IT40 Paces & Things in the Media for 12/19/2018

#2 Mary Poppins Returns Trailer


Who's been to see it already?

‘Mary Poppins Returns’ Review: A Truck Full of Sugar Can’t Make This Uplift Go Down

From left, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Pixie Davies, Joel Dawson, Nathanael Saleh and Emily Blunt in “Mary Poppins Returns.”CreditCreditJay Maidment/Disney Pictures
Mary Poppins Returns
Directed by Rob Marshall
Comedy, Family, Fantasy, Musical
2h 10m

During a show-pausing turn in “Mary Poppins Returns,” Lin-Manuel Miranda takes center stage to sing and syncopate, and the movie flickers to life. Suddenly, it becomes clear that the people who made this largely charmless venture with its hard-smiling nanny might have created something memorable, even good and hummable if they had turned it over to Miranda. Horizons open up when you consider what might have happened if Disney had let him give Mary Poppins a meaningful do-over similar to his revisionist take on American history in the musical “Hamilton.”

Bathed in nostalgia, “Mary Poppins Returns” is being framed as a homage, and there’s clearly some love here. Mostly, it is a modest update, one that has brushed off the story, making it louder, harsher, more aggressively smiley. It picks up several decades after the 1964 film “Mary Poppins” — starring the sublimely synced Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke — concluded. Michael and Jane, the two Banks children at the center of the original tale, have grown up to become a grieving widower (Ben Whishaw) and an ebullient union organizer (Emily Mortimer). Michael has three children (the peewees Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson).

The strangest thing about the new movie isn’t that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) appears from parts unknown with a talking umbrella and capacious carpetbag. Even if you have never seen the 1964 film or read one of P.L. Travers’s books, the image of this floating woman — a deus ex machina who mysteriously, magically arrives in the most delightful way — still resonates in the Disney-nurtured cultural imagination. As the stern but loving parental substitute, she embodies the kind of secular savior Disney excels in. No, what’s odd here is how closely the new movie follows the original’s arc without ever capturing its bliss or tapping into its touching delicacy of feeling.

So, once again, Mary Poppins glides in to save the day and, more specifically, to take care of some gently neglected if unquestionably loved Banks children. Michael adores his sons and daughter, but — in classic Disney matricidal fashion — his wife has recently died, and he’s in mourning. Notably, in the 1964 movie, the mother is a distracted parent but also an attractively vibrant suffragette who opens the film warbling about equality — “We’re fighting for our rights, militantly!” — in the cheeky, rousing “Sister Suffragette.” (Travers, who died in 1996, didn’t write her that way and did not approve of this improvement to the character.)

The addition of profound loss fits the Disney dead-mother template, but it invests the movie with a heaviness it can’t persuasively navigate, eventually drowning it in treacle. Set during the Great Depression, also known in Britain as the Great Slump, of the 1930s, the story returns Mary Poppins to the same multistoried house at 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Decades earlier, she had to persuade Mr. Banks to pay attention to his children; now, she has to pull Michael out of his own catastrophic depression so he can tend to his children and save their home from the bank. (They have a housekeeper, played by Julie Waters; Colin Firth all but twirls his mustache as a banker.)

Written by David Magee and directed by Rob Marshall, the movie ratchets up more than the family’s existential stakes. Most everything in “Mary Poppins Returns” looks, feels and sounds like a sales pitch, with the exception of Whishaw’s emotional rawness, which creates jagged little holes in the manufactured uplift. Much seems the same storywise, though, just amped up, including a neighbor with a booming cannon and the big smiles that at times turn characters, including Mary, into avatars for emotions that the movie rarely manages to tap. Blunt is versatile and a fine singer, but like most of the other actors, she’s giving a broad performance rather than a convincingly felt one.

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the songs by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman — who have done memorable work elsewhere — are the gravest disappointment. It may be unfair to compare the new movie’s songs to the originals, which were written by the brothers Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman, whose words and music for “Mary Poppins” are among the greatest in the Hollywood songbook. “A Spoonful of Sugar,” “Jolly Holiday,” “Chim Chim Cher-ee,” “Let’s Go Fly a Kite” and of course “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” — these are songs that get in your head, body, memory, and there’s nothing here with comparable melodic or lyrical staying power.

