Mary Poppins' Rückkehr

I enjoy musicals, I always remember the original Mary Poppins with relish, and I would listen to Emily Blunt even if she was just reading the TV guide, but this nostalgic remix is so empty that it hurts. ___ Mary herself has a scandalously marginal role in the film. The filmmakers do not work with her as a full-fledged character of the story, but merely as a symbol (so, of course her shadow has to appear on Big Ben). This is beneficial for the story in that it pushes the minute hand back at the right time. Otherwise, she would not have to be in the film at all. Eighty percent of the plot is equally useless, as it is composed of carelessly arranged educational (in the better case) songs that do not in any way advance the plot. The musical numbers mainly represent only technically more advanced, longer and more ostentatious variations of scenes from the original film – instead of dancing animated penguins, the whole zoo; instead of tap-dancing chimney sweeps, a gang of lamplighters. ___ One of the most superfluous scenes is simultaneously the only memorable one, because in it Meryl Streep, as a slightly deranged gypsy from somewhere in Eastern Europe, sings a totally nonsensical song about frogs (Shaiman’s word games are the main reason to at least play the soundtrack). Another painful example of wasted talent is Colin Firth, who plays – as the original – an evil banker who enriches himself at the expense of his clients, which, however, is not as horrible an offence as the fact that he suffocated his inner child. As if society was no longer infantile enough. ___ Mary Poppins Returns is the same kind of peg on which to hang expensive music/dance numbers as Into the Woods and Nine. The sad thing is that, thanks to the set design and music, this hopeless clunker will in all probability be nominated for enough Oscars and make enough money that Rob Marshall will be able to continue committing crimes against cinema (we can already “look forward” to his The Little Mermaid). ___ You’ll be better off watching Paddington again with your kids. 40% (20.12.2018)

Es hat 54 Jahre gedauert, bis Pamela Travers ihre Mary-Poppins-Geschichten veröffentlichte, und ebenso lange, bis es eine Filmfortsetzung gab. Einerseits ergibt ein solches Projekt durchaus Sinn, andererseits ist es völliger Blödsinn. Gleichzeitig handelt es sich um eine echte Fortsetzung (Mary kehrt zurück, um auf die Kinder der nächsten Generation aufzupassen) und um eine fast identische Kopie und Hommage zugleich. Es ist eine Schleife, und nicht jedem muss ein solches Experiment gefallen. Wo der Originalfilm ein Klassiker ist, wird man wahrscheinlich zufrieden sein, wo man auch das Broadway-Musical mag, wird man begeistert sein... und wir anderen können das Phänomen für eine Weile auf Eis legen. Denn die wirklich wichtigen Dinge haben wir in der Filmbiografie Saving Mr. Banks (2013) gelernt. (08.09.2019)