Search
The Wild Oats Project
Book
A testament to how far feminism has taken us all...her search for sexual nirvana is hugely...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Onward (2020) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
I had very mixed feelings about Onward after seeing the trailer, it didn't feel like Pixar and if you'd shown it to me out of context I'd never have guessed it was them.
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Mother-in-Law in Books
May 21, 2019
Lucy was so excited to meet Diana, the mother of her boyfriend, Ollie. Lucy's mother died when she was a teen and she hoped for a good relationship with her hopeful mother-in-law. But Lucy and Diana don't get off to an easy start--Diana has a rigid set of views formed by her own life experiences. From simply co-existing to arguing about parenting to eventual fisticuffs, their relationship is volatile. Then, one night, Lucy and Ollie hear a knock on their door. The police arrive and tell them that Diana is dead in an apparent suicide. But as the investigation progresses, it looks as if there is more to the story. Everyone in the family has history with Diana; but did someone actually kill her?
"'Then I'm very sorry to inform you,' the policewoman starts, and I close my eyes because I already know what she is going to say. My mother-in-law is dead."
This was my first Sally Hepworth novel, and I have heard good things, so I was excited to read some of her work. I found it to be a fast read, with a set of engaging characters. The book alternates between Lucy and Diana's point of view, with much of the story being told in the past. I found the format to be very effective; it worked very well at drawing you into the story and keeping you guessing at what was going on. Many parts of the story were told twice, in some ways, as both women told their side of the story, yet it never felt repetitive.
The main characters in this one are Lucy and Diana, but we have strong appearances from Ollie, his sister Antoinette "Nettie, " and Tom, Diana's husband. I can see why people enjoy Hepworth's novels--I felt very much a part of the story, and I was certainly stumped along the way. Sometimes there was a little too much rumination about mother-in-laws and the meaning of families for my taste, but oh well. I was too eager to find out what had happened to Diana.
"More importantly, you don't choose your mother-in-law. The cackling mercenaries of fate determine it all."
Overall, I really enjoyed my first Hepworth book. It was a quick, engaging, and interesting read that kept my interest.
I received a copy of this novel from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"'Then I'm very sorry to inform you,' the policewoman starts, and I close my eyes because I already know what she is going to say. My mother-in-law is dead."
This was my first Sally Hepworth novel, and I have heard good things, so I was excited to read some of her work. I found it to be a fast read, with a set of engaging characters. The book alternates between Lucy and Diana's point of view, with much of the story being told in the past. I found the format to be very effective; it worked very well at drawing you into the story and keeping you guessing at what was going on. Many parts of the story were told twice, in some ways, as both women told their side of the story, yet it never felt repetitive.
The main characters in this one are Lucy and Diana, but we have strong appearances from Ollie, his sister Antoinette "Nettie, " and Tom, Diana's husband. I can see why people enjoy Hepworth's novels--I felt very much a part of the story, and I was certainly stumped along the way. Sometimes there was a little too much rumination about mother-in-laws and the meaning of families for my taste, but oh well. I was too eager to find out what had happened to Diana.
"More importantly, you don't choose your mother-in-law. The cackling mercenaries of fate determine it all."
Overall, I really enjoyed my first Hepworth book. It was a quick, engaging, and interesting read that kept my interest.
I received a copy of this novel from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The End Of The Tour (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The End of the Tour tells the story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter and novelist David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel), which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace’s groundbreaking epic novel, Infinite Jest. The film is based on Lipsky’s critically acclaimed memoir about this unforgettable encounter, written following Wallace’s 2008 suicide.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
So there is the summary. And it tells you what this movie is about. However what that summary does not tell you is the depth of emotion to which both Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg deliver in their performances.
Jesse Eisenberg gives a performance that we come to expect from the Oscar nominated actor. Not only can you feel, but you can also and understand his curiosity and jealousy towards Segel’s success. A less successful writer, he wants the notoriety that Segel has. So much so, that he is constantly trying to find the holes in Segel’s persona under the guise of an interview and yet is forced to ponder the things that Segel is saying to him.
