User reviews

I thought that the film was very enjoyable, however, even though I've been cautioned not to I cannot help but compare this film to the original 1964 film with Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. There's so much to like in the 1964 film.

Expectations were very high for 'Mary Poppins Returns'. 'Mary Poppins' is still one of my all-time favourite films, the very meaning of a timeless classic. The cast is also a very talented one and have enjoyed some of Disney's previous re-makes/follow-ups. After watching the trailer, 'Mary Poppins Returns' did become one of my most anticipated films of 2018 and was really hoping it would be as good as the trailer was and not be a disappointment, where the trailer was great and the film was not, like another highly anticipated film 'The Nutcracker and the Four Realms'.

Found myself luckily really enjoying this on the most part after seeing it with my sister. It is not in the same league as, or have the same amount of magic as, 'Mary Poppins', which would have been a tall order in the first place with such enormously high quality to love up to. But on its own merits there were for me a lot of merits and a lot to enjoy for all ages, young and old, male and female. 'Mary Poppins Returns' is imperfect and the magic is not quite there all the way through, but for me the film was not devoid of it and there is a great deal of charm, not a cash grab.

There is not an awful lot of originality to the story, really did appreciate that it tried to be respectful, which is obvious in the numerous nods throughout the film. But structurally there was a sense of over-faithfulness and that it could have felt more like its own story. There were a few draggy stretches and scenes that felt like filler, especially the rather strange and not really needed in hindsight scene with Meryl Streep.

Really like Streep but she and her character were just bizarre and she overdoes the acting, with the character feeling like a going nowhere plot-device practically forgotten about quickly. Confess too to guessing early on everything with the shares.

However, 'Mary Poppins Returns' benefits hugely from looking absolutely wonderful, beautifully shot and with gorgeous nostalgic colours in the production and costume designs that fondly recall 'Mary Poppins'. The animation in the animated sequence shows technological advancement and how a lot of effort was made to show respect to 'Mary Poppins'. Another huge plus is Emily Blunt (closer to PL Travers' vision of Mary Poppins), who is superb and the asset that comes closest to being practically perfect in every way. She is well supported by Lin Manuel Miranda, sporting a not so great accent but immense energy, likeability, charm and a great singing voice (they work wonderfully together too, most obvious in "A Cover is Not the Book"). As well as appealing beyond their years performances from the children (evident in the tense climactic moments of the animated scene), movingly stoic Ben Whishaw and charming Emily Mortimer. Colin Firth is fun, and in the animated sequence his voice work was the standout, Julie Walters is even more of a hoot, and really loved the Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury cameos and a hilariously crusty David Warner. Only Streep didn't work for me.

A lot has been said about the inferiority of the songs. Will say that they are nowhere near the same quality of those in 'Mary Poppins' and are unlikely to become songbook standards. In their own way though, to me they were very pleasant and well composed, the best being "Can You Imagine That" and "Nowhere to Go But Up", both actually very hummable, and the one miss being the completely forgettable and pointless "Turning Turtle". They were also very well staged, neither overblown or static, the standouts being "Nowhere to Go But Up" and "A Cover is Not the Book" (didn't actually find the latter long winded). That for "Can You Imagine That" was very colourful and had immense charm. A highlight too was the Doulton bowl/vaudevillian animated sequence, loved the animation itself and it was just very entertaining and charming with a tense end. Most of the film left me completely gripped, the script had drollness and heart (with some funny moments) and there was an investable emotional impact with the Banks' story without it being cloying. It was hard not to squeal and shed a small tear at the affectionate and nostalgic nods to 'Mary Poppins' peppered throughout the film. This was clearly made by people who loved, or at least had great affection for, 'Mary Poppins', not intent on tarnishing it. It's directed with a loving hand by Rob Marshall and the instrumental score is lush and whimsical.

So all in all, as said, not practically perfect in every way but the magic almost returns. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Have finally caught up with this and enjoyed it thoroughly. The only reason I've not scored it higher is for the song in the Music Hall, too sleazy for Mary Poppins and a flatness and wordiness of some of the other songs. But others were light hearted and catchy and beautifully done. I never liked the Mary Poppins books, she lied and was way too weird. I enjoyed the Julie Andrews/Disney version, much more likeable. Emily Blunt based her Mary much more on the book but happily also managed to make her more likeable. I just wish someone would help Disney song writers realise that people enjoy good melodies and don't need loooong songs that are too wordy. Plus when doing a movie for children keep it clean and good. The sleaziness of that 1 particular song was so out of step with Mary and the whole tone of her story.

I found this movie to be quite enjoyable. It's not quite as good as the original but it holds it's own. Emily blunt as Mary Poppins is amazing. I think Julie Andrews would be pleased. I guess my only disappointment is the lack of memorable songs. But that's okay....it's hard to capture that magic twice. Twas a great effort. The cameo got me in tears. I love Dick Van Dyke.

I am 43 and as a Generation X'er, I am skeptical by nature and am normally not inclined to introducing new actors into iconic roles. I loved Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins and now, Emily Blunt has made me fall in love with Mary Poppins all over again!!! When we left the theater, my husband and I felt like we had just left the Magic Kingdom - it is a magical movie experience! Worth every dollar to see on the big screen!! I couldn't be more pleased with Mary Poppins Returns. She is "practically perfect in every way". Emily Blunt has stage presence, the songs are pleasing and the story is extremely touching. (I watched Saving Mr. Banks and for those who don't get why Mary Poppins came back, missed the entire point of Mary Poppins, Saving Mr.Banks and Mary Poppins Returns.) We all need a Mary Poppins moment to remind us of what truly matters in life. So if you want to Trip a Little Light Fantastic, find out Where the Lost Things Go, and be reminded with a childlike heart There is Nowhere to Go But Up, then please see this movie and feel the magic!

Growing up Mary Poppins was one of my favorite films. When Saving Mr. Banks came out a few years back I re-watched the original for first time in years and found a depth I didn't pick up on as a child. So I wasn't really looking forward to a follow up given that the first movie was practically perfect in every way. More to the point who but Andrews could ever do the character justice? Nonetheless, I ventured to see this today because Rob Marshall (he directed the great Chicago) was the director so I had a little bit of hope this would be OK. It is not only OK but it is a wonderful fellow-up to the original film and in some ways closer to the books. My only complaint, and it is exceedingly minor given that it is a family film, is the overall template of Mary Poppins is rather obvious. The new adventure is a bit like the old one and there's a lot of analog scenes between the two films. But given that Mary Poppins returns to help the Banks children again it feels correct that this is the case. The film is surprising in its details, but comforting in its large familiar strokes.

I think, and I can't believe this is true, Blunt is the main reason for this. Andrews is the gold standard but Blunt is almost her equal. Her Poppins is funny, stern, warm, knows more than she let's on, has everything in hand and is utterly charming. Blunt is everything you would want from the character and more. I was most surprised by her vocal performance being as good as it is. Jack (Bert's stand in and family relation) is also a great character. Miranda gives an crackerjack performance of charm, wit and wisdom. Best (and weirdest) of all Miranda uses a bad cockney accent all the time (and while singing!) that *somehow* manages to be obviously bad yet believable and adorable. Everyone is so good in this and the thing I thought most likely to sink the picture is the best part.

Not to overlook the score because it is so good I just brought it. It is not quite as memorable as the original but it is solidly singable and ear wormy. So while, say, "Can You Imagine That?" is not quite as perfect as "A Spoonful of Sugar" it is a brilliant song in its own right. The real standout is "A Cover is not a Book" as it is clever, funny, and carries a lot of weight in the story. I think I will playing this on a loop for a while.

The film is quite technically polished. I would argue that the integration of the live-action and animation is done better here than in the original. The cinematographer, art director, and custom designer did a better job of making the various wolds far more seamless here than in the 1st film. The music hall scene is fun and exciting as well as being a marvel.

I thought this film was going to be a disaster. Turns out it is among the best of the year.

How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children's fantasy cinema? Some would say "You shouldn't try".

As I've said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age.... I was said to have bawled my eyes out with "THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!" as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I'm relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it's by no means the disaster I envisaged.

It's a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy "strike a light" lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it's fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children - John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) - in her own inimitable fashion.

I know musical taste is very personal but my biggest problem with the film was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number "A Cover is not the Book". Elsewhere they were - to me - unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of "The Greatest Showman". (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman - now 90 - was credited with "Music Consultant" but I wonder how much input he actually had?

Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:

'Mary in the mirror' - check 'Bottomless carpet bag' - check 'Initial fun in the nursery' - check 'Quirky trip to a cartoon land' - check 'Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative' - check 'Chirpy chimney sweeps' - check ("Er... Mr Marshall... we couldn't get chimney sweeps... will lamplighters do?" "Yeah, good enough")

Another thing that struck me about the film - particularly as a film aimed at kids - is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it's a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It's worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60's we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were - I think - much longer as a result!)

But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.

Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder once again whether the 'society of cockney actors' must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw's Michael didn't particularly connect with me, .

Also watch out (I'd largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.

What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the "Jolly Holidays" segment of the original. That's a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain's film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.

Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It's therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer. In case you haven't seen the trailer, I won't spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.

Frank Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn't completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either.

But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that's all that matters.

(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).

Mrs. Shullivan and I treated ourselves to a special early Christmas present by attending the opening night of Mary Poppins Returns. Our anticipation for this night was more than just rewarded, we received a very pleasant reminder that although we are more than half a century old we are all still children at heart if we just allow our imaginations to wander as when we were children.

Emily Blunt was perfectly cast as Mary Poppins as was Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack the Lantern lighter. The story line surrounds the now adult Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) who lost his wife just a few years ago and is trying to raise his three (3) young children in the original Banks family home at 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Michael's sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) is single, never married, and has her own apartment while she fights for the rights of the low income workers.

Michael Banks three children are Anabel,John and the youngest Georgie. The three Banks children love their father and sooner than they should have to worry about losing their home through a bank foreclosure , Mary Poppins magically appears. Mrs. Shullivan and I, as well as the rest of the theaters audience let out a noticeable sigh of relief because we realized that the magic of a Walt Disney movie is now upon us, and we were not disappointed in our faith in Mary Poppins. Quite the contrary, the evening was perfect as the films songs were beautiful, the dance numbers choreographed and animated to as many animals as were on Noah's Ark, the cinematography magical and the story of Michael and Jane Banks and the children that warms one's heart.

We especially loved the Banks childrens first afternoon bath with Mary Poppins and their most colorful and animated underworld adventure with song and dreams of a magical world. Just believe and anything is possible!

Loved it! A perfect 10 out of 10!

53 years after Mary Poppins came to the big screen and into the lives of the Banks family, the Disney Studio has made a remake. The only real deficit that this film has is that the musical score isn't a patch on the one Sherman Brothers wrote for the original Mary Poppins.

Emily Blunt has taken over the role of the mysterious and mystical nanny who came to the Banks family during Edwardian England and is now back to them in London in the 20s. Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer are the grownup brother and sister. Whishaw is a single father raising three kids and Mortimer helps when he can.

One big difference in this film from the original is there is an identifiable villain in Colin Firth. Whishaw works in the same Fidelity Fiduciary Bank that dad worked in and its rumored dad had a piece of the place, but documentation can't be located. Firth who runs the bank now has a mortgage on the old Banks estate as its prime London real estate he wants it. But he can't have it if Banks is a stockholder.. He's the kind of villain you love to hate.

Dick Van Dyke from the original and Angela Lansbury make some key cameo appearances. Mary Poppins Returns may not have Julie Andrews, but Emily Blunt and the whole cast keep that elfin spirit alive in this film.

It's a pleasant spoonful of sugar.

I can't begin to say how excited I was for this movie. I've been waiting over a year for it. We brought my daughter to see it with her friends for her 6th birthday. It was a complete disappointment. The start was slow, music was forgettable, the kids were scared during a few parts, and Emily Blunt was too cold for Mary Poppins. The movie was over two hours long. The kids were restless and never really got into it. One kid from our group wanted to go to the car instead of finishing the movie. I wanted to like this so bad. What a shame.

