|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New Mary Poppins
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-30-2018 11:20 PM
Well, obviously you don't "get" what this movie was trying to accomplish. let's just take your points one by one:
quote: Terry Monohan
The new 'Mary' seemed very stiff and she only had 4 color changes of outfit the whole movie.
(1) She's a nanny, she's not a fashion model, so maybe she doesn't HAVE all that many outfits. (2) The whole story takes place over just a handful of days, maybe all in one weekend, so how many clothing changes did you want? (3) She seemed "stiff" because that's her style. In the original film, Julie Andrews played the character somewhat sweeter than Emily Blunt plays it -- she has said she tried to make the character a little closer to what she was in the books.
[/quote]I knew from the start titles that It would be a not so hot sequel.
The titles were just on a painted art background.[/quote]
That was quite obviously a tribute to the style of the original movie. Everything from the paintings, to the font used, to the very fact that the movie had a traditional old-fashioned credit sequence up front was an effort to make it fit as a companion to the old film...not come off like a 2018 action movie. I wish more movies had "opening credits."
quote: Terry Monohan
The music songs except for the bath tub and balloon numbers put me to sleep.
Well, that's just your musical taste. Can't really argue about that one. I thought the songs were very good, especially the opening one and "Nowhere to Go But Up" at the end. The only one I really didn't like was the Meryl Streep number ("Turning Turtle"). They could have left that part out of the movie.
quote: Terry Monohan
The middle of the new 'Mary' film dragged in many places.
I don't think it dragged, but it did seem a little long. They could have cut the above-mentioned Meryl Streep song and made the whole thing a little snappier. That was my only complaint about the movie really.
quote: Terry Monohan
Try not to compare to the original Mary Poppins as It is a different movie.
Of COURSE it is a different movie, ya dope ya! It's a sequel. It's set 25 years after the first one. If they'd made a shot-for-shot remake you'd probably be griping about them not showing any originality.
quote: Terry Monohan
Disney must be upset as 'Aquaman' did better at the boxoffice opening week.
No, this movie was not designed as an opening-weekend blockbuster the way the superhero movies are. They were expecting $25 to $30 million for the first week and that's just about what they got. This movie will hold up well over the next couple of weeks -- in fact our boxoffice this past weekend is a little more than last weekend's was.
Around here we've been experiencing very little up-n-down traffic from the kids, except for during the song "Where the Lost Things Go," which is too bad because that's an emotional high point of the film....but the kids get bored these days if something's not happening every two seconds. Makes me wonder if they even know what's going on -- if they did, they wouldn't leave during that scene.
Overall I thought the movie was really good and word of mouth has been terrific. I thought all the little instrumental nods to the original songs in the soundtrack were really cool. Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury were great in their cameo roles. The principals all came off just right as compared to the first film. And Emily Blunt was about as perfect for the title role as anybody could be.
So given my one gripe about the Meryl Streep song, I'd rate this one 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(Correct title for search bait: Mary Poppins Returns)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-07-2019 10:58 PM
After hearing this movie every night for the past (almost) 3 weeks, I am still enjoying listening to it. Several of the songs are absolute "ear worms" and stick with you if you give them a chance.
Some of the professional reviewers labeled the new songs as "forgettable" or otherwise not as good as the songs from the first movie... well, how can you top "Supercalifragilisticexpialadocious" anyway? But one thing I've noticed, after thinking about some of those old songs, is the melody lines in some of these new tunes are often much more complex than the old songs were....maybe that's why the reviewers didn't like them; it takes a little time for those complicated melodies to sink in.
Another thing I really liked about this movie was, there was absolutely no set-up for another sequel. In the first film, "Bert" the chimney sweep says "Goodbye, Mary Poppins...don't stay away too long." So I was really expecting something like that at the end of this movie, but there was nothing at all. (Considering it IS Disney, though, it's very likely the cast had sequel options in their contracts!)
Anyway, lots of "rave" reviews from this corner of the world and although the crowds are diminishing fast now, it's still holding up decently considering school is back in session.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-04-2019 11:24 PM
My wife and I took our two-year old son to see this on Sunday - his first time in a movie theater. I was very skeptical as to whether he'd be able to make it through a movie this long without melting down or falling asleep, but he did.
Nothing really to fault it in terms of production values or craft skills. I thought the Meryl Streep character was actually a male actor in drag until the end credits corrected that impression, and it also seemed to me that Emily Blunt probably wasn't that good a dancer: in the big choreographed numbers, whenever it looked like she was about to do something seriously acrobatic, there was a cut to a close-up of her face (especially the Music Hall number). I almost wonder if the original choreography was over ambitious, resulting in a Plan B involving retakes and clever editing.
However - and I'm conscious that I'm sailing close to the wind for this forum - it was the politically correct propaganda that really spoiled it for me. First, there was the toxic masculinity theme. The only leadership role models shown are female, and the main male characters are all shown as having major flaws: a head-in-the-clouds artist who is incapable of providing for his family (and who realizes towards the end that "they [his children] have been looking after me,") a low-skilled worker with no ambition besides lighting lamps, and villains. The one exception to that was the Dick Van Dyke character who appears at the end, but he was only on the screen for a minute or two.
Then, there was a smattering of what I presume are supposed to be Afro-Caribbean (given that the film is set in London) faces in supporting roles (e.g. the banker's secretary, and one of the slimy attorneys). If it is supposed to be set in the 1930s (an opening title stating that we are in "The Great Slump" implies this, though the exact time period of the film is left deliberately vague), then there simply wasn't any significant Afro-Caribbean community in London until the Empire Windrush arrived in 1948. So the presence of these characters is an anachronism which shows that either the scriptwriters couldn't even get their basic research right, or PC propaganda.
These are but two examples of the political agenda of the filmmakers and the studio being rammed down the audience's throat. For a movie intended for adult audiences, I'd have less of a problem, as they can make an informed decision to take it or leave it. But inflicting it on children, and especially the feminist, men are all useless and/or bad guys theme, is something that will make me think twice about taking my son to see another Disney movie (at least, one that was made later than around 2000).
On a positive, note the presentation, in Screen 13 at the Harkins in Redlands, CA, was as good as it's possible to get in a chain 'plex. The illumination was even and adequate (no hot spots), sharp focus across the screen, the audio tune and level was nice (crisp HF, resonant bass, nothing shrill or boomy, loud enough to grab your attention but not loud enough to upset young children), the auditorium was very clean and comfortable, and the staff we encountered were all polite, outgoing, well presented, and enthusiastic. Add to that no problems parking and almost no standing in line (though the fact that we went on Superbowl Sunday probably had something to do with that), and the theater gets absolutely full marks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic