|
Post by hi224 on Dec 19, 2018 22:59:00 GMT
not my favorite of the whole year but a worthy followup actually.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 19, 2018 23:08:30 GMT
That's good to hear.
|
|
bess1971s
Sophomore
@bess1971s
Posts: 399
Likes: 257
|
Post by bess1971s on Dec 21, 2018 14:23:47 GMT
I saw it yesterday and I can say that I enjoyed it but I didn't love it nearly as much as the original. I was sitting near several kids and they didn't make a sound the whole time. From the look on their faces, they were very much into the movie. The audience applauded when Dick Van Dyke showed up and there were a few happy oohs for Angela Lansbury. One of my better movie going experiences.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Dec 24, 2018 0:14:35 GMT
Not really interested in it (never saw the original,, and I generally hate musicals), but I'm surprised that it's opening weekend box office was only $22 million. Even if you throw in the ealry-release days it's only at $31 million. I remember earlier in the year hearing people predict that it was going to be HUGE. It
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Dec 24, 2018 4:28:46 GMT
not my favorite of the whole year but a worthy followup actually. i am super uninterested in it and dreading it will be something like Into the Woods. Can you tell me a few reasons why you think I could enjoy it or how is it different from Into the Woods? Thanks. I will go regardless but maybe you will help me look forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 24, 2018 5:21:24 GMT
not my favorite of the whole year but a worthy followup actually. i am super uninterested in it and dreading it will be something like Into the Woods. Can you tell me a few reasons why you think I could enjoy it or how is it different from Into the Woods? Thanks. I will go regardless but maybe you will help me look forward to it. it maintains a similiar essence as the original and its very jovial and a good rollicking time as well. You can tell Miranda and Blunt had fun within their roles as well.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 24, 2018 5:25:04 GMT
not my favorite of the whole year but a worthy followup actually. i am super uninterested in it and dreading it will be something like Into the Woods. Can you tell me a few reasons why you think I could enjoy it or how is it different from Into the Woods? Thanks. I will go regardless but maybe you will help me look forward to it. If any complaints need to be lodged it would be regarding how often the movie defers to the original as well. Each number feels like an inversion in regards to the songs from the first movie as well. Also sometimes theirs a dramatic weight to the storyline which feels a tad sleight regarding its progression does that make sense perhaps? like it really doesn't always feel at all earned.
|
|
|
Post by bluerisk on Dec 24, 2018 12:42:13 GMT
I had to cancel it. In the German edition they once more translated the song and you hear some Austrian whore and not Blunt. I'm so pissed. I thought they had stopped this BS years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Cooper, the Golden Retriever on Dec 24, 2018 15:34:40 GMT
i am super uninterested in it and dreading it will be something like Into the Woods. Can you tell me a few reasons why you think I could enjoy it or how is it different from Into the Woods? Thanks. I will go regardless but maybe you will help me look forward to it. it maintains a similiar essence as the original and its very jovial and a good rollicking time as well. You can tell Miranda and Blunt had fun within their roles as well. Agreed..one of the best times I've had in years!
|
|
bd74
Junior Member
#WalkAway
@bd74
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 659
|
Post by bd74 on Dec 25, 2018 19:03:01 GMT
I don't care for the original. It's very dated anyway, and I don't think that kids today would enjoy watching it. And I normally don't like musicals but I enjoyed all the musical numbers in MPR. The Meryl Streep number was a bit too lengthy though. Overall, very good movie for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by ellynmacg on Jan 5, 2019 21:09:36 GMT
I have to agree with bd74 in that I am not the biggest fan of the original, though I liked both Andrews and Van Dyke. The main thing I liked--and still like--are the songs: the Sherman Brothers at their best. I still can't listen to "Feed the Birds" without getting teary-eyed, and "Chim-Chim-Cheree" is evergreen. In contrast, I liked (and at times loved) all of MPR (though again, I agree with bd74 that the Meryl Streep song went on too long). Blunt and Miranda were "practically perfect in every way." However, I didn't find the songs, though they were all at least praiseworthy, nearly as catchy as those in the original. True, I've only heard the new ones once so far; but I recall humming along with "Chim-Chim-Cheree" the first time I heard it, probably before the song was halfway through. However, I will be very surprised if "The Place Where Lost Things Go" doesn't win a Best Song Oscar--it's a cinch for a nomination anyway.