Greetings again from the darkness. The 1964 classic Disney film MARY POPPINS is much beloved and has been shared across generations for more than 50 years. It won 5 Oscars on 13 nominations, and shifted Julie Andrews from a Broadway star to an international movie star, as she won the Oscar for Best Actress while becoming the ideal nanny for most every boy and girl. Rarely do reboots, remakes, or sequels to the classics make much of a dent with the movie-going public, but it's likely director Rob Marshall's (CHICAGO, INTO THE WOODS) film will be an exception. Marshall balances nostalgia with contemporary, and benefits from a marvelous successor to the Mary Poppins role ... Emily Blunt.

The film opens in low-key fashion as we follow Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) through town as he performs his lamplighting duties singing the melancholic "Underneath the Lovely London Sky". It's actually a bit of a dry opening that may have some impatient kids wondering why their parents dragged them to see this. Soon after, we are at the familiar 17 Cherry Tree Lane - the Banks' home - easily recognizable from the original film. We meet grown up siblings Michael (Ben Whishaw) and Jane (Emily Mortimer). Jane is a labor organizer following in her mom's footsteps, and Michael is a struggling artist and widower raising 3 kids. He has taken a teller job at the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank where his dad (now deceased) worked, but mostly he's an emotional wreck. In fact, the only way to save the family home from foreclosure is with proof of his father's bank shares ... something the evil new Bank President, William Weatherall Wilkins (Colin Firth), conspires to prevent.

It's at this point that the kids' popcorn should just about be gone, so it's fortunate that our beloved nanny makes her timely appearance ... literally floating (with practically perfect posture) into the park where Georgie (an adorable Joel Dawson) and lamplighter Jack are flying a very recognizable kite. Jack, having been an apprentice under Bert the Chimney Sweep, is quite familiar with the significance of Mary Poppins' arrival. Back on Cherry Tree Lane, Michael and Jane are shocked to see their childhood nanny back in the house, and Michael's two spunky twins Anabel (Pixie Davies) and John (Nathanael Saleh) aren't sure what to make of this mysterious visitor.

Director Marshall wisely utilizes the template from the original film, so many of the subsequent sequences have a familiar and cozy feel to them. Mary Poppins' "Off we go" kicks off a fantastical bathtub adventure and leads to the first of many smile-inducing, visually spectacular moments. A broken porcelain bowl guides us to a beautiful hand-drawn animation (from Walt Disney Studios) sequence with horse-drawn carriage, penguins, and more. Meryl Streep performs "Turning Turtle" in her topsy-turvy studio, and there is an extended (perhaps a bit too long) dance sequence featuring Jack and the other lamplighters singing "Trip a Little Light Fantastic".

Julie Walters appears as the Banks' housekeeper and David Warner is Admiral Boom, the Banks' canon-firing neighbor; however it's two cameos that will really hit home with the older viewers: Angela Landsbury (not in the original) is the balloon lady singing "Nowhere to Go but Up", and the remarkable Dick Van Dyke (a huge part of the original) plays an elderly Mr. Dawes Jr from the bank - and even performs a dance routine atop a desk. All of the actors perform admirably, yet this is clearly Emily Blunt's movie. She shines as the practically perfect nanny, whether debating with her umbrella, digging in her mystical baggage, filling heads with 'stuff and nonsense', teaching life lessons to those in need, or singing solo and with others. It's a wonderful performance and she becomes Mary Poppins for a new generation.

Director Marshall co-wrote the story and screenplay with David Magee and John DeLuca, and they have created a worthy sequel (a quite high standard) from P.L. Travers' original books that is delightful and a joy to watch. The group of original songs by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman serve the story fine, but the one downside to the film is that none of the new songs are as catchy or memorable as those of the Sherman Brothers (Richard and Robert) from 54 years ago. They won Oscars for Best Score and Song ("Chim Chim Che-ree"), and left us singing others such as "Spoon Full of Sugar", "Let's Go Fly a Kite" and of course, "Supercalifragilistic". These new songs including "Can You Imagine That", "The Place Where Lost Things Go", "A Cover is not the Book", "Nowhere to Go but Up" all contribute to the story and to the viewer's enjoyment, but none leave us singing or humming as we depart the theatre.

This is a film where those behind-the-scenes are crucial to its success. Oscar winning cinematographer Dion Beebe (MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA) and Editor Wyatt Smith both are at the top of their game, and Costume Designer Sandy Powell delivers stunners, not just for the singing nanny, but for all characters. The core of the story remains rediscovering the magic in life, and finding joy in each other - and this sequel also provides the adventures to match the original. It's simultaneously familiar and fresh, which is key to a successful follow up to a beloved classic. Director Marshall has signed on to Disney's live action THE LITTLE MERMAID, but it's with MARY POPPINS RETURNS where he has delivered a film that is practically perfect in every way.

I do not compare it with the version of 1964. "Mary Poppins Returns" is not a sequel, it is not an alternative but only the gift for a new generation. It is beautiful, well crafted, charming. But, I admitt, I was one of neutral viewer seeing it. To old for discover other real working Mary Poppins than Julie Andrews, "victim" of the songs from the old version, not understanding many clues of the new one, admiring Emily Blunt performance but not recognizing in her the character of book, it deserves respect and polite applauses. Because it is a correct film. So, beautiful.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but because it wasn't exactly like the first film, how can you give it one star? I was disappointed but not surprised. But the cinematography and the special effects were fun. There were some very nice production numbers. Miranda and Blunt are accomplished theater and screen presences. Songs take time to get traction. I don't know if any of them is going to be stuck in one's head, but they were well written. I can think of two that have very nice lyrics. The plot was predictable and rather stodgy. How could it end any other way. I thought that Colin Firth was wasted. He was hardly on screen and didn't really pose much of a threat. Yes, Disney goes for the lowest common denominator, but it wasn't horrible.

Excellent performances of thoroughly unimaginative music, a pale reflection of the original, which was all about the music. It's actually a little spooky hearing those lush Kostal orchestrations used on such dull new songs. The brief moments of excerpts from the original score were like glimmers in the darkness.

If you are a visual person and not concerned with hearing good songs in a musical you might like it.

It does look like they had a lot of fun making this movie, wish they had paid more attention to the score.

Nostalgia in the form of the almost non existent 2D animation and a few characters and even the progression of the story make the film a must watch for fans of the original. The film is also worth a watch for ones wishing to enjoy a light film with good visuals. Kids below 10 would enjoy it.

The acting performances are good, but the singing isn't on par with the original, but on it's own and watched as a standalone, it is a good movie.

P.S. Please do not watch the original immediately before watching this one as you will struggle to like this film.

I think some if the reviews posted here are a little too hard on Emily and Disney's reimagining of the well loved classic film. Emily was never going to top Julie Andrews and we all have our own nostalgic remembering of seeing original for the first time! That being said the cast breathes life into the story, the songs and score are pleasant if not that memorable and Emily Blunt does not take us too far away from our recollection of Julie Andrews "Mary". Jack's character is fun and his delivery of the songs is excellent. Maybe a bit long but nevertheless enjoyable.

I didn't want to see it, didn't care about it at all. Maybe we are all a little jaded in the world today (and this Mary is a little more Coy and a bit more edgy)...... Then, my niece came to visit......Oh My, I loved it so so so much. From the first note of the first song, to the quirky whimsical Mary Poppinish-ending. The dancing, the singing, the story line (a bit like Nanny McFee), the seamless changing of scenes from animation to live action, but mostly the acting everything was just wonderful. The songs fit the movie, not the other way around.... Which is why I want to see the movie again. Sure the Original is a master piece and I'm reading a few reviews where people hated it for whatever reasons, but all in know is in a very crowded theatre of primarily older folks and a few kids, every one applauded at the end. Just saying and giving my 2 cents worth.

Emily Blunt does just about as good of a job reprising such an iconic role as possible.

As for the rest of the movie their is some lack of originality-particularly with Lin-Manuel Miranda's character-but they do make some original creative decisions that are quite unique and that are really good.

It's not perfect but it's a very good sequel to the original considering it's been 54 years.

This film will be a classic one day! It was great! Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins was the only person I would have picked for the role. Its a great movie! I even got tear eyes .... Overall this is Disney as its best.... GO SEE IT! Its not going to be the original film, but this is something new and exciting. Don't go into this film this is going to be the same film.... treat this as a new experience. THE MUSIC and SCORE was FANTASTIC. The movie will put a smile on your face and make you feel like a kid again. That's what a movie should do.... GO UNDER THE LOVELY LONDON SKY .... imagine the impossible.

