Mary Poppins Returns [Includes Digital Copy] [Blu-ray/DVD] [2018]

Been wanting the steel book edition for the longest since it's been sold out and I finally found a store that had one more. I love the cover artwork for the steel book and it's a perfect edition to starting off my 4K collection. Definitely recommend.

Mary Poppins Returns is such a well played rededication of a well known and well loved movie, here to delight generation to come!

Even better than the first. Emily Blunt has out done herself in this movie!

Classic Mary Poppins the best but you will enjoy!!

If you enjoyed/appreciated the original as a kid or as an adult, I think you will appreciate this “Return of” MP. It is NOT a re-do, but a continuance, years later. Nobody truly can replace Dick VanDyck or Julie Andrews, BUT this modern continuance surpasses with modern camera work...made EVEN BETTER with 4K/hdr. If you can get past new actors and not having quite the very classic songs we all remember from our youth, this is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. And thanks Best Buy for the GREAT pricing on this 4K steelbook version.

Had very low expectations for this movie, thinking "how could you ever compare to THE Mary Poppins?!" I was pleasantly surprised as this was a very well-written, well-acted movie that had all of the right nods and references to the original and actually modernized it in a way that really worked. The actress playing Mary was fantastic and the dialogue and musical numbers were very well done.

The Disney magic of cinematic legend is in fine shape in the new “Mary Poppins Returns,” even if the imagination of the fabled Disney Imagineers is a little rusty. The stars of the picture during publicity appearances have been going out of their ways to stress that the movie is not a remake of the fabled Academy Award-winning 1964 classic “Mary Poppins,” but a sequel. And that might very well be. But viewers who mistake the picture for a remake can be forgiven, because “Mary Poppins Returns” pushes its narrative through the self-same template of the original, right down to the placement of the musical numbers. Only the haunting and heartbreaking place occupied in the original picture by actress Jane Darwell and “Feed the Birds” is left vacant. In fact, about the biggest difference between “Mary Poppins” and “Mary Poppins Returns” is that this time around the magical nanny has three children in her charge instead of two. Set some thirty years after the events of the original picture, in “Mary Poppins Returns” Jane and Michael Banks are now adults who barely remember their childhood adventures with the nanny who literally drifted down from the clouds. Jane has taken after her suffragette mother and is now a political activist fighting for the rights of oppressed workers. And Michael, a recent widower unable to support his three young children as an artist, has recently taken a part-time job as a teller in the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank where his late father once toiled as a senior partner. Already disenfranchised by the death of their mother, Michael’s three adorable children are soon additionally troubled to learn that the bank is about to foreclose on their family home. Michael’s absentmindedly forgotten to make the three most recent payments to Fidelity Fiduciary after mortgaging the property to meet the family’s expenses. The family will be evicted if they’re unable to pay off the loan in full by Big Ben’s final toll of midnight, three days hence. To breathe some desperately-needed order into this chaotic situation, Mary Poppins returns, literally descending from the clouds to return the children’s kite during a stormy day. And with the help of her old chum Jack the Lamplighter, a former apprentice to the original film’s Bert the Chimney Sweep, the magical nanny endeavors to teach the Banks children the value of organized imagination...and remind the grown-up Michael and Jane of the love and wonder often left behind when children become adults. The biggest danger of producing a new movie founded upon the magic of a beloved motion picture classic is that the new movie will inevitably and automatically be compared with the original, a risk that Disney of all studios knows well. Since...well, since forever, the studio’s been occasionally pilfering their own vaults to wring new memories--and money--from old classics. Fortunately--thankfully--”Mary Poppins Returns” is strong enough and contains sufficient movie magic to not only withstand comparisons with the 1964 musical classic, but also to stand on its own feet. The viewer can’t help comparing the two pictures, but the filmmakers seem to expect the comparisons, if not welcome them...and even challenge them. And you know what? They win the challenge. There’s been some minor complaining about actress Emily Blunt’s characterization in the title role being...well, a little nasty, snotty with a capital B. Detractors suggest Blunt invests the beloved nanny with unnecessary amounts of sternness, conceit, arrogance, and a chilly exterior. Translation: Emily Blunt is not Julie Andrews. But that’s just the price the actress pays for her characterization being accurate to Travers’ storybooks. Julie Andrews could sing through a smile even when she was weeping tears of heartbreak, an attribute which worked well for the 1964 picture. But Blunt, who has a surprisingly strong singing voice and has been referred to by co-star Lin-Manuel Miranda as “human sunshine,” is primarily known, and lauded, as a dramatic actress. Occasional eye-rolling aside, Blunt brings all of her artistic qualities to bear in the picture, and more than holds her own in the choreography department also.

I loved Mary Poppins growing up and never did I think that any type of follow up film would be good. I was very pleasantly impressed by the entertainers in this film and if Julie Andrew's approved then it must be good.