By the way, my family and I saw MPR on Christmas Day--IMO a perfect choice for the holiday!
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 6, 2019 7:53:41 GMT
Lets all fly a kite makes me teary for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 8, 2019 8:19:16 GMT
I viewed Mary Poppins Returns on Saturday—only because it had scored a few Golden Globe nominations and I wanted to see all the films (aside from the comic-book ones, which I do not care about) that sported nominations prior to the awards show. (But I was not able to view Crazy Rich Asians, Tully, and Eighth Grade earlier in the year, and the only one of those that really intrigued me was Eighth Grade.) Otherwise, I never would have viewed Mary Poppins Returns. (I would be somewhat interested in seeing the original, but I have never viewed it.)
I found the film "mediocre." In my view, this kind of movie requires a sense of earnestness and genuine wonder in order to be truly effective. Instead, Mary Poppins Returns is too busy, and too concerned with being cute, to generate that sensibility of earnestness and wonderment. The characters lack authentic development, and thus the It's a Wonderful Life-type denouement, while appreciable and ostensibly heartwarming, fails to achieve a bona fide emotional payoff. In short, the film is too concerned with constituting a spectacle and too unconcerned with finding real human feelings between the song-and-dance numbers.
Some of the songs offer energy (I especially found that to be the case with Meryl Streep's "Turning Turtle"), as does the climactic sequence. And visually, the movie is fairly impressive, with a nice mix of high-angle and low-angle shots and deft editing. But while Emily Blunt effectively fills the eponymous role and offers some snappy zest to the occasional line, there is nothing endearing about her performance. Lin-Manuel Miranda is more endearing, but I hardly understand why he and Blunt received Golden Globe nominations for their performances—or why the overall film did so. In this case, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association seemed to be pandering to presumed notions of what represents laudable populism. Alternatively, the Association was just nostalgic for the original. I did not read this review prior to writing my assessment, but I rather concur with what Manohla Dargis wrote in The New York Times:
Again, I have never viewed the original Mary Poppins, but "louder, harsher, more aggressively smiley" unfortunately sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 8, 2019 8:29:31 GMT
i am super uninterested in it and dreading it will be something like Into the Woods. Can you tell me a few reasons why you think I could enjoy it or how is it different from Into the Woods? Thanks. I will go regardless but maybe you will help me look forward to it. If any complaints need to be lodged it would be regarding how often the movie defers to the original as well. Each number feels like an inversion in regards to the songs from the first movie as well. Also sometimes theirs a dramatic weight to the storyline which feels a tad sleight regarding its progression does that make sense perhaps? like it really doesn't always feel at all earned.Although you enjoyed Mary Poppins Returns much more than I did, I believe that our assessments may be similar in this regard; see my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 8, 2019 19:20:26 GMT
If any complaints need to be lodged it would be regarding how often the movie defers to the original as well. Each number feels like an inversion in regards to the songs from the first movie as well. Also sometimes theirs a dramatic weight to the storyline which feels a tad sleight regarding its progression does that make sense perhaps? like it really doesn't always feel at all earned.Although you enjoyed Mary Poppins Returns much more than I did, I believe that our assessments may be similar in this regard; see my previous post. Blunts performance worked for me because she manages to do something different from andrews without feeling derivative or deft of characteristics. Shes slightly more stern and coy then Andrews but still embues a warmth. To her. If I had any issues with the plot its that more simply couldve been done as well.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 15, 2019 3:32:07 GMT
I saw Mary Poppins Returns the other day, with family who had wanted to see it, and I was mixed on it, but it’s certainly not bad. For a movie that absolutely did not need to be made and probably shouldn’t have been, it has a lot more heart and charm to it than I had expected. A few things I noticed:
*Everyone I was with agreed that the best actors were Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda. The beautiful Miss Blunt somehow makes the part her own and gives us an excellent Mary Poppins, which pleasantly surprised me, and Mr. Miranda—well, I was never caught up in the Hamilton fever and have still never actually listened to a single song from it, but I have seen him on Saturday Night Live, and he always comes across as friendly, interesting, and intelligent. Here he’s surprisingly (for me) one of the best parts of the movie—his wonder at what was going on was spot-on, and he gave a better performance perhaps than necessary.
*It seemed like few people in the theater got the jokes. No idea why not. The accents, maybe? (Not that they’re strong, but I know people who can’t understand English accents at all—something I don’t understand, but it is what it is.) Or maybe they just didn’t find them funny?
*Ben Whishaw was wildly miscast. He looks way too young for his part, and if he wasn’t wearing a phony-looking fake mustache that was the phoniest-looking real mustache I’ve ever seen. The sister, on the other hand, looks the right age, though her character’s activism both doesn’t fit and goes nowhere.
*The movie was far too predictable. I knew every plot beat it would hit long before it hit it. The only surprises for me were Mary’s arrival, how they go about reversing time, and that curious animated sequence in the middle that’s borrowed (stolen being too strong a word) from Pinocchio.
*The movie felt more like Bedknobs and Broomsticks than Mary Poppins. The Angela Lansbury cameo, though probably only in there because Julie Andrews said no, felt curiously apposite.
*Dick Van Dyke! Dancing on the table at the age of 93! God bless him. People in the theater cheered. The man’s amazing.
*Way too close to Nanny McPhee, including the plot-beats—death of the wife, for example—and the actors: Angela Lansbury, Colin Firth. (Firth’s villain too hammy, by the way.) So much so that that felt like Mary Poppins 2.
*Mary’s entrance on the kite, taken from Travers’ books, is fantastic.
*Biggest problem was the musical sequences. The songs were OK, if a little too pastichey (nearly every one has a counterpart in the original), but the sequences were misplaced and dragged out far too long. “Can You Imagine That?” (the bathtub) is placed way, way too early and is horribly CGI-y, while “Trip the Light Fantastic,” at first a nice tune, becomes sheer boredom when they go underground. Miranda’s patter song in the middle, inserted probably because of Hamilton’s rap, is probably a good tune on its own but feels too rappy and out of place. One longs for the Sherman Brothers and for an editor to cut the sequences off.
*Speaking of which, the whole movie goes on far too long and makes its point multiple times. The whole dreadful Meryl Streep sequence, with an unmemorable tune, should have been mercilessly cut. With that said, “Underneath the Lovely London Sky,” nicely sung by Miranda, is good.
All in all, I rather enjoyed it, though you probably couldn’t tell from the tenor of my comments. But then again I hadn’t expected to enjoy it at all, so I found its sweetness, innocence, and charm a welcome surprise.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 15, 2019 8:53:41 GMT
*Ben Whishaw was wildly miscast. He looks way too young for his part, and if he wasn’t wearing a phony-looking fake mustache that was the phoniest-looking real mustache I’ve ever seen. The sister, on the other hand, looks the right age, though her character’s activism both doesn’t fit and goes nowhere.... true, and I had forgotten about that. In retrospect, I suppose that her concern for labor rights dovetails with the film's slight commentary about heartless banking corporatism, but the movie fails to develop that potential connection. I appreciate the detailed nature of your assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 15, 2019 16:37:51 GMT
... true, and I had forgotten about that. In retrospect, I suppose that her concern for labor rights dovetails with the film's slight commentary about heartless banking corporatism, but the movie fails to develop that potential connection. I appreciate the detailed nature of your assessment. Thank you, though I didn’t mean to carry on as much as I did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 6:07:31 GMT
I thought it was good. It wasn't as great as the original movie but I enjoyed it and my nieces did too and I am glad they are making a sequel and look forward to seeing what they do with the character next.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jul 12, 2019 17:26:23 GMT
|
|