john mitchell 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.

sbasu-47-608737 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.

classicsoncall I never realized what a high energy movie this was until I experienced all the singing and dancing. Nor does one consider Dick Van Dyke to be more than the rubber faced comic who performed as the amiable Rob Petrie on the television show that bore his name. But here, teamed with Julie Andrews, the musical pair light up the screen as a mystical, magical couple that teaches a couple of young kids how wonderful life can be. And in doing so, show their business obsessed father how to be a Dad in a world that too often doesn't have time for it's youngsters. The film is a mix of classic Disney animation and joyful live action with a sprinkling of catchy tunes that you'll be singing to yourself for a couple of days afterward. I can't remember when or where I first heard them, but songs like 'Spoonful of Sugar' and that Super etcetera, etcetera one have a tendency to linger in one's mind for a considerable length of time. Julie Andrews was made for the role of Mary Poppins, and Van Dyke clearly is allowed to strut his stuff in a way that demonstrates his versatility as an actor. You only got a hint of that in that opening scene of 'The Dick Van Dyke' show when he dancingly sidesteps the ottoman in his way; here he's hopping all over the place. The only thing that made me go huh? in the picture was during that tea party on the ceiling scene. Ed Wynn was classic as Uncle Albert by the way, but it seemed out of character for Mary to be so down on the 'laugh out loud' aspect of Albert's character. Here she was trying to convey a sense of wonder and happiness to her two young wards, and frowning upon those ridiculous jokes seemed out of place. But that aside, I had a pretty good time with the picture, and if I had to pick a favorite scene, I thought the penguin sequence with Bert (Van Dyke) was very cleverly done.

ElMaruecan82 I never saw entirely "Mary Poppins" but I grew up with the umbrella image popping in every Disney Channel program and VHS intro clips, then the infamous Simpsons forever stamped it in my memory. Watching it finally felt like rediscovering a part of my childhood… despite fragmentary memories.The film was released two years before Walt Disney's passing. This is his last hurrah, the culmination of everything the legendary pioneer stood for: the power of imagination, creativity, filling the hearts of children (and adults) with an endless craving for fun, music and powerful life lessons, yeah you could teach kids a thing or two, even the sourest tastes of life could pass with a spoonful of sugar. Disney found that in P. L. Travers' book, and it was a two-decade journey for just getting the rights. Fate had scored the first point, Robert Stevenson would direct the film but there was more to work on. When you make a musical, you got to get the right songwriters.And I didn't even know, until now, that the Sherman brothers contributed to some of the most memorable Disney songs, from "The Jungle Books" to Maurice Chevalier's ultimate contribution in "The Aristocats", from "Winnie the Pooh" to the Disneyland theme. They did a terrific job with "Mary Poppins", enriching it with such classics as "Chim Chim Cher-ee", "Supercalifragistliciexpialidocious" (now, I can say it) or the haunting "Feed the Birds", an emotional highlight featuring Jane Darnell (Ma Joad) in her last cameo, a hymn for kindness and generosity that shed a few tears from the boss himself and became his favorite song.The versatility of the brothers allowed them to shine in every possible emotion and grab the very laughter and tears they mention in their iconic "It's a Small World". They believed that all their songs had a specific reason to exist within the story, and thinking about it, I don't think there's any song even in "The Jungle Book" that could be considered a filler, even the vultures' song was made like a barbershop quartet to make they sound friendlier. Still, even the best songs in the world couldn't have worked if it wasn't for the most crucial part: the casting. And if it wasn't for Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, I don't think the film would have been half the classic it is… or as beloved.Julie Andrews was the upcoming actress-singer but had no experience in movies and only made a name for herself from her sensational performance in the Broadway version of "My Fair Lady". But look how destiny was on the march, Disney discovered Andrews in a play named "Camelot", he loved her, even Mrs. Travers admitted that she had the right "nose", whatever that meant. But imagine if Jack Warner had picked Julie Andrews for the film adaptation of "My Fair Lady". I might reconsider what I said about the casting of Audrey Hepburn, I'm glad she was miscast because any other actress than Andrews would have been an even worse mishap. This is the role that gave her breakthrough performance, her Oscar and allowed her to twirl around the hills in" The Sound of Music".And as if things weren't good enough, another actor captured the right spirit for such a joyful and blissful adventure: scene-stealing Dick Van Dyke. He didn't have any experience in dancing but his act with the penguins and the chimney workers, his gravity-defying laughing part with Ed Wynn's Uncle Albert and his second performance as elderly banker make him one of the film's main driving forces, as a comic relief, a one-man band, or a one-man Greek chorus with the haunting and charming "One Chimney, two Chimney…" . Van Dyke and Andrews elevate the film to summits that make "My Fair Lady" look like a bland TV movie. And driven by the extraordinary chemistry, it inspired Disney to make a souvenir out of this pair and have this enchanting journey in animation world with the penguins, the horses and the "Supercalifragilisticexpialadocious" song.Every once in a while, you have one Disney film that break the grounds and this is one of them, like "Fantasia" or "Roger Rabbit", one that push the envelope and proves that, the word 'impossible' doesn't exist in Disney's dictionary. The use of animatronics (from the same engineers who made the attraction in Disneyland) contributed to the delightful humming bird moment and the magnificent flying with laughter moments emphasized the whole dream-like escapism of the film, and it's funny since I mentioned the same for a totally different movie "Crouching Tiger, and Hidden Dragon", but the two show how utterly inspiring and poetic such moments are. As for the mix between live-action and animation, it isn't a revolution, actually, it even preceded Mickey Mouse, as Walt started with the adventures of Alice with a little girl evolving in an animated world.And it seems like with "Mary Poppins", Walt Disney had just come full circle with himself and made a last offering to the world, one that came close to win the Best Picture Oscar, the only Oscar he missed.Never mind, he'd achieved his last dream and with his inspiration, allowed many talents to combine and contribute to such a astounding and glittery masterpiece. And I feel so ashamed to have diminished the value of Disney's work in the 60's, "Mary Poppins" was the fireworks in the man's twilight. I could go on and on about Disney, but I think Sherman brothers said more about him with these simple and touching lyrics:"A man has a dream and that's the start, He follows his dream with mind and heart… And when it becomes a reality, it's a dream come true for you and me" Thanks, Uncle Walt for making your dreams coming true for us, and enriching our dreams with your inspiration, and your talent!