There are some fine moments, as well as consistently eye-stroking costumes from Sandy Powell. There’s also “Trip a Little Light Fantastic,” a complexly staged number (Marshall is one of the movie’s choreographers) that features Miranda and an army of his fellow lamplighters, known as leeries. This is the contemporary version of the original movie’s rooftop number “Step in Time.” Now, the leeries are massing together and are more earthbound even while jumping in buoyant synchronicity. Some are also riding on BMX bicycles, anachronisms that give the movie a whiff of contemporary desperation that signals an endeavor reaching for honest nostalgia and trapped by bloodless marketing.

Mary Poppins Returns
Rated PG. Running time: 2 hours 10 minutes.



The Sweet Way the Original Jane Banks Makes a Cameo in Mary Poppins Returns

Image Source: Everett Collection
Warning: light spoilers for Mary Poppins Returns ahead.Mary Poppins Returns is full of hidden references to the original film, but some of the sweetest nods to Mary Poppins are appearances from the original cast. While Dick Van Dyke makes a memorable cameo as Mr. Dawes Jr., the son of bank director Mr. Dawes from the original film, there is also a very quick cameo from the original Jane Banks, played by actress Karen Dotrice.

Lin-Manuel Miranda


On set with the original Jane Banks, Karen Dotrice, watch for her surprise cameo...

The cameo happens about halfway through the film, when Jane (Emily Mortimer) and Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) are chatting outside the Banks home. As they awkwardly flirt with each other, a woman (Dotrice) approaches them and asks for directions to 19 Cherry Tree Lane. When they simultaneously tell her it's two doors down, she politely replies, "Many thanks, sincerely," giving a nod to the song "The Perfect Nanny" from the first film where Jane and Michael sign off their letter for a new nanny with, "Many thanks, sincerely, Jane and Michael Banks."

Image Source: Getty / Alberto E. RodriguezDotrice was only 9 years old when she played Jane in Mary Poppins in 1964. Though she went on to star in other films and movies, she has mostly retired from acting. However, she has attended a few Mary Poppins-related events over the years. In 2004, she was inducted as a Disney Legend, and in 2013, she attended the premiere of Saving Mr. Banks alongside Dick Van Dyke and Julie Andrews. Most recently she attended the premiere of Mary Poppins Returns.

1 Point

Hits: 167

What do you think?

10 Points

Written by top40

Hello Again and Thanks for reading it is I Enlil "IT40" Enkiberg with an update on the status of our lawsuit against Alphabet Inc. case # 4:20-CV-04877-SBA  and the website and life in general. By now if you regularly visit you may have read this section "author info" or Bio. So I am adding to it with more bio and more info. I originally liked the idea of voting on the internet 20-25 years ago when I first got online with WebTV (does anyone remember that?).

The technology at that time was not advanced enough to easily be able to vote online or watch videos or much else for that matter but I was hooked and look at what we can do now with videos, IOT, and everything else, but I digress. I started about 5 years ago and the user base has been going up steadily ever since. I wanted to be another Facebook, with music and voting and that is all coming together slowly but surely. BTW if you want to help or have any interest please feel free to email me anytime.

Now in my previous Author Info or bio page I made it clear or at least I thought I made it clear, I am personally suing Alphabet Inc. in Federal Court for Fraud. I have evidence to prove they are not counting all the pageviews, among other things and defrauding myself and probably millions of other website owners and content creators out of Billions of dollars. So if I wasn't clear or you didn't know it's true I am suing Alphabet Inc. in Federal Court for Fraud the case was recently moved from my state of Kentucky to N. California to make it easier for Alphabet Inc. to steam roll me or so they think. Needless to say if you are interested and I hope you are you can look the case up online under my name "David Russell Ellenberger" or the case # which is 4:20-CV-04877-SBA.

Now, I want to make it clear to you and everyone that I am not suing Alphabet inc. aka Google for fraud just because I want a million dollars for nothing. I am suing Google for fraud because I think they are committing  a serious crime with worldwide and societal ramifications, it is a  very serious problem.  I am suing Google for fraud because to put it simply the analytics numbers don't add up at least not in my favor or yours, there is something very fishy going on with the Google analytics numbers. Of course Google has an excuse for every one of them but I have reasons and the actual numbers and they don't add up, more about the numbers later.

