Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Following up a beloved classic is never easy task but that is what Disney is attempting to do with “Mary Poppins Returns”. This time out Emily Blunt takes on the magical umbrella of the no-nonsense but whimsical Nanny made famous by the series of books by PL Travers and of course the beloved classic starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke.
When hardship strikes the Banks family; Mary returns to assist Michael and Jane as well is Michael’s young children in much the magical way that she helped Michael and Jane all those years ago.
Joining her is local lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), who remembers Mary and Jane Banks from his childhood.
Shocked that Mary has returned after all these years and not looking a day older; Michael Michaels three younger children are with delay on a magical adventure that only Mary Poppins can provide. Along the way they will dabble in animated environments, meet all manner of quirky characters, and of course bring the house down with magical and show stopping musical numbers as they attempt to help Michael and Jane save their beloved family home from ruthless bankers.
The film captures much of the joy and magic that you remember from the characters and it is likely to evoke an emotional response from you throughout the film.
Blunt does an amazing job taking over the role and her singing and dancing is very impressive. Miranda while struggling much as Van Dyke did with the Cockney accent; throws himself into the various musical numbers with passion and energy that helps take the scenes to a new level.
As I was watching the film and enjoying it thoroughly; I thought to myself the only real quality it lacked where the show stopping tunes that made the original such an unforgettable event. The Sherman Brothers set an impossibly high standard to follow as the score for the original film is peppered with Disney mainstays that have endured the test of time. No sooner had I thought that to myself; than to amazing musical numbers lit up the second half of the film to the point where I found myself not only humming one of them after the screening, but singing parts of them for several weeks after.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a magical and musical film that the entire family can enjoy and takes viewers back to the simpler and nostalgic times of old. Let us hope that there will be new adventures for Mary to grace the cinema screen in the not-too-distant future as her absence has been far too long and dearly missed.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/mary-poppins-returns/
When hardship strikes the Banks family; Mary returns to assist Michael and Jane as well is Michael’s young children in much the magical way that she helped Michael and Jane all those years ago.
Joining her is local lamplighter Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda), who remembers Mary and Jane Banks from his childhood.
Shocked that Mary has returned after all these years and not looking a day older; Michael Michaels three younger children are with delay on a magical adventure that only Mary Poppins can provide. Along the way they will dabble in animated environments, meet all manner of quirky characters, and of course bring the house down with magical and show stopping musical numbers as they attempt to help Michael and Jane save their beloved family home from ruthless bankers.
The film captures much of the joy and magic that you remember from the characters and it is likely to evoke an emotional response from you throughout the film.
Blunt does an amazing job taking over the role and her singing and dancing is very impressive. Miranda while struggling much as Van Dyke did with the Cockney accent; throws himself into the various musical numbers with passion and energy that helps take the scenes to a new level.
As I was watching the film and enjoying it thoroughly; I thought to myself the only real quality it lacked where the show stopping tunes that made the original such an unforgettable event. The Sherman Brothers set an impossibly high standard to follow as the score for the original film is peppered with Disney mainstays that have endured the test of time. No sooner had I thought that to myself; than to amazing musical numbers lit up the second half of the film to the point where I found myself not only humming one of them after the screening, but singing parts of them for several weeks after.
“Mary Poppins Returns” is a magical and musical film that the entire family can enjoy and takes viewers back to the simpler and nostalgic times of old. Let us hope that there will be new adventures for Mary to grace the cinema screen in the not-too-distant future as her absence has been far too long and dearly missed.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/12/mary-poppins-returns/
Molly J (Cover To Cover Cafe) (106 KP) rated A Love Surrendered (Winds of Change, #3) in Books
Feb 27, 2019
*This review is from my blog and originally published in 2012*
This is going to be a hard review for me to write. No,no, it’s not a bad book. It’s one of my favorites. It’s bittersweet because this is the ending to one of my favorite Christian Fiction series. I fell in love with Ms. Lessman’s work when I read book 1 in this series, A Hope Undaunted. Ironically, it’s not the first in the O’Connor clans stories…there was a series previously written called The Daughters Of Boston. This particular series is so emotionally moving, so deeply intense that you get to become a part of the story. You can feel yourself being pulled deep into the heart of the story, becoming the characters, feeling every pain, every laugh, and every tear drop that falls. It’s absolutely an amazing feeling when reading a Julie Lessman novel.
I’ve been dying to read this book. This one is Steven O’Connor’s story. He’s the baby boy of the O’Connor family and, while I adored each of the others that I read about, I felt that Steven was the most deserving of having his story told. He was quietly awaiting his turn through out all the other books and it’s finally here! And oh what a turn it is! We get a bit of background on Steven in the other books, having a broken relationship with his ex fiance. Now, he’s a respectable man of the law and 25 years old. What he’s not expecting is for the arrival of Annie, a young impressionable girl of 17…..and his former fiance’s baby sister. Or the protectiveness he feels for her.
