Who payed the critics

People are voting emotionally.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

This is one of my childhood favorites. I couldn't handle many long movies but 139 minutes of this was perfect for me! I have so many memories with this movie. Learned to pronounce the above word, wetting my pants once and having to take out the tape as punishment, ripping the cover off for no reason, learning that the mother says "stupid" in her song, and much more. Even at age 19 I still love it! Do not deprive your kids of this excellent classic! If they are not into live action yet then wait a couple years, but there is some animation in the chalk drawing scene.

Julie Andrews charm makes for a fantastic film like no other and Van Dyke's dancing and singing brings the kids out of all of us. The little children the brother and the sister are also amazing in their roles as well and the clear message about parenthood and the true meaning of having fun makes up for an inspiring and terrific film.

MARY POPPINS is a fantasy music comedy about a magical nanny who helps a distracted family in London. The screenplay is loosely based on P. L. Travers' book series "Mary Poppins".A family drama is enhanced with an audio-visual magic and explosion of colors. The film, which combines live-action and animation, simply, brings warmth to the hearts of people. Some very serious issues are being represented through comic songs and nimble dance. Mary Poppins comes sailing in on an east wind in order to help lively children in the Banks family. She is a certain kind of authority, which will save their dysfunctional family in an extremely miraculous way. Well, as long as the wind does not change its direction...Your imagination can do anything. That's the point, which returns the smile on your face and warmth in your heart. The atmosphere is filled with warmth and love. The scenery is great. Characterization could have been better, because an occasional theatricality with certain characters can irritate.Julie Andrews Mary Poppins is a magical woman and authority in her wonders that are almost endless. Simply, Ms. Andrews, with her angelic face, is the right choice for this role. Dick Van Dyke as Bert is a joyous as a sidewalk artist. Karen Dotrice (Jane Banks) and Matthew Garber (Michael Banks) are two lively and sad children at the same time. Regardless of the magical Mary, parental love makes miracles.David Tomlinson as George Banks is a disciplined and busy man who has no time for his children and their entertainment. Glynis Johns as Winifred Banks is his eccentric wife and somewhat distracted mother, who is lost in her own world.The fun begins when Mary Poppins opens her umbrella.