Search
TranslateSafari (Translate & Speak Web)
Business and Utilities
App
TranslateSafari - Translate & Speak Extension for Safari The app is a Safari extension that...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Cinderella by Nosy Crow
Book and Education
App
*** Major new update! *** A brand new, trilingual edition of our award-winning Cinderella app, with...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not going to lie, the trailer for this worried me greatly. Despite Emily Blunt's roots her accent sounds like someone's stereotypical idea of a prim and proper British nanny, it stuck out like a sore thumb from the trailer.
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mary Poppins (1964) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Practically Perfect In Every Way
After watching MARY POPPINS RETURNS, the BankofMarquis was itching to check out the original 1964 Julie Andrews/Dick Van Dyke/Walt Disney production of MARY POPPINS to see if it holds up as well as my memory has held it up. I was a little nervous when I put the DVD in the player and hit go.
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
And I shouldn't have worried, for MARY POPPINS is...pardon the expression..."Practically Perfect in Every Way".
Based on the series of books by P.L. Travers and set right around 1900, the film tells the tale of the London Banks' Family - Mr., Mrs., Jane and Michael - who need a new nanny. Both parents are too busy to spend time with their children - he with his job at the Bank (get it - Mr. Banks works at a Bank) and her involvement in the Women's Suffragette movement. Into their lives flies (quite literally) Mary Poppins - a nanny with magical qualities who, along with her friend and cohort Bert, casts a spell on the children - and the Banks' family.
Julie Andrews earned the Oscar for Best Actress for her feature film debut - and it is richly deserved. Her Poppins is stern, smart, brassy and loving - oh...and a marvelous singer and dancer. Just as strong as Andrews is Dick Van Dyke as Bert (though some will quibble with his Cockney accent). I say...don't worry about his accent and watch the wonderful comedic timing, dancing and joi de vivre that Van Dyke brings to this film. He is the "secret sauce" that makes this work. Julie would not be as good - nor would this film be as interesting - without Bert by her side.
EVERY major player shines in this film from David Tomlinson's befuddled, straight-laced British Gentleman Mr. Banks to Glynnis Johns as the enthusiastic supporter of Votes for Women, Mrs. Banks, to the children - Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber. Special notice should be made to Ed Wynn who's one scene/song/cameo as Uncle Albert - the "I Love To Laugh" scene - is pure gold.
Even the smaller, supporting roles are stellar. Reta Shaw and Hermione Baddely as the "domestics", Arthur Treacher (yes - he, of FISH AND CHIPS fame) as the Constable and Reginald Owen (Scrooge in the 1930's version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL) as Admiral Boom are all fun to watch and match the energy and timing of the leads in their limited screen time.
And...the music...Oh, the Music! Written by Richard M and Robert B Sherman - these songs are classic. Starting with the Oscar Winner for Best Song - Chim Chim Cheree and continuing through Feed The Birds, I Love To Laugh, Jolly Holiday and Let's Go Fly A Kite - ALL the songs are magical and lend a hand to the story - they serve a purpose and are not just a distraction. This film is worth watching just for the rooftop Step-In-Time song and dance number alone.
But the thing that makes this film go is the story - the characters, settings, costumes, songs and dances - are all in service to a touching, sentimental (but not cloying) simple story of a family coming together. It is charming in it's simplicity and leaves everyone with a heart full of joy.
Surprisingly to a modern audience, the special effects (especially the "Live Action and Animation" sequence) holds up really, really well. It is amazing to me how strong these effects are - even over 50 years later.
This is a wonderful, heartfelt family film that deserves a re-watch if you haven't seen it in awhile.
Letter Grade A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Rest by Charlotte Gainsbourg
7.0
Rate It
Album Watch
Sometimes it takes a personal tragedy to catalyse an artist’s practise, a crack in everything, to...
Pop