Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures | Release Date: December 19, 2018
6.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 227 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
133
Mixed:
61
Negative:
33
Watch Now
Sign up for
Stream On
Buy On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
BikerjamesJul 29, 2019
So is Mary Poppins Returns practically perfect in every way? Hardly. I'm a fan of Emily Blunt and she is solid in the role, although smiles a little less than Julie Andrews. The movie follows the exact same formula as the original makingSo is Mary Poppins Returns practically perfect in every way? Hardly. I'm a fan of Emily Blunt and she is solid in the role, although smiles a little less than Julie Andrews. The movie follows the exact same formula as the original making it predictable. In the first movie the kids didn't like taking their medicine so Mary came up with a way to make it enjoyable (a spoonful of sugar), in this movie it's bath time. The singing and dancing are fine throughout, but for me the weak point of the movie is the songs. I can't remember a single song after watching this movie. The songs are too wordy, not catchy. It's not a bad movie but once again it feels that Disney is simply remaking older movies because they have run out of original ideas. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
MasterRileyAug 1, 2019
Mary Poppins Returns is an average movie by musical standards. It had a pretty good story and songs but it lacked anything that made it truly memorable. The songs were not all that catchy and the characters weren't that interesting.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
PepsiJamieFeb 26, 2019
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins is amazing, otherwise this movie is a total waste of time. The songs aren't anything noteworthy. The character Jack seemed to only be there to remind us that Dick Van Dyke was amazing in the original. Poor JackEmily Blunt as Mary Poppins is amazing, otherwise this movie is a total waste of time. The songs aren't anything noteworthy. The character Jack seemed to only be there to remind us that Dick Van Dyke was amazing in the original. Poor Jack had nothing to contribute other than act as a counterpart for Mary. More often than not his presence is distracting. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
OdinMovieBlogMar 5, 2019
Though this film is quite delightful and good for the whole family, the visual effects of the first fantasy sequence and the borrowing from the original booka and stage musical limit this film from finding a true identity and justifying it'sThough this film is quite delightful and good for the whole family, the visual effects of the first fantasy sequence and the borrowing from the original booka and stage musical limit this film from finding a true identity and justifying it's own existence. Solid C Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
Kevin3Sep 13, 2019
Nada de otro mundo es lo mismo que mary poppins original la música nueva no es pegadiza pero emily blunt hace un buen trabajo
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
BeeceeDec 27, 2018
Emily Blunt does a good job of portraying Mary Poppins, and Lin-Manuel Miranda is charming. There are perhaps around three good songs. And it is a treat to see Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury. However, the plot is a mess. Both the deathEmily Blunt does a good job of portraying Mary Poppins, and Lin-Manuel Miranda is charming. There are perhaps around three good songs. And it is a treat to see Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury. However, the plot is a mess. Both the death of the mother and the impending home foreclosure are too much darkness to deal with. They could totally do without the foreclosure subplot, including the absurd effort to change the time on Big Ben. Colin Firth is saddled with playing a one dimensional villain. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
5
MattyiceDec 19, 2018
There's no doubt that I had high expectations going into this movie, considering the original Mary Poppins is one of my favorite Disney movies. While I give credit to the acting and vocals (especially by Blunt as the new Mary Poppins), asThere's no doubt that I had high expectations going into this movie, considering the original Mary Poppins is one of my favorite Disney movies. While I give credit to the acting and vocals (especially by Blunt as the new Mary Poppins), as well as art design, the film overall is a very mediocre followup. Director Rob Marshall makes what should be an awe-inspiring experience a boring one with lackluster cinematography, a retreading story, and good but forgettable songs that seem to try too hard to emulate many of the classics in the original rather than break any new ground. Overall, this is mediocre followup to a classic film and I am rather disappointed. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
MattBrady99Dec 31, 2018
“One thing you should know about Mary Poppins: she never explains anything”.

This movie had a lot to live up with it being a sequel to a beloved classic. While I’ve seen the original movie on repeat as a child - it never had that massive
“One thing you should know about Mary Poppins: she never explains anything”.

This movie had a lot to live up with it being a sequel to a beloved classic. While I’ve seen the original movie on repeat as a child - it never had that massive impact on me like everyone else, but with each re-watch I found more enjoyment and appreciation for everything that went into it.

So this being a sequel made me curious and wary; I went into this expecting nothing to avoid any disappointment. I sat down, arms crossed and waited patiently for the trailers to be over. When it started, the first 10 or 20 minutes was fine, but I was still critical. After the first musical number “Can You Imagine That?”, I started to warm up a bit and relax more.

However, halfway through the movie I noticed something about myself - there was tears streaming down my cheeks, and for a rare moment, I breathed a sigh of relief and enjoyed the ride. This is the first time in awhile I would call my experience escapism.

Emily Blunt was an absolute delight as Mary Poppins. Blunt never imitations Julie Andrews portrayal and makes the role her own. I honestly couldn’t think of anyone else to fill in the shoes of the character than Blunt. Her sassy and deadpan wit makes this super nanny pure magic.

The other cast members were also solid: Lin-Manuel Miranda delivers a theatrical performance that elevates the films charm and brought a smile to my face. Ben Whishaw, on the other hand, was so heartbreaking as the grieving Michael Banks. You can feel the pain and stress in his voice. Emily Mortimer is good as Jane Banks , but felt under-use and didn’t offer anything to the story.

Also Dick Van Dyke dance scene, while short, was unbelievable. He’s got more energy than any wanna be dancer, and he’s 93 years old.

Rob Marshall gives the movie a Broadway-like touch similar to his previous work. The musical sequences with songs like “Nowhere to Go But Up” and "Can You Imagine That?" being colorful and a blast to watch, which adds to the escapism. The production design and choreography - mwah. He also tackles the more serious elements where the emotions from the characters are expressed through songs and the performances.

For issues: The songs themselves while fun, yet not super memorable and doesn't hold a candle to the 1965 film. After the movie was over, the songs didn't stick with me as I hoped. This might change over time.

The main villain played by Colin Firth is so cliched and cartoonist. I started to question why a movie like this needs a bad-guy - although I guess the climax needed to be more intense. He's even got a twirling mustache. When the character first appears on screen, I knew straight away there was something unpleasant about him and the foreshadowing involving an animated sequence was so painfully obvious. His character could have be great if it was written better.

Meryl Streep short appearance is so pointless and could've easily been cut out from the final daft. I wasn't sure what accent she was going for.

Overall rating: It's not flawless, yet it wasn't an abomination like some expected it to be. I would go as far to call it a satisfying sequel.

