So there's a lot of history to the eventual release of this sequel. The author of the books P.L. Travers basically never liked the original Disney movie, except for Julie Andrews casting, and was never shy about making it known. Bottom line there has been a Poppins sequel gestating for decades but Travers has always put the kibosh on said plans because of how she believes she was treated over the original film (methinks she exaggerated personally). But anyway long story short, Travers died in 1996 which essentially gave Disney a green light to go ahead. Pretty low if you think about it, but I guess that was always gonna be the only way forward for Disney.
So what we have here is a belated sequel set twenty-four years after the events in the original 1964 movie. Michael and Jane Banks have now grown up, with Michael having his own kids. They both still live in their childhood home at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, London. Michael is unfortunately a widower and looking after his kids with the help of his sister. Luckily they still have the now aging Ellen the housemaid to help out too. Despite being set twenty-four years later Admiral Boom and his first mate Mr. Binnacle are still alive and living next door!
The Plot: Michael (Ben Whishaw) has taken out a loan from the local bank to help keep ahold of their magnificent house. Alas Michael is having troubles paying this back and the house is on the brink of being repossessed. The only way Michael can hope to pay back the loan is via his bank shares...which he cannot find. Meanwhile bank chairman Mr. Wilkins (Colin Firth) knows about these shares but is secretly trying to prevent Michael and Jane (Emily Mortimer) from knowing of them because he wants their house. Once again luck is on the Banks side as Mary Poppins ((Emily Blunt) arrives to save the day and help...everyone basically.
So I believe this sequel is based upon all the Poppins books, or bits and pieces from all of them. The original 1964 movie was based on the first two books I believe. I have not read any of the original books so a few of my complaints could easily be explained, but I'm gonna mention them anyway.
Firstly we have the character of Jack the lamplighter. Now apparently this chap was an apprentice of Bert (Dick Van Dyke) from the original movie. Now of course this character might be in the books but I don't recall him from the original movie. So to me this just seems like a weak excuse to have another chimney sweep-type bloke in the film to make it more relatable. What happened to Bert? Why not just have an aged Bert? Also the guy they cast as Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) is American, why?? I know Van Dyke was American but did they really need to copy that? Why not cast an actual English actor instead of having a Yank who can't do a British accent. This really seemed like a stupid decision to me.
Another glaring issue was the films pacing and structure. Let's not beat around the bush here, this film is literally a scene for scene copy of the original. They virtually copy the original step by step. This also makes the film incredibly predictable; although even without the same scenes you can guess a mile off what's gonna happen. The whole thing is very Potter-esque. But yeah, of course there's the obligatory animated scenes. There's a song sequence with a crazy person (original had Uncle Albert). There's a scene where the kids and Poppins are told off by the father. There's a song sequence with all the lamplighters...in the sewer? (original had the big chimney sweep song sequence). There's a scene with an old lady selling balloons (original had the old pigeon lady) etc...Heck they even copy many of the original films moments such as Poppins and her mirror reflection.
And then there is the big finale. Let's not sugarcoat this, its nonsense. In order to get to the bank on time to prove the existence of the bank shares to Wilkins (who already knows because he's a dastardly villain), they all decide to turn back time. But they don't actually mean going back in time, oh no. What they mean is they will simply put Big Ben back by five minutes. How does that work? That's not solving the issue because you're still late by everyone else's time. Anyway in order to do this Jack and his mates must scale Big Ben in order to alter the clock (laugh out loud!). So they do this and it looks incredibly dangerous. But when they run into trouble Poppins merely flies up to the clock hands and does it effortlessly. So why the flip didn't she just do that in the first place?!
So long story short they succeed in getting the bank shares to Wilkins who tries to get around it but is ultimately fired by Mr. Dawes Jr. (Dick Van Dyke). Now if you recall this character was the little smarmy guy with the squeaky voice in the original 1964 movie. The little guy who looked after Mr. Dawes Sr. who was also played by Van Dyke. Well he's now old and in charge of the bank yet curiously he looks identical to his father, literally. I understand why they would cast Van Dyke here but it does, for a moment, confuse matters. I had to think about it because you can't help but ask yourself, how is that old guy from the first movie still alive??
The last part of the movie has all the characters buying balloons from a mysterious magical old lady and they all float off. It's definitely typically Disney but also completely nonsensical and cloying. As for Poppins and Blunt's performance, it was solid, but I didn't like her tone of voice. I mean was it just me or did she come across like a snooty, upper-class, somewhat cold rich bitch? Personally I think Andrews had a much more caring aura about her. And then there was Poppins cringeworthy cousin with a ridiculous name and essentially the most Potter-esque moment in the entire film. Ugh! Terrible sequence.
Don't get me wrong it's not all bad, far from it. The movie looks truly sumptuous! I think this has to be the best looking film I've seen in ages. They recreated Cherry Tree Lane perfectly, down to the last detail, and it's beautiful. 1930's London is also truly stunning in its scope and fairytale-like visuals. There is realism but its also highly romanticised with a gorgeous colour palette. All the costumes are highly detailed, very realistic looking, and again gorgeous looking with the colour palette. The highlight of the movie has to be the animated section which as you might expect showcases Disney at its best. The addition of CGI really boosts this (and everything else) into the stratosphere as you really don't see the join so to speak, totally seamless. Something that did surprise me in all honesty because so many movies abuse CGI these days.
Alas I must go back to being negative again concerning the soundtrack and score. Yep this totally lets the entire movie down big time. It's inescapable I'm afraid. All of the songs are horrible plain and simple. Firstly there are too many and secondly not one of them sticks in your head. I realise its not an easy task to try and compete with the 1964 classic, damn near impossible! But in my opinion they simply failed here, there is nothing more to say on the matter. The songs were awful and unmemorable, whilst the dance sequences unimaginative and boring.
So after all that would I call this a bad film? No I wouldn't. Would I call this a good film? Meh, it's fine. It just about does the job. As I've said I have no idea how accurate this is to the original source material, it might be spot on, I dunno. Visually this is a masterpiece of modern cinema. Yes I kid you not it's incredible looking, a real treat which most kids will adore. As for the rest its totally meh. It's really obvious that they're trying to recapture that lightning in a bottle that was the original classic and they just can't do it. I have to score it over 5 simply for its stunning visuals, I have to. But overall this again feels like something that didn't really need to be made. The original does everything you need and it simply can't be topped.
6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment