MovieChat Forums > Mary Poppins Returns (2018) Discussion > An insult to the original film

An insult to the original film

posted 5 years ago by Xonioc (76)
21 replies | jump to latest

What is the point of this remake except to make money. Yeah all films aim to make money but remaking a classic just for the sake of making money is pretty pointless.

Emily Blunt - who in my view has never turned out a good performance in any of her films - does a ridiculous impersonation of Mary P. Her accent is so fake. And who is that ugly guy they have in Dick's role? He's butt ugly. Dick was a handsome man in the original MP.

I squirm when I see Emily's performance. The accent is so cheap and stupid. The whole movie is POINTLESS.

What is this obsession with Emily Blunt??? She's a boring actor.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

First off, this is not a remake. it is a sequel. And it is a good one. Mary Poppins Returns is a worthy follow up to the original classic. It is well made, entertaining, and uplifting. Emily Blunt did a great job and is likely to get an Oscar nomination for her role. This film is getting good reviews and could get several nominations, possibly best picture. Mary Poppins Returns is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the year.

[–] QueenFanUSA (3374) 5 years ago

Hear, hear!

[–] PaladinNJ (20308) 5 years ago

Let's also not forget that Emily Blunt got Julie Andrews personal seal of approval to take the role. And she did it perfectly.

[–] PaladinNJ (20308) 5 years ago

PS: When Emily Blunt found out Julie Andrews complimented her selection, Emily burst into tears of joy. She didn't think Julie Andrews even know who she was.

[–] gcarras (2726) 5 years ago

She sure did.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4474) 5 years ago

Besides overrated, what’s the most popular criticism a generally well-received follow up/reboot/remake to a beloved film can get? “Grrr... it’s an insult to the original! Not let me insult the actors in this production which I greatly dislike not unlike many people who haven’t a clue what real talent is!” — these negatively shallow comment towards the actors alone say you’re not one to have a constructive discussion with.

Wow, you’re so cool old timer.

To keep it short, you’re entitled to yer wrong and very trollish opinion.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Not only do I adore Emily Blunt, what's wrong LM Miranda? He looks like an o-k guy. Not overly masculine, but I wouldn't consider him ugly. Your post has troll written all over it.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

I can't say I loved the film, I enjoyed the musical/animated parts but it was too sentimental for my taste. However, the theater was full of people cheering and squealing or giggling at the fan-service moments, and most of the audience gasped when Dick Van Dyke came on. So I'd say that the filmmakers got it right, and pleased the people who were looking for more Disney Mary Poppins.

Of course there's no pleasing a Grinch-hearted old cynic like me, not with sticky family drama and Dick Van Dyke.

[–] gcarras (2726) 5 years ago

A modern day version of POPPINS (or an modern day film) too sentimental, as opposed to being too cynical..I loved every bit of it.,

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

It was every bit as sentimental as the original, it was as gushingly sticky as it should have been, and seemed to have hit the spot with the people in the audience who like that sort of thing. It was everything a Mary Poppins movie should be - splashy, colorful, unrealistic, funny, gooey!

Which isn't really my thing, and I'm not that fond of the original film either. But the elderly relative I was escorting loved it, as did most of the people in the theater.

[–] TandyMan (10335) 5 years ago

This is the first time Blunt rubbed me the wrong way. I think it's impossible to for actors to play these old famous roles and not make them utterly pretentious.

[–] RoloTony (1159) 5 years ago

Isn't Blunt British? Is that not her normal accent? Lin was a bit of a mis-cast I agree. He did well, though, but they should probably keep him just on Broadway and song-writing duty for now. I thought Streep was a bit shoe-horned in there.

I actually thought it was really well done. I was set to hate it but I left pleasantly surprised. Why *did* they make it, though? No freaking clue. There was no reason to at all, I agree. But they made a shit-ton of money so I guess that's reason enough.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Yes, Blunt is British, but no, that's not her normal accent. There's a million variations of British accents and I'm no expert in them, but the specific accent that Mary Poppins had in the film was not something you'd hear ever day, it sounded very old-fashioned.

And yes, accents can fall into disuse or go out of fashion, if you listen to films from the 1930s you'll hear various American accents and dialects that are no longer used.

[–] Costumer (1785) 5 years ago

Since the film is set in the 1930s an old fashioned accent would be completely appropriate. And given that Mary Poppins age is ... undetermined ... lends strength to an old fashioned accent.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

It worked for me, because I agree that Mary Poppins should sound old-fashioned, even have a whiff of the 19th century about her.

I dont know if the accent worked for mainstream viewers, though.

[–] missnat (1172) 5 years ago

Yep just to make money you said it.

[–] gcarras (2726) 5 years ago

Can you imagine that?

[–] Faridah (1325) 5 years ago

I saw it today and I loved it. I suspect the OP here didn’t even see the movie because he seems to think it was a remake. The story was clearly a sequel as Jane and Michael are adults. So the OP’s option means nothing if he didn’t even see the movie.