Susannah “Annie” Kennedy has left her home in Iowa to move on from her past and embrace a future in Boston. Her parents are dead now, her sister has raved about Boston and she’s ready to embrace a life out side of her straight and narrow past. When an circumstance arises and Annie finds herself face to face with Steven O’Connor, her sisters ex, she’s embarrassed…..and highly attracted to him! There’s just one little problem with that….he doesn’t realize that she’s Maggie’s baby sister.
Watching as these two came to terms with their past, and seeking forgiveness to over come it, and move on to a life filled with love and happiness was absolutely tear jerking! I loved every minute of this amazing 5 Book conclusion to my favorite series. Ms. Lessman kept the intensity woven through out as she did with the previous books. Her messages of forgiveness, letting go and seeking His love are just as strong and sweep through the reader instantly. If you love passion, if you love heartbreaking redemption and amazing historic detail, then look no further than the author who can create an unforgettable, un-put-downable novel that will spin the readers mind out of control. Well done Ms. Lessman and I am anxious to see what you have in story for your fans next…will we get glimpses of the O’Connor’s? Will we get to fall in love with another amazing family? Keep up the amazing writing, Ms. Lessman!
This is going to be a hard review for me to write. No,no, it’s not a bad book. It’s one of my favorites. It’s bittersweet because this is the ending to one of my favorite Christian Fiction series. I fell in love with Ms. Lessman’s work when I read book 1 in this series, A Hope Undaunted. Ironically, it’s not the first in the O’Connor clans stories…there was a series previously written called The Daughters Of Boston. This particular series is so emotionally moving, so deeply intense that you get to become a part of the story. You can feel yourself being pulled deep into the heart of the story, becoming the characters, feeling every pain, every laugh, and every tear drop that falls. It’s absolutely an amazing feeling when reading a Julie Lessman novel.
I’ve been dying to read this book. This one is Steven O’Connor’s story. He’s the baby boy of the O’Connor family and, while I adored each of the others that I read about, I felt that Steven was the most deserving of having his story told. He was quietly awaiting his turn through out all the other books and it’s finally here! And oh what a turn it is! We get a bit of background on Steven in the other books, having a broken relationship with his ex fiance. Now, he’s a respectable man of the law and 25 years old. What he’s not expecting is for the arrival of Annie, a young impressionable girl of 17…..and his former fiance’s baby sister. Or the protectiveness he feels for her.
Susannah “Annie” Kennedy has left her home in Iowa to move on from her past and embrace a future in Boston. Her parents are dead now, her sister has raved about Boston and she’s ready to embrace a life out side of her straight and narrow past. When an circumstance arises and Annie finds herself face to face with Steven O’Connor, her sisters ex, she’s embarrassed…..and highly attracted to him! There’s just one little problem with that….he doesn’t realize that she’s Maggie’s baby sister.
Watching as these two came to terms with their past, and seeking forgiveness to over come it, and move on to a life filled with love and happiness was absolutely tear jerking! I loved every minute of this amazing 5 Book conclusion to my favorite series. Ms. Lessman kept the intensity woven through out as she did with the previous books. Her messages of forgiveness, letting go and seeking His love are just as strong and sweep through the reader instantly. If you love passion, if you love heartbreaking redemption and amazing historic detail, then look no further than the author who can create an unforgettable, un-put-downable novel that will spin the readers mind out of control. Well done Ms. Lessman and I am anxious to see what you have in story for your fans next…will we get glimpses of the O’Connor’s? Will we get to fall in love with another amazing family? Keep up the amazing writing, Ms. Lessman!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Mar 20, 2019 (Updated Mar 20, 2019)
A Star Is Born
I've talked before about how disappointed I was with 'A Star Is Born' last year. An overrated movie of two halves, with an incredible first half and a dire second half. What I wanted from that movie was the story of a girl chasing a dream, culminating in the birth of a star and an epic singing finale. That all happened in the first half though, with the second half spiraling into boring filler territory. Wild Rose tells the story of Rose-Lynn, a down on her luck, aspiring country singer with dreams of becoming a star. It more closely follows that story I was looking for than 'A Star Is Born' did and is a much better movie overall, despite remaining fairly average throughout. If you put Sheridan Smith in the lead role, this could have just as easily been shown on ITV as their latest big weeknight drama series.
Things kick off with Rose-Lynn (Jessie Buckley) being released from a year in prison where she served time for drug charges. Before anything else, she meets up with a friend to catch up on some sex before heading over to her mums house (Julie Walters). Mum has been looking after Rose-Lynn's two young kids, aged 5 and 8, for the last year and it's clear the bond between mum and children has taken a serious hit. She doesn't exactly make any effort to reconnect with her children either, pulling on her cowboy boots and heading down to Glasgows Grand Ole Opry to try and pick up the regular singing slot she held there before winding up in jail. Rose-Lynn is a huge country music fan, and has plans to head over to Nashville in order to try and become a star.
