Mary Poppins Reviews

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:49pm

Talkin Broadway is Mostly Negative:

"Disney and Mackintosh are both experts at shepherding shows to worldwide success with generous infusions of capital, and ensuring your $110 ticket gets you a superb-looking show. So when they teamed to bring to the stage both P.J. Travers's stories about an enchanted English nanny and the 1964 Disney musical film that made her a household name, results at once eye-popping and headache-inducing were perhaps inevitable.

But the other shows each has been involved with - Mackintosh's record-smashing pop operas, including Les Misérables, The Phantom of the Opera, and Cats; Disney's Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Aida, and Tarzan - haven't told stories about the dangers of pursuing wealth to the exclusion of all else. So even when those shows lack soul - as they all too frequently do - they're never hypocritical. Mary Poppins is seldom anything but.

It looks like designer Bob Crowley was encouraged to spend a small fortune on sets and costumes of uncommon bounty, which evoke Victorian London in sepia shades, Technicolor, and opulent extravagance. But for Mackintosh and Disney, these are investments in a show all but guaranteed to run somewhere in the realm of forever, and it's in every other element of the show, from the book and score to the performers, that Mary Poppins is indistinguishable from a no-fee, no-frills ATM for its creators.

For while Mackintosh reportedly wanted to divest Travers's property of the film's saccharine, he wasn't willing to do it at the expense of the score and characterizations that made the movie an international and intergenerational phenomenon. Thus, this Mary Poppins attempts to combine the relative grit of Travers's stories and the blood-level familiarity of classic Sherman brothers songs like "Chim-Chim-Cher-ee," "A Spoonful of Sugar," and "Let's Go Fly a Kite" into a new creation that's the best of both worlds.

_______________________________________________________________


These choices, and others, rob the material of its inherent musicality, which doesn't stop the songs from coming. And as long as audiences get those songs - plus a flying, spellcasting Mary, a wise-cracking chimney sweep in her compatriot Bert, and the requisite uplifting ending - they'll be thrilled whatever other flaws abound. The Shermans' songs remain bouncy and playful, though a couple have been (regrettably, but not devastatingly) excised. George Stiles and Anthony Drewe have written a bunch of new numbers to round out the score; while they're in no way the equals of the Shermans' classics, they're the best Disney stage songs since The Lion King.

They don't stick in the memory, though; little about this Mary Poppins does that wasn't implanted years (or decades) ago. Some of Matthew Bourne's choreography, especially for the bloated second-act production number "Step in Time," is cute (though the frantic "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," diluted to a series of reductive hand gestures, disappoints), and it will take a while for Crowley's sets and costumes to be equaled in quality and quantity at today's reduced budgets.

Everything else tends to vanish from your mind almost instantly, including the performers, most of whom seem to have been cast precisely so they can easily be replaced. Eyre even seems to have directed them to display as little personality as possible, so the next 20 years of sit-down and touring productions will all have performers displaying roughly the same, animatronic traits."



http://www.talkinbroadway.com/world/MaryPop.html

Updated On: 11/16/06 at 06:49 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:52pm

The AP is Positive:

"Watching "Mary Poppins," the Disney-Cameron Mackintosh extravaganza now on view at the New Amsterdam Theatre, is a little like eating an entire box of expensive chocolates - all by yourself.

You may end up feeling a bit overstuffed, but, boy, the experience will be fun. Tasty, too. This lavish stage version about the world's most blissfully competent nanny is an amalgamation of the 1964 Disney movie that made Julie Andrews a film star and the classic children's books by P.L. Travers.

_______________________________________________________________


Crowley's detailed sets, particularly his gargantuan, four-level Banks household, are wonders to behold. The technical kinks experienced in preview performances seem to have been worked out. Right now, they sweep and swirl with majestic grace. And his costumes don't quit either - a staggering array of colorful period clothes.

Yet at its heart, this "Mary Poppins" is a small story, a family drama that is resolved with the help of a determined, thoroughly directed young woman. That this human and humane story shines through all the dazzling theatrical effects demonstrates the potency of its emotional impact."



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/gossip/16030327.htm

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 6:54pm

talk about running the gamut

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:06pm

im so curious to hear from someone whos seen the london production & the broadway version...
i love the london cast recording & was excited to see the show now that its come to nyc...but all the reviews make me think i would hate it...even the positive reviews seem to be describing something i wouldnt enjoy.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 07:06 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:11pm

There was a review in a London newspaper that I came across yesterday. The critic (whose name escapes me) loved it.

Most of the major NY critics saw it in London - expect Brantley to evoke it in his review.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:15pm

Admittedly, I only saw Mary Poppins in London, but I was kind of puzzled at the negativity of the first review until I remembered...ah, yes. Matthew Murray. My almost-guaranteed opposite in theatrical taste. I find him a very reliable barometer of what's good and what's not.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:18pm

The only review that matters less than Talkin Broadway is Broadway.com.

Take that into consideration as you read.

