I wasn’t a huge fan of the original – probably I was a smidge too old? – so I probably won’t bother seeing this one if they’re so similar. Although I do love L-M Miranda.
I usually find Julie Andrews a bit off-putting. There’s something a touch plastic about her. She always seems like an actress playing a part and not believable as the actual character.
Well, no worries, then, as she’s not in this.
I enjoyed it, despite the villain being dull and the songs not as memorable. The dialogue, especially for Mary Poppins, was excellent.
I was surprised that my favorite part was one line from Michael: “Jane, let’s go fly a kite.”
I stayed for the credits, and noticed that in the Special Thanks to section it mentioned Jay Leno. I’m guessing he supplied some of the antique vehicles, since he collects them.
My idea as well - tho it wasn’t really car-heavy…
Very nice, all the songs were good- but none were great. I miss the Sherman brothers.
Emily Blunt was perfect.
I’d say a B+. Very good, not quite great.
I never had this reaction (though I wasn’t born until years after the original came out, but I assume “when you first saw it” qualifies?). However, Slate’s Dan Kois, who is about my age, said on the Spoiler Special podcast that he certainly had this feeling and believes that Julie Andrews (in combination with her role in “Sound of Music” as well) shaped the sexuality of a whole generation of men who grew up with those portrayals. So you’re not alone in feeling this way, for sure. (Or, er, your friend isn’t.)
I cosign this, with the caveat that I come at it from quite a different angle: I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen the original in its entirety. If you asked me before seeing this new version, I could have told you that Mary Poppins was a nanny who flew (or parachuted?) on a parasol, and I was familiar with the “supercalifragilisticexpialadocious” song (including that amusing heavy metal overdub). I would not have been able to name any other songs from the original, although when people mention “Spoonful of Sugar”, it is familiar.
So why was I in the theater watching this? My fifteen year old daughter from my first marriage came up to spend the holidays with us, and she chose this to go see with her younger half-siblings and my wife and me. (It was the sensible choice, of the options available.) I had zero expectations, and just hoped I wouldn’t be too bored.
Instead I found it magical, delightful. It transported me to a happy place. I don’t know how long it was, but I didn’t want it to end.
I was going to say I didn’t agree about the “first two songs”, but then I realized I missed the beginning of the movie as I had to park the car while the rest of the fam went in. I arrived just before MP herself did, so maybe I missed those songs? Whatever the case, I thought all the songs I did see/hear were great.
BTW, does anyone know if there has been attention paid to the age difference between Lin-Manuel Miranda and Emily Mortimer? Of course if their genders were reversed it would if anything be a relatively small age difference; but I’m trying to think of the last time I saw a movie where a male actor in his thirties was paired up with a female actor over 45, beyond her LFD* or pushing it, so I thought it was a noteworthy occurrence in a high profile movie.
*If you’re not sure what “LFD” means and don’t mind seeing or reading about a vulgar but hilarious sketch, see here:
Whatever the actor’s age difference, their characters are clearly similar ages, since the lamplighter talks about chatting at her window when they were both children.
Emily Mortimer is nowhere *near *her LFD as far as I’m concerned.
In any case, I saw this on New Years Day with my extended family and we all enjoyed it, from ages 12 to 49. Some of the musical numbers were just okay, but a couple were excellent and I had to resist the urge to applaud. The one thing I would have liked to see was a slower ballad/tearjerker a la “Feed the Birds.” I loved seeing Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury, but I was underwhelmed by Meryl Streep. Emily Blunt was perfect. This may be one that we pull out and watch again every couple of years.
Sophia Loren, Raquel Welch and many others have been portrayed as sexy bombshells into their 70’s.
Emily Mortimer is actually more attractive to me now that I know she is in her 40’s
While I only know her through the characters she plays I’ll quote Morphine with “You have lived and your intelligence is sexy” But maybe this is age related on my part, but I am a similar age to Emily Mortimer and many of my school mates didn’t age as well, and I would argue that applies to us on the men side more.
1910 to 1935 would have put Jane Banks at 35, and nothing in Emily Mortimer bothered me with that, it shows her range even excluding physical appearances. If I had any criticism, Ben Whishaw seems to have played the role too young and it was an issue with his reversion to childhood.
I love Emily Mortimer too, and I think it’s cool that they did this. But you guys aren’t seriously disputing that it is more typical for female actors to be put out to pasture at her age (meaning if they get roles, it is as the mother of a more fecund character) and for male actors to be paired up with love interests played by women decades younger? I mean, at age 37 (a decade younger than Mortimer) Maggie Gyllenhaal was told she was too old to play the love interest of a 55 year old man! Yet the pairing in this movie is nearly thirty years shifted in the other direction. I think that’s notable.