Rose-Lynn lands a day job, cleaning for a wealthy couple in their large house. The lady of the house, Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) takes a shine to Rose-Lynn and after her children hear her belting out a song while cleaning, goes out of her way to try and help her. Using her connections to get a demo video to BBC Radio 2 legend 'Whispering' Bob Harris and even landing Rose-Lynn a gig at her 50th birthday party with a view to getting her wealthy guests to help 'crowdfund' Rose-Lynn.
Rose-Lynn is not a very likeable character for much of this movie. Selfish, annoying and with questionable life choices and actions. But that's the whole idea - to manipulate our feelings towards her. She's played wonderfully by Jessie Buckley and as her character grows and learns from life, we begin to like her that little bit more too. I was worried that if she eventually did find her way to Nashville, we'd see her become this huge star and I would have felt cheated if that were the case. Without heading too much into spoiler territory, I'll just say that things don't exactly work out that way. It's an unexpected but welcome change in direction, and leads to an incredible and emotional final number.
Things kick off with Rose-Lynn (Jessie Buckley) being released from a year in prison where she served time for drug charges. Before anything else, she meets up with a friend to catch up on some sex before heading over to her mums house (Julie Walters). Mum has been looking after Rose-Lynn's two young kids, aged 5 and 8, for the last year and it's clear the bond between mum and children has taken a serious hit. She doesn't exactly make any effort to reconnect with her children either, pulling on her cowboy boots and heading down to Glasgows Grand Ole Opry to try and pick up the regular singing slot she held there before winding up in jail. Rose-Lynn is a huge country music fan, and has plans to head over to Nashville in order to try and become a star.
Rose-Lynn lands a day job, cleaning for a wealthy couple in their large house. The lady of the house, Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) takes a shine to Rose-Lynn and after her children hear her belting out a song while cleaning, goes out of her way to try and help her. Using her connections to get a demo video to BBC Radio 2 legend 'Whispering' Bob Harris and even landing Rose-Lynn a gig at her 50th birthday party with a view to getting her wealthy guests to help 'crowdfund' Rose-Lynn.
Rose-Lynn is not a very likeable character for much of this movie. Selfish, annoying and with questionable life choices and actions. But that's the whole idea - to manipulate our feelings towards her. She's played wonderfully by Jessie Buckley and as her character grows and learns from life, we begin to like her that little bit more too. I was worried that if she eventually did find her way to Nashville, we'd see her become this huge star and I would have felt cheated if that were the case. Without heading too much into spoiler territory, I'll just say that things don't exactly work out that way. It's an unexpected but welcome change in direction, and leads to an incredible and emotional final number.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ma (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Ma is the sort of horror movie that I like (although I feel it's much more thriller than horror), and Blumhouse being involved is probably a good indication of whether I'll like this type of film or not. Happy Death Day, Halloween, Upgrade, The First Purge... not Truth Or Dare, no one is looking at you, Truth Or Dare. (As a note, Blumhouse is making a Magic 8 Ball movie, outlook not so good.)
Maggie and her new friends are stuck for somewhere to hang out, so what do five teens with a van and nowhere to go do? They head to the off-license and try to get people to buy them alcohol. This is where they meet Sue Ann, a friendly if a little odd woman. She's worried about them going out drinking and potentially driving drunk so she invites them to use her basement, all they have to do is check in before they leave so she knows they'll be okay. There's just one firm rule, don't go upstairs.
I was surprised by the cast, out headliner is Octavia Spencer (who I love) and it's such a diversion from what I'm used to seeing her in. It's safe to say I was excited and a little bit scared for this film. She's always been quick-witted and funny in things I've previously seen like Instant Family, The Shape Of Water and Hidden Figures, she's such a solid performer though that I shouldn't have worried too much. Well, apart from the fact that she does psycho extremely well. I loved the way she switched between sweet and evil, it was good to see her doing something a little different.
There are lots of people in this to recognise. Diana Silvers has also just appeared in Booksmart and Dante Brown has been in a lot of TV and is probably most recognisable as Roger Murtaugh Jr in Lethal Weapon. The other three teens have also appeared in a selection of TV and films. As an ensemble they work well together, all their interactions were natural and felt authentic... apart from the major one, who goes and parties in a stranger's basement?
The adult support cast is star-studded. Julie Lewis as Erica (Maggie's mum), Luke Evans as Ben (Andy's dad), Missi Pyle as Mercedes (Ben's girlfriend) and Allison Janney as Doctor Brooks (Sue Ann's boss). All of them bring something great to the film but I think that Missi Pyle had my favourite scene in the whole movie... I don't want to spoil it though.
