Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated Let Me In (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
t’s a hard thing remaking or rebooting a classic, whatever you want to call it, you have to make sure of one thing…don’t balls it up! Thankfully director Matt Reeves doesn’t do that, in fact he takes a brilliant original and puts his own spin on it.
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
The story of course is very much the same, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a shy and slightly reclusive young boy who is struggling to come to terms with his parents impending divorce. On top of that he is viciously bullied at school and has no one to turn to but the imaginations of his own doing and personality.
When he befriends Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is equally as shy as him a friendship blossoms between them against the backdrop of a cold and at times sinister winter. Abby is not quite what she seems deep down, that much is clear from the outset as her father (Richard Jenkins) goes out on nightly rampages to forage for the one thing that will keep her alive, blood.
Reeves does well to take the story in some new subtle directions such as the revelation that her so called father might well have started out as a mere boy himself and is purely by Abby’s side through need rather than wanting.
It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity
There are some scenes however that stay true to Let the Right One In which of course would be lost if not included, but also the addition of new ones that are very much welcomed.
The acting is exceptional from the young leading man and woman. Smit-McPhee whose run out in the apocalyptic journey The Road only showcased his acting stature, and Moretz proves that she has a great future, if not already, having made her mark.
Reeves keeps this film focused on the young pairing with Owen’s mother being reduced to a mere blur even when she stands only a few feet away, his Dad just a voice on the end of the phone. Unlike the original Let Me In is very much a horror flick for the blood thirsty millennial generation, and the gore is well used and timed to perfection. It doesn’t overshadow what is a true story of friendship and standing up in the face of adversity.
There is no reason to compare this film with the original, despite the story and protagonists all being the same Reeves conducts his approach with originality that makes this equally brilliant.
We should all applaud Reeves for doing something that is incredibly hard in a fast changing industry that craves money from remaking or rebooting films to satisfy a new generation of film goers. He’s made a remake that was actually good!
JT (287 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Does what it says on the tin
Big action blockbusters probably don’t get much bigger than this, certainly, the budgets don’t. Just ask Gareth Edwards, who is making his second feature (again about monsters) brings to life one of the films most iconic.
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Arthur (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Arthur Bach is a spoiled, boyish, alcoholic, New York City playboy with amazing hair and heir to the family business and fortune. He and his faithful sidekick Bitterman travel far and wide to have fun and drink. Well, Arthur drinks, Bitterman drives. He is also very dependent on his nanny Hobson who has been with him since he was born and still takes care of him. One day his mother Vivienne decides she’s had it with his antics, embarrassing her and the family company, so she gives him an ultimatum: either he marries Susan Johnson or he will be cut-off and have to fend for himself on the mean streets of New York City.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Though he doesn’t love Susan, he eventually decides to go along with his mother’s wishes and propose to her. But during this time he also meets the enchanting Naomi, an unlicensed tour guide of Grand Central Terminal who has dreams of being a children’s author. As the wedding day draws nearer and nearer, Arthur and Naomi grow closer and closer. Then tragedy strikes. How this affects Arthur could change his entire life. Does he marry Susan and keep his wealth but gain the world’s scariest father-in-law? Does he choose the mean streets of New York City to be with Naomi? Or do he and Bitterman jump into the Batmobile and drive off into the sunset?
This remake of the 1981 movie Arthur honored the wonderful story that many of us know and love from the original film while still possessing its own unique flair. I believe Dudley Moore would have been very happy with Russell Brand’s excellent performance as Arthur Bach (if you disagree, hold a seance and prove me wrong). Helen Mirren does an amazing job as Hobson and she pretty much owns any scene she is in. Nick Nolte & Jennifer Garner were great as Burt (world’s scariest future father-in-law) and Susan Johnson (Arthur’s total-10-on-the-L.A.-scale) fiancee. Last but not least, I thoroughly enjoyed the performances of: Greta Gerwig as Naomi (Arthur’s love interest), Geraldine James as Vivienne Bach (Arthur’s Mom) and Luis Guzman as Bitterman his faithful sidekick and chauffeur (though I do wish Luis would have been given more screen time). The film definitely kept the audiences attention from start to finish but we were all laughing so much that I have to see it again to hear the jokes that I missed the first time.
If you were sober when you saw the original movie you probably remember the key parts of the story line but if not then this movie will seem like an entirely original movie to you.
Sonic The Hedgehog Classic
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
10.0
Rate It
App
The Sonic game that started it all is now free-to-play and optimized for mobile devices! Race at...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jul 4, 2020
Beautiful gameplay
I have to hold my hands up and say that I've never played the original. I started on FF8 as a teenager and never quite got around to backtracking to 7, so I'm fortunate in a way that I could play this game with no preconceived ideas.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
This is by far the most beautiful game I've ever played. The graphics are stunning, to the point where you can barely tell the difference between film style cut scenes and standard gameplay. Everything from the scenery to the characters looks amazing. The story is your typical convoluted yet endearing Final Fantasy plot with a lot of dialogue, some of it entirely unnecessary (but nothing more than you'd expect with a FF game).
The gameplay itself is good but unusual. It's a lot more linear than you'd expect with little options to run around in an open world like you would usually in an FF game. But I didn't mind this so much because it meant at least you didn't have to run around for hours across an entire world to complete side quests. The most divisive aspect of the gameplay is by far the battle mode. In the first opening battle I hated it, but gradually I got used to it - it's just so different from the normal FF gameplay. It isn't without it's flaws though, the worst one is due to the ability for enemies to attack you whenever, there is a rather frustrating feature where if you use your ATB to choose an action and get attacked right after, you lose the action you were about to take. Rather annoying. The gameplay on the motorbike too is interesting and different, but also becomes a little tedious and annoying towards the end.
I'm also in two minds about how this is only a remake of the first few hours of the original game. It gives off a rather unfinished vibe, and kind of feels like how you felt getting to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring. Whilst I'm intrigued to see how the story ends, I hope the gameplay changes a little as more of the same for another 40+ hours (x however many parts are planned) is a bit much. I also think its crazy how you can complete the main story with the majority of side quests done, yet you've only achieved 51%. I really haven't got the willpower to be a completions any more!
Despite my moans above, these are only really minor niggles and overall this is a stunning game that I really enjoyed playing. Definitely deserves the award for the most beautiful game I've ever played.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not going to lie, the trailer for this worried me greatly. Despite Emily Blunt's roots her accent sounds like someone's stereotypical idea of a prim and proper British nanny, it stuck out like a sore thumb from the trailer.
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Right from the outset you can see that spark from the original film in the animation, the character traits and style. Everything is very familiar and yet different.
I have to say though that the songs were not memorable. If fact I left the cinema thinking about the original more and ended up having a little Mary Poppin medley on my journey back. When you didn't think it could get any worse she actually converts to cockney for one of the songs and I'm left enjoying some of the uninspiring dance routines while wishing I had a remote control to mute the sound.
I'm struggling to remember if the chimney sweep dance routine and the lamp lighter routine in the new film have a lot of similarities. What I can say about it is that there were some very odd camera shots in there. It felt very much like they wanted you to only focus on Miranda and so we got lots of creepy close ups. The sequence really didn't work for me, and honestly I can't even remember the song.
There were some very touching moments in the latter half of the film. Whishaw wasn't really working for me early on but he has a very powerful moment in the middle that kicks off some much better pieces. I can't say that any of the acting particularly thrilled me, the best was probably in the animated characters.
I was genuinely thrilled to see Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins Returns though. I smiled from ear to ear when he started dancing, that moment alone is the main reason for the stars this film earned. But even after the dance routine I wasn't keen on his part in it.
The real question about MP films is if every second Wednesday Topsy's world goes upside-down... what happens to Mary Poppins on every second Tuesday? (Do we know the answer to this? Have I just missed it somewhere?)
What you should do
In my opinion this remake was made on the basis of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", except in the process of making it look like a sequel... they broke it. But, I seem to be in a minority on this one. If you want the nostalgic feeling but don't want to replace the amazing songs from the original then you should be alright seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of whatever Mary Poppins is smoking?
Sonic the Hedgehog™ Classic
Games and Entertainment
App
Race at lightning speeds across seven classic zones as Sonic the Hedgehog. Run and spin through...
