Undisputed, inarguable fact: Emily Blunt is an international treasure. If the makers of Disneyâs Mary Poppins Returns did nothing else right, the casting of Blunt as the âpractically perfectâ magical nanny was a stroke of inspired genius. Unfortunately, itâs a foolâs game to try and force lightning to strike in the same place twice, which is why Bluntâs performanceâwhich is easily equal to that of the great Julie Andrewsâis the best thing about Mary Poppins Returns.
That isnât to say the film is a poorly considered waste of time. The story of a now grown-up Michael Banks (played by an excellent and heartbreaking Ben Wishaw) whoâs raising his three children (played by bland bars of soap) following the death of his wife while trying to desperately hang on to his childhood home adds an affecting layer not seen in the original. Plus the cinematography and charming special effects are a painstakingly loving homage to Disney circa 1964. The problem lies in slavishly trying to recreate something thatâs practically perfectâif one aspect isnât right, magic just ainât gonna happen.
I saw this film less than 12 hours ago, and cannot hum a single song from Mary Poppins Returns to save my life.
Of primary concern are the songs: There are too many, and none of them get stuck in your head like âSupercalifragilisticexpialidociousâ or âStep in Time.â (I saw this film less than 12 hours ago, and cannot hum a single song from Mary Poppins Returns to save my life.) Big name stars like Lin-Manuel Miranda, Emily Mortimer, and Meryl Streep are... well, fine, I suppose? But thatâs not nearly enough for a film thatâs practically begging you to compare it to the original. And those bars of soap that play Michaelâs children? No. Sorry. Hard no.
To be fair, Mary Poppins Returns doesnât come off as a nostalgia-fueled money grab, and can I say it enough? Emily Blunt is so very good. But letâs face it: How can trying to recreate the magic of what is arguably Disneyâs greatest film result in anything other than disappointment?
