DVDizzy Forum

I watched this at home, and it is still just the most magical film. I absolutely love it; it holds up on TV beautifully as well.

Disney has also released the "The Royal Doulton Music Hall" song clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjPmDywk4LE

I finally saw this. I thought MPR was a good film, not quite as good as I expected, but worth watching / owning. I liked how the kite being discarded was what brought Mary back, and how the lamplighters "turning back time" tied into the neighbor always commenting on Big Ben being wrong. The "Can You Imagine That?" scene was definitely the best of the magical diversions in the film, imo, but I loved "Nowhere to Go But Up." I listened to the soundtrack early because I knew it would be so long before I'd actually see the film, even though I usually prefer to hear the songs by way of the film first, but "NtGBU"'s scene was everything I imagined it would be.

I think I'd have liked the film more overall if they'd cut it down 20 minutes or so. My least favorite part of the movie is the animated interlude unfortunately; the animation is really the only worthwhile reason for its existence, imo. It was the part that most felt like they were aping the first film, LMM's solo part in "The Cover Is Not the Book" is my least favorite thing on the soundtrack, the whole carriage chase left me cold, and the wolf representing the baker was a little on the nose. That's where they should've trimmed from, by cutting the chase at the end and Miranda's solo. I didn't have much feeling towards the kids in general--but that isn't any different than the first film really, where the adults were the interesting characters, too. Still, I did like the beginning of the scene, with the three children breaking the bowl, and "The Royal Doulton Music Hall" was better in film than when I listened to the soundtrack divorced from the movie itself last year. "Turning Turtle," on the other hand, I loved when I listened to the soundtrack last year, and I'll still love the song on its own, but the scene itself really does not do the song justice at all. I thought the room would keep turning round and round while everyone would be flying every which way while she was singing.

Anyway, as I said about this film being the same as the original as far as the adults being the interesting characters, I thought most of their actors did a good job. I wish Walters had got a bit more to do, since the maids / cook stood out more in the original than she does in this, even though there's no question she was great even with what little she had. Whishaw's song was the only moment I teared up in the movie, because I knew it tied into "The Place Where Lost Things Go" when he wonders where his wife's gone now. I loved Dick van Dyke's part in the film. Such a shame Andrews didn't take the role offered, but Lansbury really was the next best choice (especially considering Bedknobs always felt like a MP rehash in a lot of ways).

As far as the film overall, I think the one thing I wish they had called back to more directly (more than Dick van Dyke bringing her up in dialogue) was the bird lady from the first film. I understand the film seemed to revolve more around re-awakening hope among the family again, rather than making the father understand that making money is not all life is for and learn to listen to his wife / children like in the first film, but I still think "Feed the Birds" was such a fundamental, significant part of the original that MPR feels incomplete without that message tucked in there somewhere.

I really thought this would do better--looking back through the thread, I see I speculated it might perform better than expectations--and I'm even more sad it didn't now. I wouldn't have minded seeing this become a franchise, even if it only had one or two more films. Off-topic, but I was broke up when I'd read Nanny McPhee wouldn't get a third film, too, several years ago; maybe it still will someday years from now... I loved those films more than Mary Poppins, actually, as far as magical, British nannies go.

Sotiris wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote: Best actor in a motion picture, comedy or musical

Christian Bale, “Vice”
Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Mary Poppins Returns”
Viggo Mortensen, “Green Book”
Robert Redford, “The Old Man and the Gun”
John C. Reilly, “Stan and Ollie”

LMM nominated for his acting? In this movie? Seriously? Do voters just see his name and vote for him for anything?

I tried to get beyond my personal dislike of him while watching this (I was never really a fan, but when he came onto the The Little Mermaid remake so long ago, my opinion of him really took a hard left turn), but I definitely thought he had the weakest performance in the film... I didn't mind the songs themselves at least. Maybe the year was that poor that they found a way to nominate him? I don't / can't keep up with everything released to say.

Musical Master wrote: In fact, to me this is the most memorable set of songs we ever had for a Disney film since The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

I don't know, I preferred the Frozen soundtrack to this, overall. But, leaving Frozen, I'd have to go back to Tarzan to find another one as good, from Disney--I'm not including the B&tB and Aladdin re-makes, because that's a cheat. Tangled was alright--I blame the directors for that one not being as great as it could've been--and HOTR had as good a soundtrack a film about cows could be expected to have, while TP&TF's soundtrack was always weak, even if fondness of the film has softened my opinion of it over time. The vocal performances lift the material, imo--with "Down in New Orleans" being the only great song from that film, imo.

