Now I'll have to see this, just to prove that Blunt's performance is not easily equal to that of the great Julie Andrews. How could it be? Andrews is the only one that saved the complete mess that was the original. She had one of the greatest voices of all time. Her charm, and her voice, saved that film. Otherwise you have a movie that isn't sure what it is doing. You have some funny scenes here and there, but you also have Dick Van Dyke (who everyone loves) with an absolutely horrible English accent. Next thing you know there is some silly animation, and the movie ends with ... flying a kite? What the hell was that? It has to be one of the most overrated movies of all time. Except for Julie Andrews and those songs. Both were brilliant.

In contrast, Andrews starred in Sound of Music the following year. She won another Oscar for that as well. But this time both the director and the movie won as well. It looks a bit dated by now, but it is a tight film, with a real plot and a solid ending (nuns beat the Nazis). All of this with an even better soundtrack, and more impressive singing by Julie Andrews, including some yodeling. Who the fuck can yodel and make you love it? Julie Fucking Andrews, that's who.

Anyhow, thanks for the review. Moira Macdonald (over at the Seattle Times) seemed to love it, but the New York Times didn't.

Arguably the best Disney movie? Umm, NO!
Mary Poppins set up a man who ran a group of chimney sweep children as a lovable dude! Those guys beat and set children feet on fire to force them up the chimneys! Made the whole movie ridiculous. Some of the songs were catchy and fun, and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is great, but the chimney sweeps dancing and singing was worse than Van Dyke's accent! I guess Disney never read any Dickens?

@-2. Other reviews I’ve read have been a little more nuanced about Blunt with the general consensus seeming to be that Blunt’s acting is better than Andrews, but Andrews has the better singing ability. I haven’t seen yet, but that’s the take I would suspect, too.

I’ll be very biased, however, as I would be happy to watch Emily Blunt read from a dictionary while standing in a featureless room!

I saw the original Mary Poppins as a child and I didn't like it. Even at age 7 I found it too bright, too fake and too weird. I cant stand Dick V.D. Plus, my stepmother fancied herself as Mary Poppins except she was a mean girl who took pleasure in pulling the wings off her stepchildren. Mary Poppins was/is a movie for drunk adults who enjoy wallowing in maudlin BS about childhood. Childrens movies are pathetic in general. Disney sucks and Shirley Temples movies are particularly evil. There is no prince, girls are not princesses and old men shouldn't be fondling little girls. Happy Holidays.

2: Mind you, there was the weirdness in the SOUND OF MUSIC'S implied message that the real problem with Hitler was how mean he was to Austrian Catholics. There's also the fact that the Von Trapps actually just left Austria on a train(and COULD have left anytime they wanted to, since Admiral Von Trapp was an Italian citizen), and that, if they had actually hiked across the Alps in the direction they took in the movie, they'd have ended up in Germany-which would not exactly have helped.

Ehhh, it was okay? I dunno, it was just missing some kind of spark, although the original has never been one of my favourites. I felt like the kids did a decent enough job. Lin was kind of flat, and Blunt felt too arrogant to me. Ben Wishaw is a lovely actor, but he's no singer. There were a couple of surprising cameos, but other than that - meh.

Think I'll go see Spider-verse again.