Nanny McPhee Returns

The animals are impossibly adorable, but never threaten to upset the film's delicate balance between magic and a more sobering reality. It's a fairy tale in the best tradition.

Has a lighter spirit than its predecessor, but it arrives at the same warm and touching place.

This comic fantasy will delight kids and parents alike.

It can take a miracle to create a movie that's fun for kids and their parents. Luckily, Nanny McPhee has a little magic up her sleeve.

Nanny McPhee, the homely yet exemplary governess, is back. Why? Hard to say, but one thing is certain: Writer-star Emma Thompson didn't do it for the kids.

Too much of the contrasting comedy in Nanny McPhee Returns is shrill, laden with routine computer-generated effects and pounded into dust by James Newton Howard's shut-up-already musical score.

This dour, hyperactive family film is joyless, overly busy and starchy.

A meritorious continuation. This fantasy movie is an expected sequel as the initial movie was a box office hit. It happens decades after the events of the first film (although the connection between them is discreet) and brings more of it: a mother whose husband went to war and who needs to unfold between work, her farm care and education the children she has at home, and the two spoiled brats from the city with whom they will soon quarrel. In fact, here, the movie sins because it can't bring anything truly new or different from the previous one. What saves the movie is the fact that it is fun and has truly hilarious moments, like synchronized piglet swimming. It all happens in the middle of World War II, but it is too light a film to make it truly feel in the plot. The war only becomes palpable in the middle of the movie, a turnaround that, after all, was more or less expected. Again, it is the children who are given the whole stage when it comes to making the audience laugh. They match entirely and are excellent. The direction of the film is once again in the hands of Emma Thompson, who continues to secure the lead role and the script's authorship, ensuring that this film can match its predecessor. Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful and captivates our sympathy, Rhys Ifans is quite entertaining and a bit stupid when trying to be a villain, opposite Sinead Matthews and Katy Brand very well. Ralph Fiennes and Ewan McGregor make brief welcome appearances and Maggie Smith, side by side with veteran Sam Kelly, is impeccable, as always. Technically, the film still bets heavily on CGI and visual and sound effects, which is normal, but I felt that there was more restraint in its use. The sets and costumes are also better and more realistic, and that troublesome eye strain caused by too much color, so evident in the first film, was corrected. In short, this movie is an excellent continuation of the first movie. But unless they decide to present something different in a hypothetical third movie, I think the revenue presented so far runs out of this movie.

The stagnant machinery of a hollow resurrection: A 1.0-star "visceral trauma" of rhythmic decay.2011 (1.0)I watched "I Saw the Devil" in 2011, and it remains a "pathetic" 1.0-star trauma in my archive—a film that failed to provide any visceral "revelation" of meaning, offering instead a "stagnant" parade of soulless brutality. While the production attempted a "vivid" and high-tension exploration of vengeance, the narrative rhythm felt 100% mechanical, **** the fourth wall only with its indulgent and "raw" displays of unnecessary gore. Unlike the "sensational" depth of my 5.0-star pillars like "The Chaser," this experience felt "pathetic" and intellectually "stagnant," providing no "chewy" emotional payoff to justify its high-tension cruelty. Seeing the "vivid" transformation of characters into monsters provided no "sensational" spark; it was merely a rhythmic exercise in exhaustion that left me in a state of "silent frustration" rather than "hororong." The 95% preservation of my memory is dominated by a sense of "raw" disgust at the wasted talent of its leads, creating a permanent, bitter scar of "stagnant" nihilism on my soul. Unlike the "vivid" and rebellious soul of "Mother," this movie was a "pathetic" void of substance, leaving me detached from its "raw" violence and utterly unimpressed by its high-tension artifice. It stands in my 2011 record as a "vivid" 1.0-star artifact of rhythmic failure—a "stagnant" and "pathetic" encounter with the dark side of cinema that lacked the "raw" brilliance and "sensational" soul required to be a masterpiece.

not our favorite family movie, but Emma Thompson's charm as the title character was good and the acting was decent.

Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang, they released it as Nanny McPhee Returns in the US and Canada, prepares to enter glory fun, but overloads it so the fun can be this annoying and boring.

This movie is just another terrible movie filled with stupid misbehaved British kids. This one is just as bad as the first. Nannys ****. Never see this movie ever.