Jason Segel’s portrayal of David Foster Wallace is not understated by the word phenomenal. I was skeptical that Segel would not be able to deliver a dramatic performance of this caliber, but I am glad to say I was wrong. He steals every scene he is in and his performance is so deep and thoughtful that Jason Segel himself disappears and we are instead left with a performance of what I will always believe David Foster Wallace was like in real life. This performance is one of the best I have seen this year and I believe he will receive an Oscar nomination for this role. I was fascinated with Segel’s performance that I actually downloaded David Foster Wallace’s book Infinite Jest on my drive home.
Performances aside, this movie is not for everyone. If you are looking for an inactive cinematic experience then this film is not for you. This film makes you think. It is like being a part of a deep conversation with friends trying to make sense of the world. It brings perspective to the society we live in and the loneliness we find ourselves trying to avoid while clinging to meaningless things that bring us simple pleasure. A simple way of living where we go from A to B to C to find meaning, only to obtain those things and then not knowing what we do next. But for those who are looking to escape the mundane summer blockbusters and want to see stellar performances, be sure to check this one out.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rent-A-Pal (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
If by any chance you’re feeling nostalgic for the days of VHS videotapes, then Rent-A-Pal is here to satisfy that craving. Set in Denver during 1990, VHS video features rather heavily throughout Rent-A-Pal, from the retro font used in the opening titles to the closeups of videotapes being inserted into a VCR, the internal mechanism engaging with the tape as it prepares to play.
The person responsible for firing up the VCR is David (Brian Landis Folkins), who is settling down to view the latest set of video profiles he’s received from dating agency Video Rendezvous, of which he is a member. David lives in the basement flat of his mum’s house, who has dementia. His father died ten years ago, meaning David is now the sole carer for his mother. And David is lonely, painfully lonely. When he calls Video Rendezvous for an update on any profile matches, he’s told that he has still not received any interest from potential partners who have viewed his profile. He is however urged to come into their office and record a new video profile, as his current one is now 6 months old.
When David sits down in front of the camera to record his new profile, he comes across well, showing just how much of a nice guy he is – a caregiver who simply wants the chance to care for a soulmate, sharing life within a loving relationship. You really do feel for him, certain that the genuine sincerity in his video will finally land him the date he so desperately needs and deserves. That is until the cameraman informs him that he has completely overrun the thirty-second limit allocated to male video profiles and that he is going to have to do it again. The shortened version David then delivers under pressure is rushed, with David now coming across as awkward and creepy, and your heart drops, knowing that he’s likely to remain single for a while longer yet. But then, as he’s having his credit card swiped by the dating agency yet again, David notices an interesting VHS sitting in the nearby bargain bin, titled Rent A Pal, and decides to buy it.
Back in his basement, David puts the Rent-A-Pal video into his VCR and presses play. He’s greeted by Andy (Will Wheaton), a cheery-looking man in a colourful knitted tank top. Andy talks of becoming best friends with David, asking him questions and leaving a pause to allow David to answer. Those pauses aren’t always long enough though, resulting in David being cut off mid-sentence, and the responses from Andy don’t always match the answers that David has given him either. But, desperate for a friend, David persists with this strange form of interaction.
We see that after repeat viewings of the tape David has managed to perfect his responses so that the conversation flows between him and Andy as if it were a real-life conversation. There are parts of the video where Andy plays cards with the viewer, takes a selfie with his back to the camera so that the viewer can be in it, and he and David are able to have the kind of deep and meaningful conversations that only two very good friends would have. It’s a rather lengthy and elaborate videotape, with certain sections earning a revisit should David ever feel the need to have a specific conversation about a certain aspect of his life. Eventually, we as the audience begin to wonder how much of this ‘relationship’ is real or imagined, with some of the questions or replies from Andy beginning to sound eerily close to being very specific and personal to David.
In his real life, David finally gets a lucky break with the dating agency, landing a date with Lisa (Amy Rutledge). Lisa also works in the care sector, and she comes across as a very nice person too. Once again you find yourself willing David to do well and thankfully, they do hit it off. But from the moment David brings Lisa down to his basement and you see that somebody is likely to sit on the VCR remote, you just know things are due to take a dark turn.
Watching David as he interacts with Andy for hours on end, day after day is surprisingly riveting. I was completely engrossed in him and his life as I waited and hoped he might catch a break. For much of the movie, I was just mesmerised by the wonderful performances from the entire cast, thoroughly enjoying the believable, likeable characters they portrayed. But, Rent-A-Pal is billed as a horror movie, so when things do eventually take a turn right at the end, we get a fast-paced, gory ending which felt somewhat disappointing, proving to be the weakest aspect of a movie which really did impress me overall.
The person responsible for firing up the VCR is David (Brian Landis Folkins), who is settling down to view the latest set of video profiles he’s received from dating agency Video Rendezvous, of which he is a member. David lives in the basement flat of his mum’s house, who has dementia. His father died ten years ago, meaning David is now the sole carer for his mother. And David is lonely, painfully lonely. When he calls Video Rendezvous for an update on any profile matches, he’s told that he has still not received any interest from potential partners who have viewed his profile. He is however urged to come into their office and record a new video profile, as his current one is now 6 months old.
When David sits down in front of the camera to record his new profile, he comes across well, showing just how much of a nice guy he is – a caregiver who simply wants the chance to care for a soulmate, sharing life within a loving relationship. You really do feel for him, certain that the genuine sincerity in his video will finally land him the date he so desperately needs and deserves. That is until the cameraman informs him that he has completely overrun the thirty-second limit allocated to male video profiles and that he is going to have to do it again. The shortened version David then delivers under pressure is rushed, with David now coming across as awkward and creepy, and your heart drops, knowing that he’s likely to remain single for a while longer yet. But then, as he’s having his credit card swiped by the dating agency yet again, David notices an interesting VHS sitting in the nearby bargain bin, titled Rent A Pal, and decides to buy it.
Back in his basement, David puts the Rent-A-Pal video into his VCR and presses play. He’s greeted by Andy (Will Wheaton), a cheery-looking man in a colourful knitted tank top. Andy talks of becoming best friends with David, asking him questions and leaving a pause to allow David to answer. Those pauses aren’t always long enough though, resulting in David being cut off mid-sentence, and the responses from Andy don’t always match the answers that David has given him either. But, desperate for a friend, David persists with this strange form of interaction.
We see that after repeat viewings of the tape David has managed to perfect his responses so that the conversation flows between him and Andy as if it were a real-life conversation. There are parts of the video where Andy plays cards with the viewer, takes a selfie with his back to the camera so that the viewer can be in it, and he and David are able to have the kind of deep and meaningful conversations that only two very good friends would have. It’s a rather lengthy and elaborate videotape, with certain sections earning a revisit should David ever feel the need to have a specific conversation about a certain aspect of his life. Eventually, we as the audience begin to wonder how much of this ‘relationship’ is real or imagined, with some of the questions or replies from Andy beginning to sound eerily close to being very specific and personal to David.
In his real life, David finally gets a lucky break with the dating agency, landing a date with Lisa (Amy Rutledge). Lisa also works in the care sector, and she comes across as a very nice person too. Once again you find yourself willing David to do well and thankfully, they do hit it off. But from the moment David brings Lisa down to his basement and you see that somebody is likely to sit on the VCR remote, you just know things are due to take a dark turn.
Watching David as he interacts with Andy for hours on end, day after day is surprisingly riveting. I was completely engrossed in him and his life as I waited and hoped he might catch a break. For much of the movie, I was just mesmerised by the wonderful performances from the entire cast, thoroughly enjoying the believable, likeable characters they portrayed. But, Rent-A-Pal is billed as a horror movie, so when things do eventually take a turn right at the end, we get a fast-paced, gory ending which felt somewhat disappointing, proving to be the weakest aspect of a movie which really did impress me overall.