Perhaps we've learned when day is done, some stuff and nonsense could be fun.
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
rlindauDec 29, 2018
Blah. It was mildly entertaining, but the plot, songs, and dances are all quite forgettable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TyranianApr 23, 2019
Basically a copy-paste of original film with great visuals but bundles of PC nonsense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
dharmaApr 13, 2019
Disney seems to rely more and more on their subsidiary studios for both originality and box office returns, as this so called sequel is one of the most disappointing film of 2018. This flick suffers the exact same problem that SoloDisney seems to rely more and more on their subsidiary studios for both originality and box office returns, as this so called sequel is one of the most disappointing film of 2018. This flick suffers the exact same problem that Solo experiences the year before. For one, Emily Blunt, as good as she is, can't compare with Julie Andrews. Sure she tried to make the role her own...but she does not have the charisma to pull that role off. Also, the musical numbers...completely forgettable. Lin Manuel Miranda tried his best, but failed to replicate the amazing musical numbers of the past. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Compi24Jan 8, 2019
Acclaimed musical director Rob Marshall employs his "Into The Woods" collaborator Emily Blunt to revisit a classic. Somehow the resulting product, "Mary Poppins Returns," ends up simultaneously being one of the most unnecessary and uninspiredAcclaimed musical director Rob Marshall employs his "Into The Woods" collaborator Emily Blunt to revisit a classic. Somehow the resulting product, "Mary Poppins Returns," ends up simultaneously being one of the most unnecessary and uninspired sequels I've ever seen, yet still a watchable one. A film where its circumstances and central conceits are ultimately more dire than its predecessor's, there's almost nothing about its musical aspects that's worthy of screentime. The musical numbers only serve to distract the main characters from the central conflict of the film. Mary Poppins as a character is borderline inconsequential to the course of events and the songs themselves are almost entirely unremarkable. Still, as someone who's not necessarily a "Poppins" purist, it doesn't bother me all that much. It's just a harmless, silly, disposable junk food film. Don't expect much more than that. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Voodoo123Sep 22, 2019
I enjoyed watching this musical - you can tell it was made by fans of the original and great care is taken to tick certain boxes that a fan would expect to see.... sadly the result is somewhat dry in execution with little in the way ofI enjoyed watching this musical - you can tell it was made by fans of the original and great care is taken to tick certain boxes that a fan would expect to see.... sadly the result is somewhat dry in execution with little in the way of memorable songs (exception for me was everything goes turtle!), and the project overall felt more iteration than innovation telling a long drawn out predictable tale with an odd cast of individuals that never quite had a group chemistry I could gel with... That said, if you're a hardcore fan of the original, there could be something here for you and it was made with the kind of calculated love we have grown to expect from the age of Disney's 'reboots & awkwardly late sequels'. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
AxeTDec 30, 2018
Technically well done, good casting of a fine Emily Blunt and a competent but entirely interchangeable Lin-Manuel Miranda it's nothing new, nothing special and nothing riveting to behold unlike the groundbreaking Disney classic from theTechnically well done, good casting of a fine Emily Blunt and a competent but entirely interchangeable Lin-Manuel Miranda it's nothing new, nothing special and nothing riveting to behold unlike the groundbreaking Disney classic from the sixties was at the time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
NETMUSICJan 11, 2019
Emily Blunt is clearly the best thing in this movie, which itself is a fun ride for families with younger children. However, Lin-Manuel Miranda is not very good and brings the movie down the entire time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
VirgonoShakaJan 7, 2019
I wasn't sure what to expect from this. On one hand, I love the original, on the other, Sequels (especially decade long afterwards) can be pretty bad, but I went with an open mind and knowing I am weak towards musicals. The end result is...I wasn't sure what to expect from this. On one hand, I love the original, on the other, Sequels (especially decade long afterwards) can be pretty bad, but I went with an open mind and knowing I am weak towards musicals. The end result is... OK. Practically a rehash of the original, and too much of a safe movie, I can say that at least the production is good and the music (at least for the most part) is nice and catchy with Lin Manuel Miranda doing a bang up job. But other than that, it is nothing that special. Unless taking your children or a big fan, I would not be able to recommend. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
brach311Dec 31, 2018
Emily Blunt is a credible MP and visually the movie is reminiscent of the original, but it ends there. The songs are neither cute nor fun to listen to. The dancinging is OK but neither Fred nor Gene would be singing their praises. TheEmily Blunt is a credible MP and visually the movie is reminiscent of the original, but it ends there. The songs are neither cute nor fun to listen to. The dancinging is OK but neither Fred nor Gene would be singing their praises. The story is hackneyed and transparent. So what's left? The kids in the audience tell that part of this story. During the interminable trailers before the movie there were laughs and giggles from the children during a few. There were none during MPR. Afterwards the five of us who saw the show together looked at each other and wondered why we'd bothered. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
NolanLundgaardJan 16, 2019
Anyone who knows me knows that I love the original Mary Poppins movie from 58 years ago. As this is the case, anyone can guess how excited I was to see this sequel for the first, which I totally was. It started off with an original musicAnyone who knows me knows that I love the original Mary Poppins movie from 58 years ago. As this is the case, anyone can guess how excited I was to see this sequel for the first, which I totally was. It started off with an original music number, which made me super excited for the rest of the film. Unfortunately, however, as the film progressed, the more disappointed I became. The special effects were exactly what I expected for a Mary Poppins movie with roughly 60 years of improved technology: nothing short of amazing. There were two scenes that were the pinnacle of the disappointment. The main offense was the “cover is not the book” scene. The song was not what I expected from a Mary Poppins film (although the Hamilton-style Lin Manuel Miranda solo was awesome) and it felt like they were making fun of the animated penguins (which were one of my favorite things about the original). On the other hand, I enjoyed the old-school-style animation of that scene. The other misfire was the Topsy number. It felt out of place and you can’t ruin any character, let alone Mary Poppins, by telling everyone that that character has such a creepo for a cousin. That being said, the bank taking property is, in my opinion, an overused conflict, however I liked how the banker was actually evil, along with the Dick Van Dyke cameo. This brings me to my next point: Lin-Manuel Miranda, though I love his Hamilton and In the Heights productions, was no Bert-substitute. And the Michael actor didn’t look like the kid in the original, but besides that, the casting was well done. Though Mary Poppins Returns was a bit underwhelming, it was still an enjoyable experience—at the times that didn’t fall flat. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
BulgarianCriticApr 20, 2019
A pretty decent comeback of the beloved Mary Poppins with some really nice songs
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MarkHReviewsDec 28, 2018
“Mary Poppins Returns,” as a show, is less than the sum of its parts. But some of those parts are magnificent. First, there is the respectful homage to actors of a prior generation. Dick Van Dyke, who played Bert the Chimney Sweep in the“Mary Poppins Returns,” as a show, is less than the sum of its parts. But some of those parts are magnificent. First, there is the respectful homage to actors of a prior generation. Dick Van Dyke, who played Bert the Chimney Sweep in the original “Mary Poppins” (1964), returns in this film, even singing and dancing in a final scene, no small accomplishment at age 93. Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, has a brief cameo. Angela Lansbury, also 93, who had no association with the original film, is amazingly spry in her brief appearance as a strong-voiced Balloon Lady.

