Mary Poppins has long been called Walt Disney’s “crowning achievement” in live-action, having been his only film to have earned a Best Picture nomination while he was alive. Now, more than 50 years after the original film debuted, it’s seeing a sequel, Mary Poppins Returns, with a new cast in a familiar story and setting.

Taking place 20-some years after the original story, Mary Poppins Returns brings audiences back to the house on Cherry Tree Lane, where Michael Banks is now a grown man with three young children. He’s also a recent widower who is struggling to make ends meet during “the Great Slump,” and is in danger of losing his family home. He and his sister Jane are shocked when their former nanny, Mary Poppins, returns to their home to help take care of the children. In addition to enjoying some whimsical adventures with Mary, the three kids (Annabel, John, and Georgie) also have to face the possibility of having their home repossessed by the bank.

Mary Poppins Returns is good. It’s a total treat for the eyes and the performances by the cast are all quite good. Ben Whishaw (who I had no idea could sing) as Michael Banks has an emotional and sympathetic performance, and he’s balanced quite nicely by the optimistic Jane, portrayed by Emily Mortimer. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, and Joel Dawson all shine as the next generation of the Banks children. Colin Firth is a perfect villain in the sneering and ruthless Wilkins, Meryl Streep is… well, Meryl Streep, so she nails her scenes as Topsy. Dick Van Dyke can still dance on a desk at the age of 93 (we should all hope to be so limber at that age), and Angela Lansbury steals the scene she appears in.

I think Lin-Manuel Miranda is a remarkably talented individual who will be having a lasting impact on the entertainment business for decades to come. And I thought he was just fine in the male lead role of Jack, the lamplighter (and apparently a former apprentice of Bert). I wasn’t blown away by his performance, though; he sort of did what I expected him to do, which was put on a cockney accent and have a couple of decent songs (with a quasi-rap in one of them).

Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins was quite good, to my surprise. She absolutely nailed the whimsical-but-still-no-nonsense attitude of the magical nanny, and her singing chops are also much better than I expected. She’s absolutely the highlight of the film.

Where I’m getting hung up on Mary Poppins Returns though is in the soul of the movie. To be forthright with you, the original Mary Poppins is one of my all-time favorite films. I was Mary Poppins for Halloween in first grade. “Let’s Go Fly a Kite” was a favorite song for me to annoy my parents with as a young kid. It was one of those films that I’d watch every single day for quite some time. I rewatched the original before I saw the screener for Returns, and I’m glad I did, because Returns does a whole lot to highlight how much better the original is.

The music also highlights how much better the original soundtrack was. Marc Shaiman served as the primary composer, with Miranda also contributing. Shaiman is a talented guy – he wrote the book for Hairspray on Broadway – but he can’t hold a candle to the work the Sherman Brothers did on Mary Poppins. The songs in Returns aren’t even in the same zip code as those from the original film. They served their purpose but they just didn’t click with me.

Returns has many critics referring to it as a “remake” of the original due to how close it sticks to the roadmap of the first film, and I don’t think that’s entirely unfair. I’d probably call it a “remix,” myself.

It follows the exact same path as the original, but I don’t know that it’s doing itself any favors by doing so. Both films hit the same points on their way from opening credits to ending credits: there’s trouble in the Banks household; Mary arrives to help, and gets the kids to trust her by turning something boring or routine (cleaning up the nursery in the original, bath time in the sequel) into something fun; Mary, the children, and the male lead go on a whimsical adventure in an animated land; everyone visits Mary’s eccentric relative (Uncle Albert in the original, cousin Topsy in the sequel); the children get into trouble at Fidelity Fiduciary Bank; on the way home from the bank, the male lead gets an extended dance sequence with other members of the male ensemble; the children get scolded by their father at home; the children find a way to connect with their father; the conflict introduced at the start of the film gets resolved; the film ends with a lively song that is focused on flying something into the sky (a kite in the original, balloons in the sequel); Mary leaves via her magical umbrella and a change in the wind and the film ends.

As I said earlier, Mary Poppins Returns is a good movie. There’s a lot to like about it. But following the roadmap of the original so closely only serves to highlight how much better the 1964 Mary Poppins truly was, and still is. Returns is just lacking something. I wasn’t filled with that same sort of wondrous feeling that the original provided me as a child and still does today. Maybe the new generation of kids will get that feeling from Returns, though.

Ultimately, Mary Poppins Returns is a film that chose to stand in the shadow of its predecessor and made seemingly no attempt to get out from underneath it, for better or for worse. It’s a film certainly worth taking your family to and I do believe it’s deserving of the various award nominations it’s already received, but Mary Poppins Returns left me wanting just a little bit more.

-Carrie Wood