Mary Poppins (1965)

The Worst Film Ever

Such a frustrating disappointment

So much average

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Apparently Pamela Travers, the author of the books on which the film is based, hated it That fact is made abundantly clear in the movie Saving Mr. Banks, about the many times Travers and Walt Disney butted heads (figuratively speaking of course over the process of bringing the movie to the screen I can't, for the life of me, work out what Travers found so terrible about it Call me sentimental if you like, but, to my mind, Mary Poppins is just about as perfect a movie musical as you could hope for. The story is great, the acting is pretty much brilliant (even Dick Van Dyke's atrocious Cockney accent, in my opinion, just adds to the charm of the film) and the songs are nothing short of lyrically and musically genius. The only reason I haven't given this the full 10 (and I'm thinking now that I may have been a little stingy) is that, tonally the film could have been closer to the books. There is darkness - moments that are positively unsettling and even a little scary in the books, which are nowhere to be seen in the movie. Kids can handle darkness and even things that are downright creepy. Some kids really enjoy that type of stuff and for me, if Mary Poppins lacks anything, it's that. For the most part though Mary Poppins is an absolute treat, and it's no wonder that it has stood the test of time the way it has. It's a legendary movie for one very good reason: that it's really, really good.

It could be called a very good movie, as fairy tale, and on that count there is no doubt of its merit. However it missed the punch point, and probably that's why the author, Ms Travers, wasn't too happy with it. Of course I am not sure that could be the reason of the relation having deteriorated so much, that Disney didn't even bother to invite her for premiere? That was not only disrespect, but an affront. But the studios, most of all this one, had that ego, and the 'master of all' attitude, so nothing too strange about it. Probably that was one of the reasons, the great Bernard Shaw publicly told, and carried it out too, that he won't have anything to do with Hollywood. The point won't have been missed, had that not been mentioned, and that too quite significantly, in the movie. It is I would say, all the male, head of family's lament, right or wrong, immaterial. That he grinds himself, to take care of the family, silently, whereas the family isn't, "cares" about him. That part is depicted well here too, the wife is a socializing woman, the children, probably due to his hard exterior, are scared of him. No one really dares, or cares, to enter his psyche. This isn't always his fault, but under the circumstances, he thought, he must be like this. To shatter this shell was important. This isn't the first, or only movie, where this subject is brought up. Philadelphia Story is another one of many. But in none of them, the solution, or even the right message is brought out, the conversion of the family, to melt the wall. This aspect had always been buried, and a passing remark, in the main story.But what happens when this is the raison d'etre of the tale? This particular fact was twice mentioned by Mary Poppins, with significance. But practically I couldn't find, the children doing much about that. The Mary Poppins series, was reportedly influenced by author's repentance, of not caring enough to help her father (who incidentally was too a banker, died while he was just in his early forties, reportedly demise hastened due to Alcoholism). Had they skipped to mention it, probably the movie won't have lost anything, in its story line. But retaining it, and doing nothing about it, really gives a wrong message, as if it is the father, who should break the mould itself. The Beast should become prince charming, without tears of Belle. Any good fairy tales should have an underlying message, for the children. Cinderella tells the children not to be despondent of the circumstances, with the persons who are kind (there would be a few), you could rise up. La Belle et la Bête teaches not to be overtly scared or affected by the exterior, there could be something exquisite underneath, to be discovered. Little Mermaid tells, for someone whom you really care, no sacrifice is enough. Like that this too had a message, in fact may be all of the above together, which the movie version missed.

Mary PoppinsThere are few sketchy overstretched musical sequences that; even though looks stunning and pleasing on terms of visual aspects, seems redundant and required better editing. Having said that, the choreography, background score, songs, costume design and production design are at their peak that speaks more than anything in here. Robert Stevenson is in his A game and doesn't fail on conveying the anticipated message to the audience. Julie Andrews is the genuinely the "protagonist" in this feature that needs no support as she carries it all off in her shoulder like a charm. Mary Poppins works particularly for its sensibility and simplicity of picking up a concept through something so common and mundane (like a tuppence) that it resonates and communicates with the audience in a click and still reach for more general and wider vision.

Mary Poppins, hop in for a mediocre experience! Well, there are those movies, that just don't stand the test time, or other stated, age as well as Mickey Rourke. This is one of them. At the time of its release, it was a masterpiece of special effects, combining animated with live action cinematography. Also, the music of the Sherman Brothers was outstanding and the latter one remains an untouchable holy grail of songwriting today. But for the rest of the movie? Sigh.What you are about to witness is nothing, but an incoherent mess. One scene bunched after the other, just for the purpose of getting from one song to the next. Nothing makes any sense at all - besides from a loose conceptual framework of two kids being neglected by their parents - the whole movie consists of only singular events, everyone of them seemingly going on forever, without any connection, a greater story, character development, nothing has anything to do with anything.The successor, Disney Bednobs and Broomsticks, again with music by the Sherman Brothers and following the same concept of mixing animated with live cinematography, is another matter altogether and showcases, how to do it right. A beautiful story, brilliant songs, weaved careful together while the movie progresses, characters connect with each other and the audience and the music itself is not decoration, but integrated core of the plot.If you leave nostalgia behind, this movie really fails in every aspect of simple movie-making ABC and the author of Mary Poppins, Pamela Travers, rejected this movie in total for good reasons. Today we can understand that she had every right to criticize it. It simply does not justify the original book. Worse, it barely has anything to do with the stories from the book. And even worse, it does not even hold up as a good movie by itself.Don't bother watching, get Bedknobs and Broomsticks instead.