Musical Master wrote:
Of course I wonder why Wilkins wants to repossess the Banks house in the first place because I heard from one Instagram review that he didn't have a clear motivation for it.

Yes, it’s a shame he didn’t have more of a motive, although I guess greed is enough. I thought Colin Firth did the best he could with the character, even though there wasn’t much going on. I did laugh seeing Spratt from Downton as one of the bank characters. He really fit the role.

UmbrellaFish wrote: Second question: during Turning Turtle— there is a line “Perhaps if you all lend a hand” which sounds a bit like Angela Lansbury to me, but it could be Meryl and I don’t recognize it because of the character voice. But it really sounds like Lansbury to me. Am I right?

I thought for sure that line was Emily Blunt speaking to the children, but it was Meryl Streep! She sounds so different on that line from the rest of the song.

UmbrellaFish wrote:Sometimes you can see the gears turning in this Mary’s Head, too, as though she is forming her schemes as she goes along which is a new development. Walt’s Mary seemed to be perpetually 10 steps ahead of everyone else, all the time. This change makes her seem more human and a little less omnipotent.

That’s a good point. For instance, when the children decide to go to Wilkins’ office and the camera is on Blunt's face as if she’s deciding to let it play out. I guess I’ve always thought of MP in the original as sort of an angel in the guise of a human, the same way I do Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother or B&tB’s Enchantress. This doesn't make me think of her differently, since she still does have many moments where she knows what's coming before everyone else (like the door that would open being when she leaves), just I wish they'd kept her more ahead of everyone.

JTurner wrote: Too bad it's going to do nothing to renew interest in 2D animation.

Sad, but true.

Am I wrong or did the part when all the butterflies are flying around look slightly blurry? Anyway, the whole scene reminded me of "The Beautiful Briny" from Bedknobs & Broomsticks, with all the animals dressed up high class.

Sotiris wrote:The movie is coming to home video on March 26th, 2019.

4K Ultra HD
http://i.imgur.com/9mLvaLPl.jpg

This is definitely my favorite of the covers. I love the way they included the artwork in this picture. Was this the poster when it was in theaters, too?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I thought I’d like it. I do love the original. But it was quite a disappointment. For a film which is – supposedly – put together by lovers of the 1964 original, it is deeply thematically out of step with it. This is a film made by someone who evidently regards the cartoon penguins as more integral to the first feature than Feed the Birds or the character arc of George Banks.

I so agree! “Feed the Birds (Tuppence a Bag)” represents a critical theme of Mary Poppins, to have mercy on / do charity for others. I did like at least that Jane mentioned that her organization runs soup kitchens in her scene with the bankers at the beginning, and how the kind banker is noted for his contrast to the others who only care about money. Oh, and I remember posting in the Mary Poppins thread years ago, about how I didn't like the implication at the end of the first film that Mrs. Banks' feminism was as detrimental to the family as Mr. Banks' greed, or at least as something superfluous that needed to be set aside for the good of the family. In a way, they fixed it here because Jane is also a feminist, one who does work for the needy as well, meaning Mrs. Banks continued to fight for women's rights even after the end of the movie. I wanted to say that somewhere in my post before I forgot!

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:Ben Whishaw’s Michael is a pretty drab and uninteresting figure when compared to his father. David Tomlinson’s George Banks was subtle; a delusional, narcissistic and yet fundamentally decent man, an antagonist for whom we were invited to sympathise with. Michael Banks lacks his father’s depths; we are told he is an artist, yet his vocation never matters and his art never appears. He is too obviously decent to start with for his arc to have any resonance, and his anger at his children is so clearly unusual for him that the whole exercise seems rather unnecessary.

I agree that the moment he shouts at them comes across forced. For one, the action is clearly not a normal occurrence, merely frustration at his current predicament, whereas George Banks was patronizing and deluded as a way of life. That said, I don't fault the film for the fact that Michael has less room to grow than George Banks. I think the purpose of Mary Poppins being there this time around was to bring hope back to the family that was lost with the death of Michael's wife, more than re-align them--or solely Mr. Banks, rather--entirely the way she did in the first film. Then again, I suppose in some ways, you could say Michael was focusing on money too much, too, albeit in a different way. Whereas Mr. Banks practically worshiped money and the bank, and wanted his son to do the same, Michael was merely focused on saving the house. Still, the fact that the shares ended up being on the kite (because MP purposely put it in the youngest kid's hands) means that perhaps the point was that Michael should've still been focusing on his family despite what temporary crises were happening in his life. You can't control the world or what happens to you, but you can control how you use your time. If he had been giving more attention to his children, making time to have fun with them (a la "Let's Go Fly a Kite"), he would've found the shares immediately. For me, that has more of a religious meaning (and I'm trying not to be too explicit here because I know not everyone believes the same things), that you have to trust that things will take care of themselves and not be bound up by anxiety over what could happen.

