So when I first heard about Disney making a sequel to MARY POPPINS, all I could think was 'supercalifragilisticexpiali-whatthef*ckisthisbullshit?!!!" I mean, when was the last time a belated sequel was any good? Especially from something as classic as MARY F*CKING POPPINS?
However, Disney then cast Emily Blunt in the role, who I'm sure will kill it. Then Lin-Manuel Miranda got involved, who – despite my misgivings about HAMILTON – is undeniably talented. And then I heard it was going to be based on more of P.L. Travers books, which was indeed intriguing. So the idea, while not great, no longer sounder outright terrible. And now Disney has given us our first look at Blunt as the titular Mary Poppins:
Not much to say, other than Blunt looks delightful! Doesn't mean the film can't still be shit, but I imagine at least she will shine in it.
And here's the official synopsis:
Set in 1930s depression-era London (the time period of the original novels), Mary Poppins Returnsis drawn from the wealth of material in PL Travers’ additional seven books. In the story, Michael (Whishaw) and Jane (Mortimer) are now grown up, with Michael, his three children and their housekeeper, Ellen (Walters), living on Cherry Tree Lane. After Michael suffers a personal loss, the enigmatic nanny Mary Poppins (Blunt) re-enters the lives of the Banks family, and, along with the optimistic street lamplighter Jack (Miranda), uses her unique magical skills to help the family rediscover the joy and wonder missing in their lives. Mary Poppins also introduces the children to a new assortment of colorful and whimsical characters, including her eccentric cousin, Topsy (Streep).
So…fingers crossed that this won't be complete shit.
Either way, MARY POPPINS RETURNS, directed by Rob Marshall (INTO THE WOODS) will fly on an umbrella and into theaters Christmas 2018.
The comment section exists to allow readers to discuss the article constructively and respectfully, focused on the topic at hand.
What’s Not Allowed