Mary Poppins Returns ***

The story is weak, but the song and dance numbers are superb. It’s good enough to make the creators of the original proud. 

Is it worth $10? Yes  

You will not need a spoonful of sugar to enjoy “Mary Poppins Returns,” as the stellar production values, big musical numbers, and Emily Blunt are all an absolute treat. Where it falters is in its story, which noticeably labors and is a clear afterthought to the singing and dancing. This is forgivable given the quality of the musical sequences, but it’s an obvious weakness that should have been handled better.

In the 1964 original, Mary (played in an Oscar-winning turn by Julie Andrews) is a magical nanny who helps the struggling Banks family in pre-World War I London. This film is set during the Great Depression, and follows a grown-up Michael (Ben Whishaw) and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) as they try to save Michael’s home after he defaults on a loan. Although he works at a bank, Michael can’t convince his boss (Colin Firth) to forgive the loan. In fact, Michael is so destitute that he can’t afford food for his housekeeper (Julie Walters) to cook for his kids Georgie (Joel Dawson), Anabel (Pixie Davies), and John (Nathanael Saleh). Clearly, they need help. Enter a brisk wind, stormy weather, and through the skies Mary Poppins (Blunt), eager to assist the family once again by taking care of the kids while Michael and Jane handle adult matters.

Blunt makes an immediate impression, and shines. Her Mary is firm but caring, and can sing and dance with the best of ‘em. This is especially important given that she’s working opposite arguably the best there is on Broadway today, “Hamilton” creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, who plays a lamp post operator named Jack. Each succeeds wonderfully in solos (“Underneath the Lovely London Sky” for Miranda, “The Place Where Lost Things Go” for Blunt) and duets (“A Cover Is Not The Book”), and they are joined by Angela Lansbury, Meryl Streep and Dick Van Dyke(!) in cameos as well. The energy and imagination, coupled with a clear commitment to excellence, make the film a lush piece of eye and ear candy for all ages.

What’s more, director and co-writer Rob Marshall (“Chicago”) pays homage to “Mary Poppins” a number of times: The bottomless bag resurfaces in “Can You Imagine That?”, there’s an extended animated sequence with penguins and colorful costumes, and the “Step In Time” chimney sweepers’ routine is superbly reimagined in “Trip A Little Light Fantastic.”

It’s a bit sad, though, that Marshall, along with writers David Magee and John DeLuca, didn’t tell the story in a way that would adequately complement the high-energy musical numbers. The narrative is stilted at best; plot details are largely irrelevant and/or lost with the exception of the main storyline, and what is there barely holds together. Better connective tissue would’ve made this not just a better movie, but a triumphant success.     

Only time will tell if the songs in “Mary Poppins Returns” endure to be as memorable as the original’s. What is fair to say, however, is that it’s good enough to be a worthy sequel to its much-beloved predecessor, which is high praise indeed.

Did you know?
The actress who played Jane in “Mary Poppins,” Karen Dotrice, has a cameo as a woman looking for 19 Cherry Tree Lane. The actor who played Michael in the original, Matthew Garber, died in 1977.