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:The use of some of the original’s songs in the underscore is nice, especially when it uses some of the lesser-known pieces in the appropriate places (The Life I Lead, The Perfect Nanny, even Fidelity Fiduciary Bank), but the approach serves to underline how confused the writing is when Feed the Birds inevitably appears. It makes its cameo alongside Van Dyke’s, in a scene where Mr Dawes reveals that Michael’s “tuppence” of the 1964 film has accrued sufficient interest to handily resolve this sequel’s plot. This clumsy exposition is not only rather thin gruel to give to Van Dyke, but also comically misses the entire point of the tuppence in the first film. After all, young Michael Banks wants to give it to the Bird Woman rather than the bank, a choice that Mary Poppins explicitly presents as the right one, framing it as a choice between compassion and shallow selfishness. This film thus sides with the villains of the original. It’s clearly an accident, but it’s not an isolated incident.

That was clearly an accident, but I definitely agree that "Feed the Birds" should've been given more consideration in this film, maybe even give it a short reprise at some point in Dick van Dyke's scene. At least they made sure to point out that van Dyke's character here was changed in part because of Michael's compassion and desire to give tuppence to the bird lady. I think in a way it also emphasizes how "large" a tuppence or the act of giving is despite how "small" it seems, by the fact that it became large enough to solve the entire plot in this one. Because Michael's act of charity was stolen from him by his father forcing him to put the money in the bank in the first film, the true, large value of what that small act of charity would've been is returned to him. Although, reading RyGuy's post, he's right that Michael gives the tuppence to his father rather than the bank, even if his father puts it in the bank--which I still see as charity / compassion on Michael's part even if directed at someone else, and that compassion was returned to Michael tenfold. Or, in another way, Michael's act helped to save Mr. Banks by leading to him understanding what's important in life (and, further, Mr. Banks does the same thing when he makes the bankers laugh), and Mr. Banks in return ends up saving Michael in this film even if he's not there physically but in "the place where lost things go" the same as Michael's wife. In a way, Michael's problem could be called a lack of faith, especially when he wonders "where did you go" about his wife in his first song. That's Mary's purpose for being there, to make him understand things / people are never really gone.

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:Mary Poppins Returns also sees the adult Jane compare Michael to their father when Whishaw is shouting angrily; this is baffling, considering the fact that the story of Mary Poppins is how their father becomes a better, kinder man. That Jane would remember George Banks as otherwise is a careless error. But there is a possible explanation by the end of Returns: the Balloon Lady remarks, quite startlingly, that “of course, the grown-ups will forget by tomorrow” and Mary agrees. If this is the case, and George Banks went back to his old ways, and Michael is to go back to his, then Mary Poppins and her visits are pointless. If not, then she and the Balloon Lady are talking rubbish – either way, it doesn’t work. The story of Mary Poppins is to remember what it’s like to be a child, and to treasure the time you have with your family. It’s not the story of a fun day out that’s instantly forgotten.

I don't think the Balloon Lady's comment implies that. Mr. Banks was fundamentally changed by the experience at the bank, only he and the other adults forget the magical details of flying up chimneys, floating in the clouds on a balloon, etc. That's a recurring idea in films about the innocence of being a child and the pure imagination / belief you have at that time of life, and how it's often lost once one grows up. That an adult's eyes are often clouded by the desire to be rational to truly see things the same way.

I know Dr. Frankenollie isn't here anymore, but I wanted to respond to that anyway.

Escapay wrote:

Mooky wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Jane compares Michael to their father only once, referring to his grumpiness somewhat jokingly.

Michael: "Jane, have you gone completely mad? I can't afford to take on anyone else!"
Jane: "Mary Poppins isn't just anyone. Don't you see, Michael? Nobody's hiring nannies anymore. The poor woman has nowhere to go!"
Michael: "Well, neither will we by the end of the week!"
Jane: "You're so grumpy, you sound just like father."
Michael: (indignantly) "I do not!"
Jane: "Give Mary Poppins a chance, you need help just as much as she does."

Albert

Reading this interaction written out makes me feel more confident in what I was thinking / writing earlier in my post, that Michael had become his father albeit in a different way. The fact that he's most concerned about what he can afford rather than what the right thing to do is, and how Jane specifically frames taking on Mary Poppins as a nanny as being a charity because she probably can't find work and Michael still doesn't care, reveals he's lost the compassion he once had, that Mary had taught him to have. In that way, Mary came back to reiterate the lesson that she gave when she taught them to “Feed the Birds.”

disneyprincess11 wrote: I thought the second half of the animated sequence and the climax was a little ridiculous. What was even the point of the wolf / Banker symbolism? The fact that there’s a character just like the Banker, to the point of him having a watch (I rolled my eyes hard) is a little far-fetched to begin with.

I agree, that part was unnecessarily OTT.

Sotiris wrote:

Old Fish Tale wrote:And we know exactly why you hate it.

If you're referring to the fact that it has an annoying melody, gimmicky lyrics, anachronistic rapping that's poorly disguised as patter, the subpar singing talents of LMM, and its existence is completely gratuitous and unnecessary as it adds nothing to either plot or characterization, then yes, you do know!

This made me laugh so hard. I'm sorry.

Atlantica wrote:Mary Poppins isn't a 'worthy / dark / intense' etc etc film so therefore they felt they didn't deserve it. Just like Johnny Depp being overlooked for the iconic first performance of Captain Jack.

I don’t think Blunt as MP was quite as iconic as Depp as Jack Sparrow, but I agree that lighthearted roles seem to get unfairly overlooked.

They just announced the Mary Poppins attraction at the United Kingdom pavilion at Epcot is still happening:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EC1kEX2XoAMmsuh.jpg

Old Fish Tale wrote:They just announced the Mary Poppins attraction at the United Kingdom pavillion at Epcot is still happening:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EC1kEX2XoAMmsuh.jpg

The Mary Poppins expansion/remodel of the UK pavilion is more than I ever dreamed of. Cherry Tree Lane is to me what Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley are to other people. I can’t believe one day, I’ll get to go there!! I’m a little disappointed that the concept art depicts the Emily Blunt Mary and Lin Manuel Miranda. If these characters do come to Epcot, I hope Julie and Dick’s iterations get to remain in the Magic Kingdom— I’m also a bit surprised because I always expected that if the Emily Mary did make it into the parks, she’d be wearing her Royal Doulton dress, not her lovely traveling ensemble.

And the attraction??? I don’t want to get my hopes up that it’s a dark ride... but if it is, I hope they incorporate the music and scenes from both movies.

UmbrellaFish wrote:

Old Fish Tale wrote:They just announced the Mary Poppins attraction at the United Kingdom pavillion at Epcot is still happening:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EC1kEX2XoAMmsuh.jpg

The Mary Poppins expansion/remodel of the UK pavilion is more than I ever dreamed of. Cherry Tree Lane is to me what Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley are to other people. I can’t believe one day, I’ll get to go there!! I’m a little disappointed that the concept art depicts the Emily Blunt Mary and Lin Manuel Miranda. If these characters do come to Epcot, I hope Julie and Dick’s iterations get to remain in the Magic Kingdom— I’m also a bit surprised because I always expected that if the Emily Mary did make it into the parks, she’d be wearing her Royal Doulton dress, not her lovely traveling ensemble.

And the attraction??? I don’t want to get my hopes up that it’s a dark ride... but if it is, I hope they incorporate the music and scenes from both movies.

There's another photo and it looks like it has Julie's Mary in it: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EC1jTB8UwAAy7NG.jpg

She's wearing her 'Step in Time' costume. At least, it looks like her.

The lady in red? I actually think that may be Emily’s Mary in her first Royal Doulton costume— which makes the most sense to me. Julie’s Mary has only met (to my knowledge) in her Jolly Holiday outfit, I think because children may respond more to its frilly “princess” qualities— if they actually bring Emily’s Mary to the parks, I think she will wear her pretty pink Doulton dress for this same reason. You can also see Jack the lamplighter in that concept art, too.

Still, it seems strange to me to trot out Dick van Dyke for a Mary Poppins expansion that may have less to do with the 1964 film than the 2018 film. It’s also strange to me because neither Emily’s Mary or Jack made any appearances at any of the parks during MPR’s theatrical release— or ever, really. I really expected they might give the characters a trial run when the movie came out though. But it is so early days and these kinds of concept art can differ so drastically from the final product, so who knows. Ultimately, it’s more important to me that the attraction honors the 1964 film than who the face characters depict.

UmbrellaFish wrote:The lady in red? I actually think that may be Emily’s Mary in her first Royal Doulton costume— which makes the most sense to me. Julie’s Mary has only met (to my knowledge) in her Jolly Holiday outfit, I think because children may respond more to its frilly “princess” qualities— if they actually bring Emily’s Mary to the parks, I think she will wear her pretty pink Doulton dress for this same reason. You can also see Jack the lamplighter in that concept art, too.

Still, it seems strange to me to trot out Dick van Dyke for a Mary Poppins expansion that may have less to do with the 1964 film than the 2018 film. It’s also strange to me because neither Emily’s Mary or Jack made any appearances at any of the parks during MPR’s theatrical release— or ever, really. I really expected they might give the characters a trial run when the movie came out though. But it is so early days and these kinds of concept art can differ so drastically from the final product, so who knows. Ultimately, it’s more important to me that the attraction honors the 1964 film than who the face characters depict.

I understand. I still think it looks more like Julie's Mary with the 'Step in Time' costume. But yes, I hadn't noticed Lin-Manuel's Jack in that photo too. But there's a chance the attraction is so big they combine the characters from both films.

By the way, are they still allowed to use Julie's likeness anywhere? I'm asking because I remember what you said when that 'Practically Poppins in Every Way' book was published and they weren't even allowed to mention her by name in it. Is everything still okay between her and Disney?

I'm so glad to hear that they're continuing with their Epcot expansion of Mary Poppins. I've always wanted to visit Cherry Tree Lane especially after hearing the original cast gush about how they felt like they were in London itself when they first visited the set because of how expansive it was. I want to feel the same way as they did when I visit. I really hope they draw more from the original film although I wouldn't mind elements from the sequel.

It's possible the concept art was commissioned a while back, around the time they were hyping up the sequel, hence why the characters are based off of MPR. However, now that Disney feels the film underperformed, they might just revert back to the world-famous characters from the original film.

I'm so so excited Just hope the attraction is the dark ride that the one Imagineer wanted to do.

Old Fish Tale wrote: By the way, are they still allowed to use Julie's likeness anywhere? I'm asking because I remember what you said when that 'Practically Poppins in Every Way' book was published and they weren't even allowed to mention her by name in it. Is everything still okay between her and Disney?

Most Mary Poppins merchandise depicts the character in silhouette, which I have always guessed is primarily to avoid paying royalties to Julie Andrews. That said, you can certainly buy plenty of official Disney Mary Poppins plushies and pins that depict Julie Andrews inside the theme parks. Furthermore, Mary still meets daily in both Epcot and the Magic Kingdom and appears in the Fantasmic! finale dressed as Julie Andrews in the “Jolly Holiday” segment— not to mention all the other parks around the world. Unlike 99% of other characters with scheduled meet and greets, Mary Poppins never has a PhotoPass photographer with her. This is because if Disney sold guests photos of Mary, some of the profits would have to be shared with Julie Andrews (and the Travers estate). On the other hand, Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow does meet with PhotoPass— we can perhaps assume that modern contracts are more favorable for Disney in this regard. Every day, Mary meets hundreds of families in both the theme parks and if she could have a PhotoPass cast member attending her, Disney could make up for a lot of untapped revenue. If the Julie Andrews Mary Poppins stops appearing at the theme parks, it is likely a business decision made by Disney and not Andrews’ team. Of course, this is assuming that Emily Blunt’s (and Lin Manuel Miranda’s) contracts with Disney are more inline with Depp’s than Andrews’.

I am not sure about Disney and Julie Andrews’ relationship and I have speculated too much in the past. I think on Julie’s side, most of the disagreements have been about pay and protecting her image, particularly in light of the impending release of her highly-anticipated second autobiography. After all, Rob Marshall is a friend who choreographed her on Broadway and she emailed an effusive review of the sequel to its creators. Disney will hopefully forgive her involvement in Aquaman— which, intended or not, read as a shot across the bow. The company now owns her two most iconic movies, and it would be a shame if any bad feelings between the two prevented any further collaboration on say, a Mary Poppins dark ride or a third Princess Diaries movie.

Edit: Also I should note Julie is mentioned by name in the “Practically Poppins” book, her team would not allow her image to be used. There are absolutely no photographs or even stills that depict Julie Andrews the actor or Julie Andrews as the character Mary Poppins. It is absolutely bizarre, and very noticeable. The only exceptions are posters and other promotional advertisements for the movie which are featured sparsely throughout the book. I met someone very close to the Disney book project who believed that Julie’s team refused to allow her image in the book because of this year’s release of her autobiography— which will cover Julie’s experiences filming Mary Poppins amongst other things— her team appeared to reason that if Julie participated in the Disney book or allowed her image to be used, it could negatively impact sales of her forthcoming autobiography. This is still merely speculation, but I have mentioned previously of the precedence for this level of image guarding by Julie’s team.

And since I talked so much about her, can I just say how absolutely delighted I am that I get to see Julie Andrews live for the first time (and hopefully not the only time) in Atlanta this December! I am beyond thrilled. It’s a lifelong dream fulfilled.

How wonderful to actually feature Mary Poppins in some way ! At long last

I don't see the beef between Julie and Emily's versions of the character; it will still be Mary doing meet'n'greets etc, in any of her costumes from ones available from both her film and her sequel. Nothing wrong with being Jolly Holiday Mary one day, then Royal Dolton the next, no ? Mary Poppins Returns needs breathing room to germinate and the songs to sink into the subconscious of the world; just as the first did for fifty years solid now.

The sequel was absolutely charming, and was a critical success as well ... it didn't do Aquaman numbers, but why on earth does that mean it needs to be written off in favour of the 'original and original alone' trope

Hearing a meld of both films music whilst you walk down Cherry Tree Lane will be magical; hearing a mix of them together even now ( via Spotify ) shows you how brilliantly the sequels songs carried over the same vain of the first.

I hope something of Mary comes to Paris but I have 0 hope of that as they barely bother with any of their animated films for expansion / park presence let alone a live action / animation hybrid.

With Disney’s rules about character integrity and the specific celebrity contracts involved, it is unlikely that a different costume could be substituted so easily. Hypothetically, you couldn’t just say, “Oh, I think Mary will wear her Jolly Holiday dress today” because you have a PhotoPass castmember on the schedule and he or she cannot take pictures of that costume. Imagineering will make demands, too— “We themed this area after 1930’s London, Mary cannot wear a 1910’s dress” etc. etc. As a lifelong Mary Poppins fan, the 1964 movie means a great deal to me. I liked the sequel and I’m happy for it to find its own place in the parks, but yes, I would be disappointed if the introduction of the 2018 characters and costumes leads to the removal of the 1964 characters and costumes— especially if, God forbid, it becomes a change property wide.

EDIT: While I’m here, and because I am actually excited about this expansion, I think my number one choice for a ride, after a full-fledged dark ride (unlikely) would be a faithful recreation of the carousel from the 1964 movie with its sixties styled horses! I’d ride it multiple times just to make sure I rode the horses Mary and Bert rode!

I'd like to see a ride along the lines of this.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/85415/th ... -have-been

Julie Andrews Defends Mary Poppins Returns, And She Wants More Movies
https://amp.cinemablend.com/news/248326 ... ore-movies

It was nice to hear Julie Andrews speak out in defense of the film and how she hopes every generation will have their own Mary Poppins. At the same time, it was nice to hear Whoopi talk about how no one will ever be able to replace Julie Andrews in the role because like it or not, no other Mary Poppins film will probably ever resonate with the public like the original did.

I LOVE THIS MOVIE !!! IT'S A TEN OUT OF TEN in my book and i think it's EQUALLY as good as th orginal !!!!

This movie was SO MAGICAL and WONDERFUL AND REALLY REALY REALLY ! LOVELY !!!

I LOVED IT !!!

I watched this in Swedish amd the dubbning was AMAZING!

Jane was voiced by the duagther of two of the fomrer members of the band ABBA and Mary herself was voiced by the Woman who voiced Elsa in the Swedish dubb of Frozen !

Admiral Boom was voiced by Johan Hedenberg who voiced Dr.Draken in Kim Possibley!

I love this movie !!

It's one of the best modern Disney movies !

I rewatched this movie today for the first time, I think, since I saw it in theaters. It’s not perfect, but a lot of care was put into this film and the filmmakers clearly had a lot of respect for the original. Thank goodness Shaiman and Wittman did the music, it’s a worthy successor to the Sherman Brothers’ work. Emily Blunt isn’t Julie Andrews but that’s okay, I love Mary all the same.

So sad to read the earlier responses re: the Mary Poppins expansion at Epcot that got shelved due to the pandemic.