Ron's World The VERY ENTERTAINING WORLD of Ron Jacobsohn
Don’t you think that some classics should receive immunity from being made into sequels? Can anyone in their right mind imagine a sequel to “Gone with the Wind” or “Westside Story” or “My Fair Lady” or “The Sound of Music” or even “Citizen Kane”? I believe “Mary Poppins” should’ve been on that list, I know Julie Andrews thought so too when she declined to appear in “Mary Poppins Returns”.
It’s not that there is anything wrong with “Mary Poppins Returns”, the story is sweet, the songs are fine and Emily Blunt is adorable as Poppins, however, the whole time I was watching the movie I couldn’t stop asking myself: why?
And if you asked yourself how the new movie tied itself to the original, I must admit that was done quite elegantly. Mary Poppins shows up at the house as in the original and meets the original kids, Michael and Jane Banks, now thirty-years older and parents to their own kids, and you guessed it, their little ones also need help as their world is about to fall apart.
Emily Blunt is a huge revelation singing and dancing and basically holding the whole movie on her shoulders, yet in his big-screen debut post-“Hamilton”, Lin-Manuel Miranda, is very forgettable as the lamplighter.
The one thing that was quite disappointing to me was that I couldn’t hum any of the songs once the movie was done. I should’ve realized something fishy was going on with the flick when my kids, who are the first ones to always tell me a new Disney movie is coming, didn’t want to join me for the screening. Maybe Poppins is just not as relatable to their generation.
If we forget this is a sequel and take the movie for what it is, “Mary Poppins Returns” is very enjoyable and uplifting. Emily Blunt was awesome, but she is no Julie Andrews, I will have to give it only a THUMBS IN THE MIDDLE!