Emily Blunt, who showed off her musical theater chops as the Baker’s Wife in “Into the Woods” (2014), is luminous as Mary – the perfect blend of regal bearing, mischievousness and warmth. When Mary Poppins is in charge, this film is on strong footing. On the other hand, when Lin Manuel-Miranda (Jack the Lamplighter) is on the screen, the audience does not “look around at how lucky we are to be alive right now.” His efforts need considerably more work, work.

Director Rob Marshall previously has been quite effective in bringing Broadway musicals to the screen. “Chicago” won six Academy Awards in 2003, including Best Picture, the first musical since 1968 to win the top award. His versions of “Nine” (2009) and 2014’s “Into the Woods” also are worthy of note.

Here, Marshall receives another credit as one of three story writers. One wonders why, since the plot is almost incidental. Widower Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw, so excellent in Amazon Prime’s “A Very English Scandal” this year) has fallen on hard times. He and his family are about to be evicted from their ancestral home. If only the family can find their Certificate of Shares in the bank that holds their mortgage, all will be saved. Six-year-olds across the world have a clear sense of how this will all end. The show lurches happily along from one song opportunity to the next, sometimes with no plot development. One interesting quirk: this may be the only Disney film in history where the animated sequences are by far the least effective elements of the film.

The score by Marc Shaiman, with lyrics by Shaiman and Scott Wittman, the team behind the excellent “Hairspray” (2007), is entirely serviceable. However, it suffers in comparison to the score of the original film. “Mary Poppins” offered a series of songs known by generations - “A Spoonful of Sugar,” “Chim Chim Cheree” and “Let’s Go Fly a Kite.” In this film, the score is super-cali-fragil-never-mind. There are no soaring ballads here that you simply can’t get out of your head. In fact, given the non-existent plot, many seem entirely interchangeable.

If you need a diversion to minimize the time you have to spend during the holidays talking with family members you’ve avoided all year, this may be the show for you. Medical warning: do not take a spoonful of you-know-what before viewing. It would just be redundant.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SquiggsDec 31, 2018
Good movie, nice attempt at following up on an all time classic. Big big shoes to fill. Not bad on all fronts
But my problem is a big one, it's with Mary Poppins. Emily Blunt makes Mary her own with enough nods to the original, but this Mary
Good movie, nice attempt at following up on an all time classic. Big big shoes to fill. Not bad on all fronts
But my problem is a big one, it's with Mary Poppins. Emily Blunt makes Mary her own with enough nods to the original, but this Mary Poppins is a cold version that lacks the warmth of the original. The motherly warm touch that made us all fall in love with the movie is missing. Mary lacked personality, other than being prim and proper. I mean, please crack a genuine smile and show some bloody empathy once in a while. If you make a "returns" movie, you should have a continuation of the beloved character traits in the original. Otherwise, don't do it at all. Lin-Manuel Miranda shines as the star in this one, he's the most memorable character and whether that's a good or bad thing, I'll let you decide. But not a bad movie! Great singing, dancing and choreography. Worth the watch and a genuine attempt from all cast members.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JeffB4125Dec 31, 2018
They aren't reinventing the wheel here, but if you liked the original and wished it could be updated with today's technology, here you go
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
thegirlwhoknowsJan 2, 2019
Although this movie contains a couple special moments, over all it is nothing but lazy writing and unimaginative storyline. Disney of late seems to use the same scheme of throwing as many popular actors into a movie as possible and let itAlthough this movie contains a couple special moments, over all it is nothing but lazy writing and unimaginative storyline. Disney of late seems to use the same scheme of throwing as many popular actors into a movie as possible and let it come together in a mad jumble. Magic takes a lot more careful work. Shame on them for riding on the backs of the genius of P.L. Travers and Walt Disney and his team. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MasadaSep 23, 2019
Raises nostalgia, wonderfully animated part, made me smile and laugh. Horribly cut around including an actor for 2 minutes. Didn't like the deus ex Mary Poppins. It doesn't fit her. Besides that, a wonderful movie for children to look at withRaises nostalgia, wonderfully animated part, made me smile and laugh. Horribly cut around including an actor for 2 minutes. Didn't like the deus ex Mary Poppins. It doesn't fit her. Besides that, a wonderful movie for children to look at with wonder, just like I did with the original. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews