#1
It's not going to make anyone forget the original, and I'm not sure it'll have the lingering cultural impact either, but this is a pretty darn entertaining movie.  It's got at least three killer musical numbers ("Can You Imagine That", "The Cover Is Not the Book" and "Nowhere to Go But Up," none of which made the Oscar shortlist, oddly enough), just the right amount of sentimental nostalgia for the original, and Emily Blunt just owning the role all over the place.  Sure, it's episodic and the plot is kinda threadbare, but that's true of the first one.  It's just an unabashedly charming movie that's going to please a ton of people.

And I'm totally convinced Mary takes the kids to Diagon Alley at one point and you can't tell me otherwise.
My karmic debt must be huge.

----------

My blog: An Embarrassment of Rich's
Reply
#2
Emily Blunt is fantastic, Miranda is terrible, and the movie is a big blob of nothing. Another Disney nostalgia cash-in that isn’t awful, but does nothing to justify its existence. I do like Whishaw a lot here, and thought the grief over his wife was a decent throughline to build the movie on. I just think that through-line often gets lost among the need for WHIMSY.

Also, Rob Marshall still can only turn hundreds of milions of dollars and a bunch of stars into bad green-screen performances or numbers that look like a completely stage-bound high school production.
Reply
#3
Who would have thunk that Aquaman would be awesome and this would be letting people down??
Reply
#4
Disney has had a rough year outside of Infinity War.
Reply
#5
(12-20-2018, 09:16 PM)serpico jones Wrote: Disney has had a rough year outside of Infinity War.

yea, that black panther movie really underperformed...
Reply
#6
(12-20-2018, 09:25 PM)Nooj Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 09:16 PM)serpico jones Wrote: Disney has had a rough year outside of Infinity War.

yea, that black panther movie really underperformed...

Forgot about that one.
Reply
#7
hehehehe, to be fair... February feels like FOREVER ago
Reply
#8
(12-20-2018, 09:25 PM)Nooj Wrote:
(12-20-2018, 09:16 PM)serpico jones Wrote: Disney has had a rough year outside of Infinity War.

yea, that black panther movie really underperformed...

Disney considers its movies to be borderline loss-leaders for its merchandising wing.  

Next year for Disney is going to be interesting.  The streaming service they are launching is a major endeavor, they have expensive theme park attractions opening, the Fox merger is not only insanely expensive but has the risk of turning into a worldwide regulatory nightmare, the MCU cash cow is probably saying good bye to most, if not all, of its front-line stars, and they have to see if JJ can course correct Star Wars into the fans' good graces.
Reply
#9
LOL Disney is going to be fine.

Hilarious.

Seriously, you guys. $7 billion at the box office this year.

And what does next year look like? Captain Marvel, Avengers: Endgame, Alladin, The Lion King, Toy Story 4, Frozen 2: Frozener, and Episode IX Part I.

But, yeah, looks pretty dire for them.

Reply
#10
There's a Frozen sequel? Of course there is.
Reply
#11
I know right? I mean why would they ever make a sequel to a movie that made them a lot of money and at the same time seems to be universally adored by little girls who don’t get a lot of movies made specifically for them.

Reply
#12
The second part of that sentence is staggering.
Reply
#13
(12-20-2018, 11:06 PM)Zuul/Catartik Wrote: ....little girls [] don’t get a lot of movies made specifically for them.

*Citation needed.
Reply
#14
I liked this quite a bit. Reminded me more of Bedknobs and Broomstick, especially when the three kids were running around the city; which is fine by me since I like that movie more than Mary Poppins anyways. Really liked how the style of animation was more in line with the Xerox era of Wolfgang Reitherman as opposed to later Disney stuff, always liked the look of those the most with how you can see the actual pencil lines.

I'm a little surprised how this is doing. While I wasn't expecting to do anything close to what Disney and bart did, I was at least expecting it to do a couple million more each day of its first weekend run. This so far has turned out to do worse than what I expected, although it's still in the Murder on the Orient Express park I guessed. 

The cartoon section had me hoping I was wrong about how this would do, as maybe this doing good would get Disney to get back into the traditional animation game. Now that seems even less likely than if it'd had done fantastically, which sucks.
Reply
#15
I was truly shocked to enjoy this as much as I did. I was resistant, not feeling it, except to note the odd scene that kinda worked, like Whishaw singing to his dead wife. Didn’t much care for the early underwater number. But when they go into the cartoon world, and meet Chris ODowd as an Irish Setter and we get to the big Blunt & Miranda burlesque number, I gave in. Everything after that, even the objectively bad Meryl Streep sequence, made me grin like an idiot.

It’s charming, made with enthusiasm and love, and the effect achieved with the aesthetics and performances felt very welcome. It’s old fashioned yet impressively modern. I had a great time.

It needed at least two great songs though. This soundtrack isn’t shit, but the original casts a long shadow musically. There’s no Spoonful of Sugar or Chim Chimeree here. More like a lot of Step In Times.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
#16
I think "Step'pin Time" consumes 25 minutes of Mary Poppins's running length.
Reply
#17
Just got back from this.

I think it's held back SIGNIFICANTLY by its screenplay, but I still found it a pleasant enough, wholesome effort. It very admirably attempts to retain the charms of the original film, and it’s a very good-looking movie (the production design and cinematography are particularly strong); from a musical perspective, it also sounds pretty good, too, and while I don’t think any of the songs will get frequent play outside of the movie itself, they (mostly) do work very well in the context of the story. "The Place Where the Lost Things Go" works like gangbusters in the actual movie.

Blunt is wonderful, and she makes the right choice of not attempting to do a Julie Andrews impression, but instead somehow finds a way to make the character her own while feeling completely like she should. If only the screenplay followed her lead! Therein lies the film’s central problem -- in attempting to recapture the feeling of the original classic, the script actually copies the original’s structure almost exactly; all of the beats, vignettes, and adventures have corresponding counterparts (a visit to a hand-drawn animated world populated by anthropomorphic animals... a visit to an eccentric family relative... a visit to a bank where something questionable is going on... a father reconnecting with his family... a showstopping dance number involving a group of London laborers... and more!) to the point that it basically starts to feel like a facsimile, a reproduction.

It’s ALMOST enough to sink the whole picture, because it just doesn’t display enough imagination or invention. Blunt, the music, and the visual aspects of the production (I really can’t say enough about the big animation sequence, which was a pure delight to witness) provided enough charm to pull me through, and it certainly could have turned out far worse than it did, but with only a few tweaks to the script, this really could have been special.
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)