Companies like Google are making Billions of dollars a year in profits telling us data is the most valuable thing and misleading us and misdirecting the media and the world every chance they can.  Now data is valuable and they are making billions in profits seemingly like magic but there is no magic to it just corruption and lies. One thing Alphabet Inc. aka Google is really making their money from and that is advertising dollars and they are putting all of this advertising on the websites other people have created.

Websites that I have created and  websites you have created and websites millions of others around the world have created websites or content. For example Just writing a text is creating content and that's where Google puts the billions in advertising they receive and keeping most of it for themselves. Yes content others have created and yet somehow they are keeping almost all of these billions for themselves and not distributing it equitably to the real workers the true content creators who actually deserve the advertising monies. Google has made it's billions on the backs of you and me. Think about that for a minute, how can they continue to justify this? They Can't, it has to change.

For example if I were to prevail in the current lawsuit just half of the monies or $20 billion put into a basic account and compounded at 5% annually we could realistically employ over 80,000 people at $24,000 a year, indefinitely.  Sounds unbelievable but its true and if we only employed 40,000 people we could pay them approx. $48,000 a year indefinitely. Its all true. Its simply a matter of having the money and the will to do it. Now is 40,000 people a lot well yes it would be a lot of employees but with more money simply put into a trust account we could employ more people

I David Russell Ellenberger through my website am suing Google to try to help right a wrong. A wrong committed by Google that has simply gotten out of hand. Most people may think they can't do anything about it. Nothing can stop Google, the politicians don't care they use all of Googles data to further their own campaigns and line their own pockets while the rest of us keep on creating the content for Google, nothing can be done, this however is not the case, we can do something.

The politicians and Alphabet Inc. aka Google have done nothing to help society at large other than organize it so they can keep more money in secret and pay off all their buddies with their fraudulently obtained money. It's gotten so bad that the politicians and others in control won't even talk about it, they ignore it and hope it goes away, they won't even try to stop google because it is helping them too much and maybe they are scared of Google or who knows what they may be thinking. But it looks like fraud and it's coming to an end.

I'm telling you we can do something and I Enlil Enkiberg an average citizen Content Creator am saying to you, I'm not scared of Google because I have nothing left to loose.  I David Russell Ellenberger am telling you there is something you too can do, if nothing else, tell all your friends to come to aka IT40, believe these words and Create your Content.

Further I promise to you and all who read this if we do prevail in the lawsuit against Alphabet Inc. We will use 90% of any monies we may receive to pay "content creators" a living wage. I pledge to anyone who is reading this, we will use 90% of any monies we may receive to help those who really do want to work on the internet and create content and tell us what they think. We will use 90% of any money so you can Get Paid, we want you to get paid for the content you create and get paid everyday and Get Paid to Vote create data and to be able to do this work online and from your home or anywhere in the world you care to be. Because in the words of an ancient scholar Y-O-U are the business Y-O-U are creating all the data, Y-O-U are the content creators and Y-O-U are all that matters.

Now the main thing I want you to take away form this and to know, Alphabet Inc. is and has been committing fraud against you, me and everyone who uses the internet. I don't think Google started out to defraud the world it has just degenerated into this endless morass of corruption and fraud and no one seems to care, Well I care and I know you care too.  Sadly Google has been doing this with impunity for years and it is only getting worse. Please don't let them fool you with their lies and obfuscation. Do some research create some content build a website and research the analytics numbers you will find I am right. Google owes you, me and everyone online thousands if not 10's of thousands of dollars for all the data and advertising dollars they have co-opted from you and the rest of the world. So join with me don't use any Google products or file your own lawsuit in federal court against Alphabet Inc. I will be glad to help you any way I can and show you how to do it if need be. It will take a sincere effort on your part but it will definitely help your self esteem, society and the world.

Now that's about all I have to say on this subject for now.  I will tell you this if you want more information or you have questions or comments for me, my email is [email protected] Thank you for reading looking and listening and believing in Please tell all your friends about us and don't forget to vote Thumbs up or down and refresh your page when your done. One last Thing, I need all the help I can get I am only 1 person but together and with todays technology we can move mountains and reframe society and our world the way we want it to be. One final note let me tell you about a new website coming to the world called Thank you ttyl



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


it40 Sandra-Bullock

IT40 People in the Media for 12/19/2018

it40 youtube

IT40 Trending Videos for 12/19/2018 (Open list) (40 submissions)