[EganFan2]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:21pm

Referring to the first review. I fail to see why so many think Julie Andrews as Mary was so damn sweet. She had a bite to her. Not as much of a bite as she evidently had in the books, but she's not as sweet as she is as Maria von Trapp. Just look at the tea scene, when they're all laughing and having fun, and Mary says she won't make a spectacle of herself. Ouch.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 07:21 PM

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:29pm

one thing i think is interesting is that with the london production, everyone seemed charmed by laura michelle kelly (in the audience, at least), but in the broadway reviews, ashley brown is mentioned as an afterthought.
its always about gavin lee, the sets, & the professionalism of rebecca luker.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:31pm

That pretty much sums it up. Ashley, as good as she is, isn't the standout in this production.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:44pm

I haven't seen Laura Michelle Kelly, but I think Ashley Brown was wonderful in the role. I feel that Mary is a very difficult part to pull off because it itsn't your typical leading lady. She also isn't always the center of attention onstage. I thought the Ashley's performance was exceptional considering this.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:48pm

"one thing i think is interesting is that with the london production, everyone seemed charmed by laura michelle kelly (in the audience, at least), but in the broadway reviews, ashley brown is mentioned as an afterthought.
its always about gavin lee, the sets, & the professionalism of rebecca luker."

The AP review said this about Ashley Brown: "...the adventures instigated by Mary Poppins, portrayed with charm and crisp vocal power by a lovely Ashley Brown. The actress has something more, too, a sense of humor, a quality that helps mitigate the character's know-it-all aura."

That doesn't sound like she's an "afterthought" to me.

[spintoboy]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:55pm

Jacques Le Sourd is very positive:


This show is indeed, to quote one of its sparkling new songs and a self-appraisal by Mary Poppins, “Practically Perfect.” So, go.
Le Sourd

Posted: 11/16/06 at 7:58pm

Here's Jacques LeSourd's review--- very positive:

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061116/NEWS01/61116016

[Acting is My LIFE]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:22pm

I saw the London production and just saw the Broadway production last night.

I feel as if this production is not nearly as polished as the West End's version. Unfortunatly the sets and special effects take priority here as opposed to the great performances in London. Not much has changed between the two productions, but I could definitly see a difference in performances. Ashley Brown is an amazing talent. However, her Mary comes across cheesy and a bit hammy compared to both Laura Michelle and Scarlette in London. She is in perfect voice and looks the part to a T. It just feels pushed and over the top. Her dancing looks sloppy, especially in "Step in time" where she falls short with her tapping compared to the ensemble.
Gavin lee is of course a pro and still looks like he just started doing the show. He makes the American cast look juvinile and messy.
Everyone in the ensemble hams it up big time, pulling focus from the leads in most numbers.
Having seen both shows I have to say that the London production had all the right ideas from casting to tone. I was really looking forward to seeing the Broadway version but left feeling as if I saw a second rate version of an amazing West End hit.

The show is a bit long, almost 3 hrs. But if you have kids over the age of 12 that can have good attention spans and can fork over 100.00 bucks a piece for tix then you should go enjoy a night of live Theatre. It's still magical and amazing to see the beloved Mary Poppins brought to life.

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:41pm

thank you for that insight, Acting is My LIFE

[TomMonster]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:44pm

I loved the show, and am not surprised about the derision...

I would love for it to appeal to everyone--and I'm a MAJOR cynic--but, not everyone really want's to have a good time in the theatre. Whatever flaws there are in the show, for me, were erased by the magic that made me feel like a kid again.

Childhood is not always happy. Mine was not always happy. Poppins took me away then and took me away again.

[billynj]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:47pm

Mary Poppins tries on Bourne identity
By Iris Fanger | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK – A joyful east wind will be blowing on Broadway for years to come, bringing "Mary Poppins," the new musical about the beloved nanny with a nifty umbrella, to the stage of the New Amsterdam Theatre on 42nd Street.
Based on the 1964 Disney film, with new material from the books of P.L. Travers, "Mary Poppins" the musical has been reimagined as an innovative marriage of movement to character and music by codirector and choreographer Matthew Bourne. A celebrity dancemaker in his native Britain, Bourne is known for his startling revisions of classical ballets and opera. Bourne brings the same sensibility to "Mary Poppins;" his production isn't beholden to replicating scenes from the 1964 movie that starred Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. (If you go hoping to see animated penguins, you're better off seeing "Happy Feet" at the cinema.) The Broadway show, which opened in London in 2004 and continues to run, is as vibrant and fluid as a ballet.

Updated On: 11/16/06 at 08:47 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:55pm

Mazel tov, Mary Poppins. And of course, (and I mean this honestly) best wishes to Company Theatre alumni Katherine Doherty. This gal is living proof that anything can happen if you let it.

[zerodanny]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 8:55pm

Tom I totally agree!! I love the show too..more so than the film for some reason, the whole show is full of magic!!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 9:01pm

billynj --

That story from the Christian Science Monitor is not a review -- it's a feature article on Matthew Bourne. Also, due to copyright, you can't simply cut and paste entire articles -- you have to do excerpts and then post the link.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 9:32pm

http://www.broadway.com/gen/general.aspx?ci=540684

Intelligence x 3. "I was disappointed because it wasn't like the movie." And, my favorite: "There was a guy named Bert in the play."
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 09:32 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 9:34pm

I try to take all of my theatre advice from 6 year olds.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:18pm

I liked, "They made statues come to life instead of animals." What's up with that kid? I've worked with kids younger than him that can formulate complete, intelligent sentences. Word of Mouth really has to go.
Updated On: 11/16/06 at 10:18 PM

[Come Back to Me]

Posted: 11/16/06 at 10:35pm

that little boy on broadway.com cracks me up
"I like when she flew awas"