Perhaps it's being a child who watched the original "Mary Poppins" hundreds of times, that left me with such high expectations. Not even an hour has passed since I left the theater, and I can not recall a full lyric from any song. The movie as a whole felt so forced. Who exactly was the target audience? I expected a great musical from the director of a previously great musical "Chicago", but nothing stuck.

Bits and pieces were amazing though: Emily Blunt's performance was superb, the child actors were adequately adorable, and the cameos left smiles on everyone's faces. It's just the fact that this is a continuation of a classic.

If anyone told me they watched this movie dozens of times my only question would be "Why?" Years from now no one will be singing "Nowhere to Go But Up" like my childhood was joyfully flooded with "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious".

With the multiple references to the original Mary Poppins throughout this movie, and even in the title, my hope was this movie would be as light and airy as the original - a movie that had every kid in my neighborhood and school singing Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Let's Go Fly a Kite and I Love to Laugh.

This is not that. Sadly, no one came out of the theater humming or singing any of the songs - not our grandchildren, no other kids, no adults...that tells the tale. In fact there are some suggestive lyrics in 'The Cover is Not the Book' that is over the heads of the kids, but it surprised and disappointed the adults in our group.

That said, the visuals are generally amazing, and there were several things to smile about, but it was a bit like washing your feet with your socks on...gets the job done, just something isn't quite right. One person near by was overheard to say as he left, 'That was excruciating to sit through', while a roughly 12 year old girl was overhead saying "I thought it was really good." Same with these reviews which range from 10 to my 3, so you'll experience the same range I would guess upon seeing the movie.

Ignore the negativity. Ignore the "how dare they mess with a classic?!". And, most definitely, ignore the "unforgettable music".

Mary Poppins Returns is practically perfect in every way. It has great characters, a fantastic score, memorable songs and ... dare I say it? ... a storyline! There are nods to the original without being a carbon copy; but its originality does shine through. It's colourful, it's fun, it made me smile. Don't tell me you all walked out of the cinema in the 60s remembering all the words to "Sister Suffragette" and "Stay Awake". They're cultural songs, that's why they're unforgettable. A couple more watches and you'll be "Looking Up" with "Imagination" and remembering that "nothing's lost forever".

Give it a go... you'll be pleasantly surprised. Oscar for Miss Blunt please :)

I saw this movie with little or no expectations, and boy, was I overconfident. It's a scene by scene copycat of the old movie, but with all the heart sucked off. Most actors performance is highly forgettable, with a distinct saving grace for Emily Blunt (and Colin Firth is a believable villain). Old school people give more heart in their cameos that the ensemble of the crew together. I spare it a worse mark because my daughter liked it. And she's seven and doesn't know any better yet.

Not even close to the glory of the original movie. A boring story, with good production and the latest technology but no heart. Not even one of the songs is memorable. Soundtrack is also a failure. Besides, Mary Poppins is now an arrogant and not the firm but sweet person from the original story. A waste of time.

While it's not terrible, it really lacks the magic of the original. Emily Blunt is better than I would've expected in a role that Julie Andrews was really made for. Lin Manuel Miranda, while no Dick Van Dyke, is OK, but there really seems to be no need for this copycat character in this sequel. There's also this odd admiral character who just appears every once in a while to fire off a cannon nonsensically and Meryl Streep's cameo plays out like a bad Johnny Depp performance.

The evil bank's closing on the house trope is so old and overused it goes back to the beginnings of cinema. I can remember it from the old Laurel and Hardy March of the Wooden Soldiers film and it was probably used in silent films before that even. Surely someone at Disney could've come up with a more interesting plot to drop Mary Poppins into.

The songs are pleasant enough but not particularly memorable. Much of the film just seems to be a cheap imitation of the original rather than an actual sequel. From the dancing chimney sweepers to the dancing penguins we've seen it all before. It's just done bigger in an attempt to outdo the original without any creativity or even the simple magic that made the original so appealing to begin with. The dancing penguins are now joined by an entire menagerie of elephants, etc. and the chimney sweepers dance with bikes in a skate park and torches.

Unfortunately, other than a few cameo appearances at the end (almost worth seeing just for those) I found it pretty mediocre. More of a half hearted nostalgic tribute than anything else.