The Halloween Oracle
Lifestyle and Reference
App
Harness the eerie power of Halloween every night of year with this stunning, accurate Oracle deck. ...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kick-Ass (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Kick-Ass starts out as a clever action movie with good humor interspersed throughout the first half, but by the second half the jokes trail off as the movie takes a blacker turn toward a mindless and confusing tale of morality.
Viewing this movie as a mindless action flick, it is impressive and at times humorous, albeit that humor, in the immersive first half, is deadened by the much darker scenes toward the end of the film. But if you’re trying to find a deeper message hidden behind the motivations and actions of the characters on screen, you perhaps would be better served by reading the comic first. The violence was surprisingly graphic for what started out as a clever and somewhat endearing highschool drama about not fitting in and trying to change the world for the better.
As the director of Layer Cake and Stardust, Matthew Vaughn has shown before that he knows how to do action and fantasy, and in this movie, the action scenes are tight and gripping and slightly surreal. You may even recognize a few cameos if you’re familiar with Guy Ritchie films.
Aaron Johnson, as the title character, brings a smart vulnerability to his part. As an overly ambitious, but well meaning comic book fan, his stabs at super-heroics were quite believable.
This movie may be titled Kick-Ass, but the most interesting character is Hit-Girl, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. Quite a few child actors come across as precocious, and Moretz is a welcome change. She shares some great scenes with Nicolas Cage, a vengeful father who has turned his 11 year-old daughter into a killing machine. Cage’s deadpan humor as Big Daddy matches surprisingly well with the giddy, foul-mouthed, black humor of Hit-Girl.
In a way, I may be doing the movie a disservice if I were to dwell on the plot holes, morality, and thematic elements of this movie which are clearly not the focused intent of the director. Not every movie is intended to be a deep and meaningful reflection on life, so in that regard, this movie is simply a blood-drenched charmer.
Viewing this movie as a mindless action flick, it is impressive and at times humorous, albeit that humor, in the immersive first half, is deadened by the much darker scenes toward the end of the film. But if you’re trying to find a deeper message hidden behind the motivations and actions of the characters on screen, you perhaps would be better served by reading the comic first. The violence was surprisingly graphic for what started out as a clever and somewhat endearing highschool drama about not fitting in and trying to change the world for the better.
As the director of Layer Cake and Stardust, Matthew Vaughn has shown before that he knows how to do action and fantasy, and in this movie, the action scenes are tight and gripping and slightly surreal. You may even recognize a few cameos if you’re familiar with Guy Ritchie films.
Aaron Johnson, as the title character, brings a smart vulnerability to his part. As an overly ambitious, but well meaning comic book fan, his stabs at super-heroics were quite believable.
This movie may be titled Kick-Ass, but the most interesting character is Hit-Girl, played by Chloë Grace Moretz. Quite a few child actors come across as precocious, and Moretz is a welcome change. She shares some great scenes with Nicolas Cage, a vengeful father who has turned his 11 year-old daughter into a killing machine. Cage’s deadpan humor as Big Daddy matches surprisingly well with the giddy, foul-mouthed, black humor of Hit-Girl.
In a way, I may be doing the movie a disservice if I were to dwell on the plot holes, morality, and thematic elements of this movie which are clearly not the focused intent of the director. Not every movie is intended to be a deep and meaningful reflection on life, so in that regard, this movie is simply a blood-drenched charmer.
The Twelfth Card (Lincoln Rhyme #6)
9.0
Rate It
Book
A high-school girl in Harlem, Geneva Settle, is the target of a ruthless professional...
kiddZtube | Safe YouTube Kids
Entertainment and Education
App
kiddZtube is a safe YouTube kids ’ player with curated videos and learning quizzes made by...
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/