I like the way the connections between the kids and Ma revealed themselves as we go. The added snippets from young Sue Ann break it up a bit and give us some insight into her and her motivations. What I will say though is that those moments combined with what we learn about Sue Ann in the present lead to what seems like an obvious upcoming revelation... but it doesn't come. The revenge that Sue Ann has in her seems like it should have come from something like that plot point, something much bigger, like this non-existent plot point.
As trailers go I think this one was made wrong. A lot of the promotion shows the scene where Ma is sat on the sofa with the kids around her, yes it gives you that shock factor thrill that makes you want to go and see what it means but it also kind of ruins a moment that could have been a great and rather disturbing surprise.
It seems ridiculous to say that this storyline is a little far fetched, after all, it's supposed to be, but I kept finding myself getting annoyed about the fact that I didn't believe these kids would be getting themselves into this situation. Most of those moments also lead to super awkward pieces, which by now you probably know that I hate.
Ma had potential and it certainly wasn't an issue with the acting, that was probably the best thing throughout. The storyline seemed very oddly weighted with a lot of emphasis on the build-up including moments that were slightly irrelevant, it almost felt like other scenes involving them had been cut to keep the time down. The "horror" side of it could definitely have been amped up a bit, and that's coming from someone who doesn't really like horror.
What you should do
If you're into this kind of horror then it's worth a watch but I don't feel like you need to rush to the cinema for it, there are probably better examples of the genre out there.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I have to give Ma some credit, I too would opt for Luke Evans, but with a slightly different outcome.
Maggie and her new friends are stuck for somewhere to hang out, so what do five teens with a van and nowhere to go do? They head to the off-license and try to get people to buy them alcohol. This is where they meet Sue Ann, a friendly if a little odd woman. She's worried about them going out drinking and potentially driving drunk so she invites them to use her basement, all they have to do is check in before they leave so she knows they'll be okay. There's just one firm rule, don't go upstairs.
I was surprised by the cast, out headliner is Octavia Spencer (who I love) and it's such a diversion from what I'm used to seeing her in. It's safe to say I was excited and a little bit scared for this film. She's always been quick-witted and funny in things I've previously seen like Instant Family, The Shape Of Water and Hidden Figures, she's such a solid performer though that I shouldn't have worried too much. Well, apart from the fact that she does psycho extremely well. I loved the way she switched between sweet and evil, it was good to see her doing something a little different.
There are lots of people in this to recognise. Diana Silvers has also just appeared in Booksmart and Dante Brown has been in a lot of TV and is probably most recognisable as Roger Murtaugh Jr in Lethal Weapon. The other three teens have also appeared in a selection of TV and films. As an ensemble they work well together, all their interactions were natural and felt authentic... apart from the major one, who goes and parties in a stranger's basement?
The adult support cast is star-studded. Julie Lewis as Erica (Maggie's mum), Luke Evans as Ben (Andy's dad), Missi Pyle as Mercedes (Ben's girlfriend) and Allison Janney as Doctor Brooks (Sue Ann's boss). All of them bring something great to the film but I think that Missi Pyle had my favourite scene in the whole movie... I don't want to spoil it though.
I like the way the connections between the kids and Ma revealed themselves as we go. The added snippets from young Sue Ann break it up a bit and give us some insight into her and her motivations. What I will say though is that those moments combined with what we learn about Sue Ann in the present lead to what seems like an obvious upcoming revelation... but it doesn't come. The revenge that Sue Ann has in her seems like it should have come from something like that plot point, something much bigger, like this non-existent plot point.
As trailers go I think this one was made wrong. A lot of the promotion shows the scene where Ma is sat on the sofa with the kids around her, yes it gives you that shock factor thrill that makes you want to go and see what it means but it also kind of ruins a moment that could have been a great and rather disturbing surprise.
It seems ridiculous to say that this storyline is a little far fetched, after all, it's supposed to be, but I kept finding myself getting annoyed about the fact that I didn't believe these kids would be getting themselves into this situation. Most of those moments also lead to super awkward pieces, which by now you probably know that I hate.
Ma had potential and it certainly wasn't an issue with the acting, that was probably the best thing throughout. The storyline seemed very oddly weighted with a lot of emphasis on the build-up including moments that were slightly irrelevant, it almost felt like other scenes involving them had been cut to keep the time down. The "horror" side of it could definitely have been amped up a bit, and that's coming from someone who doesn't really like horror.
What you should do
If you're into this kind of horror then it's worth a watch but I don't feel like you need to rush to the cinema for it, there are probably better examples of the genre out there.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I have to give Ma some credit, I too would opt for Luke Evans, but with a slightly different outcome.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.