![]() Owning the film rights to “Mary Poppins,” Disney made a bold decision and thought it was a good time to bring the bright and cheerful “know-it-all” nanny back for another go-round with the Banks family - once again facing very troubling times. You don’t tamper with the Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke classic - hallowed ground material. I don’t think anyone was clamoring for a sequel - and a “remake” was out of the question. If there ever was any thought to doing a follow-up to the original film, I never heard of it…not until about three years ago. Banks” with Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson a few years ago. It took a mountain of patience for Walt Disney to convince Travers to “finally” make the first film in 1964 - and so heartwarmingly - and amusingly covered in “Saving Mr. Travers started penning in the 1930s - and shockingly ended with her eighth book in 1988 when she was about to turn 90. ![]() Thus begins another chapter in the Mary Poppins legacy that author P.L. And there hovering over London descending out of the clouds…it’s Mary Poppins! Boy is she ever needed to help restore confidence in the Banks household and infuse them with love, compassion and a sense of belonging that all families need. It’s about 25 years after Mary Poppins came to help the Banks family, now in the early 1930s - an era described as the “Great Slump” (Depression era) - and one of the Banks children, Michael, is having a very rough time having recently lost his wife, has three young children to care for, and is about to lose his house on 17 Cherry Tree Lane. “Mary Poppins Returns” (130 min., Rated PG for mild thematic elements involving children, and brief action scenes).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |