“Mary Poppins” is a Disney family film from 1964 in which a magical nanny visits the household of the Banks family, and through a series of musical adventures inspires the children and teaches the house patriarch a valuable lesson about family. “Marry Poppins Returns” is a 2018 Disney family film in which the exact same thing happens, but this time with Emily Blunt (“Edge of Tomorrow, “Into the Woods”) in the title role instead of Julie Andrews. Though jarringly short on originality, “Returns” offers plenty of family fun and just enough heart to entertain children and families.
In 1930’s London, a now adult Michael Banks (Ben Wishaw) struggles to raise his children amidst the financial hardships of England’s Great Depression. Michael unknowingly summon Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), who senses a need to help the children as well their financially struggling father.
Although the names are changed and the situation slightly altered, the story beats of “Returns” thematically mirrors the story points of the original—and progress in basically the same order. Every song in “Returns” matches the thematic message in and narrative positioning of a song in the original film. For example, a song about childlike innocence sung while bathing the children opens act two, mirroring the song about childhood innocence which begins act two of “Mary Poppins,” and comprises tidying a nursery. “Returns” in that way is practically a remake of the original film, although it replaces the subtlety and impact of the original with banal theatricality and whimsy.
To be sure, “Returns” is entertaining, and the song sequences are imaginative, expertly performed and well-choreographed. All actors play their parts well—particularly Blunt and Wishaw—and the original story separates itself despite structural similarities to the original. As an enjoyable family film with great messages for kids, “Mary Poppins Returns” checks all the boxes.
However, the new songs themselves aren’t very memorable, and at least one of them adds nothing to the plot or hardly even the characters. Also, the story—while certainly different—hinges on a banker character with unclear and explicitly evil motivations. In contrast, the bankers in the original may certainly be called antagonists, but they aren’t villains, and their goals are rational and clearly defined.
While such comparisons may be unfair, “Returns” invites them by sticking so closely to the story beats and basic messages of “Poppins.” The new direction works well enough for the story “Returns” is telling, but the lack of complexity stands out all the more given how much “Returns” tries to remind you of the feelings evoked by the 1964 film.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a bit of a conundrum. While the original “Poppins” features themes and imagery that are rife for revisiting in 2018, the audience most appealed to by the sequel are fans of the sixties classic who’ve already seen those messages explored in film. While it’s a treat to see those themes and theatrical elements shown on the big screen, it’s a shame they couldn’t be accompanied by a film with more daring and memorability than the one released by Disney in December.
Rating judged by weighing subjective enjoyment/recommendation level against objective critical analysis:6.5/10
Colin Vanden Berg Digital Portfolio 