(I take the point that she was allowed to play younger rather than actually portraying an age difference in the characters, but that too is amazing.)
In case my post caused confusion, I think the casting was great and Emily Mortimer did her job very well.
I get the industry has problems but the “LFD” (which I am sad I looked up) is more of a incel vibe to me than the typical sexism/ageism of the industry. The industry sexism is far more clinical than that in my experience (worked in the movie industry for a while).
Hopefully casting departments take this as an example to dump that silly idea and focus on finding the right talent despite the numbers.
I don’t know how you “looked it up”, but if you had clicked my link you would have known that the LFD sketch was created by feminist comedy writers and acted by a feminist cast. That’s the whole point of it.
To avoid a derailment while still answering your question why my search is different than a normal person.
When I graduated high school I moved to North Idaho on August 18th 1992, Ruby Ridge started on Aug 21, a Friday and my collage roommate sat down and trolled Richard Girnt Butler on that Saturday night at a Denny’s and I debated him in public for years. A few years later the Phineas Priesthood bombed a friends workplace and a few years later the Aryan Nations shot at a good friends mom and brother when their car backfired as they drove by.
Thus I have a weird hobby of trying to “rescue” new recruits to white-nationalism and have a weird personalized search history because I browse the sites looking for people to help get out. Convincing them to meet in person and to establish trust to get them to meet I have to know their language and culture, thus spend time on pretty toxic sites.
The dope is my *sanity *site to hang out in a more positive space, so I am typically searching under the same profile.
But yes don’t have cable so haven’t seen much of Amy Schumer’s work.
Guys, this is fascinating but it’s turning into a hijack, OK?
I liked it. It was nice to hear little bits of songs from the original, though that had me wishing to hear all of those songs. The kids were wonderful.
Saw it today. I thought it was very good.
Then again, I thought the original went on too long - not unlike Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - and wasn’t great.
The real takeaway for me was the music hall number and the fact that anyone having as much fun as Lin-Manuel Miranda was should be subject to arrest or something. I’ve rarely seen pure joy in performing in a film as he delivered.
And I admit I was very pleased by Dick van Dyke’s appearance and downright touched when I recognized Angela Lansbury’s voice. The world’s a better place with the two of them in it.
You know, it’s rather magical in and of itself that Dick Van Dyke is still dancing in his 90’s.
Went and saw it with a friend. It was fun, a nice change from what seems to be the grimdark norm these days, and I liked the callbacks to the original. They really capture the feel of the original.
Saw it with kids. My overall impression is good, but not as good as the original. However, I’m a huge fan of the original, and it’s not fair to compare a new one to an old one that’s very familiar. I can sing along with all the tunes in the original and should give the new one a chance to grow on me, too. I’ll listen to the soundtrack and rewatch it at some point to see how it holds up.
They followed the same formula as the original. This is a good thing, because the original’s formula was good and should be reused. Intro piece, nursery fun, whimsical animated romp, touching moments, confrontation in the bank, bizarre shop, exploration of the city, song and dance number in the city, feel-good end piece. Character development well done. They hit all the right notes.
I loved Emily Blunt (Mary Poppins) and Lin-Manuel Miranda (Jack). They performed their parts practically perfectly. Ben Whishaw (Michael Banks) acted admirably well, but I feel was miscast; he doesn’t match what I expected. Emily Mortimer (Jane Banks) was great, I liked how she managed to be both assertive and tender. The kids were good. I’m not sure why they needed three instead of two, but it worked.
My main complaints are deviations from the original.
The inclusion of bad guys. The original had antagonists, but they were not malicious; they simply had their own interests that clashed with the protagonists. That said, the connections of “A Cover is Not the Book”, the greedy animals, and the corrupt banker were well done. I just wish they hadn’t done it that way.
The inclusion of a love interest. The original had some very tame flirting, but the new ramped it up to “the guy gets the girl”. At a very G rating, of course, but feels out of place to me. I’d’ve been much happier for tame flirting between them, without the nudging by other characters.
Disney is pushing the movie for awards, based on the placements they’ve made on the local NPR stations. (For those not familiar with LA, studios run “considerations” on media here to increase movie awareness to the various awards voters.)
Agreed. This was particularly awkward because the villain has no specific motivation other than unreasonable greed (why care so much about one particular house, when other houses are falling into the bank’s hands regularly?).
Another deviation from the original that weakens the film - the original George Banks had some real faults that needed correcting, but Michael Banks is just having a bad year. George Banks saw his children at first as part of his property that needed to be in good order because it reflected on him (and on his desire to be the perfectly proper British man of his class), and ignores them except to yell at them. Michael is apparently a perfectly fine father; he yells at the kids a couple of times, but those are clearly mild exceptions to his normal behavior, so the movie is missing the “parents learn to be better” arc that the first movie had.