Nanny McPhee (2005) User Reviews

Don't let the trailers fool you

[verdie · 8/10 · 31 January 2006]

I almost missed this one because I was turned off by the commercials and previews, with their emphasis on the silliest parts (the dancing donkey, etc.). What a mistake that would have been -- I'd have missed one of the driest, archest, loveliest scripts in years. Emma Thompson can do more with a slightly quirked eyebrow and a quiet "Hm" than most actresses can with an entire Shakespearean soliloquy. The whole cast, children and adults alike, is pretty near perfect, some of the best of the British theater even in the tiniest roles (Derek Jacobi, Imelda Staunton et al). The kids are tough and tart, without a simper in the lot, unlike most US child stars.

Don't let the trailers keep you away -- this is well worth seeing, sort of what Lemony Snicket should have been but wasn't.

Excellent family fun!

[cosmic_quest · 8/10 · 29 October 2005]

This definitely has to be one of the best films of the year and is something that can be enjoyed by the whole family, from the wee tot to grandparents. Based upon the 'Nurse Matilda' books by Christianna Brand, the film revolves around seven motherless children who have frightened off seventeen nannies much to their over-wrought father's dismay. The children are unruly and their father has his own stresses of desperately searching for a wife before his mean-spirited great aunt cuts off his allowance and everything is falling apart at the seams...until Nanny McPhee enters the house to sort things out. Think of 'Mary Poppins' if Roald Dahl had written the character and you have an idea of what happens next!

The best thing about this film is that while it will appeal to children, it doesn't dumb down or indulge in cavity-inducing sweetness that you tend to see in films produced by Hollywood. There is much humour and fun to be had but there is also a darker tone, what with children being threatened with the Work House and their father speaking to corpses!

The actors are all excellent. Colin Firth was perfect as this dithering man who may be meek but will do anything for his children and Emma Thompson is totally unrecognisable as the lead character of Nanny McPhee (she also deserves much recognition her skills in script-writing this film). But it's Angela Lansbury, as snooty Great Aunt Adelaide, who steals the show with the way she spends much of the film with such a sour face that could curdle the milk! The children also deserve much praise, especially when you consider most of them are not only very young but had never acted before. I certainly hope to see more of young Raphael Coleman, who played the middle son Eric, in future films as he totally threw himself into his character and was the most engaging of the children.

I'd highly recommend this to people who enjoyed 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' (both old and new versions) and 'Matilda'. I doubt many will be disappointed with this film!

Perfect for kids, plenty of fun for the adults

[brotherfallout · 8/10 · 9 October 2005]

Seven children, seventeen nannies. Poor dad Cedric Brown (Colin Firth) has all but given up. Suddenly, enter Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) using her magical powers (both emotionally and literally) to kick them into shape. Remind you of something? I'd be concerned if it didn't. But thankfully, as Nanny McPhee progresses, it twists and turns in such a pleasant fashion that by the end, you'll be wondering 'Mary who?' Adapted for the screen by Thompson herself, this is a fun and inventive kids film that is guaranteed to make you smile. Firth does his usually stuttering British man shtick, but given he has little to do, makes the most of it. Imedla Staunton, Angela Lansbury and Celia Imrie ham it up shamelessly and are loads of fun. But most of the attention should be directed towards Thompson, an ugly but constantly entertaining lead.

The art direction, visual effects and Patrick Doyle's fabulous score all soar in a confident over-the-top direction, as is the tone of the film. The score, by-the-books though it may be, is perfect and bodes well for Doyle's work on the new Harry Potter movie.

Rather than basing its entirety on the naughty kids storyline, McPhee jumps from plot point to plot point, stuffing a whole lotta characters and twists into it's 97 minute running time. Thanks to this, Thompson's endearing loveliness and a cute array of kids (lead by Thomas Sangster, the kid from Love Actually), Nanny McPhee emerges triumphant as one of the better kids movies in recent memory, mostly because the adults will love it too. And anyone who isn't enchanted by the magical ending has to have a stone for a heart.

A splendid family film

[Chrysanthepop · 6 January 2008]

I was very pleasantly surprised by how 'Nanny McPhee' turned out. I thought it was just another one of those family films but I was impressed all through and surprised as to how much I enjoyed it. There is a slight resemblance to 'Mary Poppins' but 'Nanny McPhee' is very much its own film. Emma Thompson is a talented writer and she shows great understanding of children's imagination. 'Loved how the spectacular world was created. It's colourful, extravagant, magical and funny. The lavish sets and designs are incredibly hypnotic.

Then there are actors like Emma Thompson (superb), Colin Firth (great) and Imelda Staunton (hilarious) who hardly ever let down. It was great to see the one and only Angela Lansbury after a very long time, this time in a slightly villainous role. These actors make their characters unique. The child actors are good in their parts and Kelly MacDonald has a nice screen presence.

What makes 'Nanny Mcphee' different is its sense of humour (that gives it its own charm and appeal) and the colourful world that it presents. I also liked the symbolic representation of Nanny McPhee's physical transformation as she successfully managed to get the children to learn the lessons. Emma Thompson wonderfully writes the screenplay as there is not one moment where I felt that the film dragged. Of course we have seen similar stories in films before but it's the presentation and treatment that makes the difference and 'Nanny Mcphee' is nothing short of a delightfully amusing family film.

Kids love it: it's a fun film

[philip-ct · 6/10 · 10 May 2006]

This is a predictable film, but gripping and saved by some very fine acting and plenty of over-the-top moments, from both adults and kids, "good" and "bad".

The story-line is similar to the Disney staple Mary Poppins: a family (here, a recently widowed, single father played by Colin Firth) has 7 children (shades of Sound of Music). No nanny can tame the children; the agency cannot and will not supply anybody. Enteer Nannny McPhee who has 5 lessons to teach the kids, and whose maxim is "When you need me but don't want me, I'll stay; when you want me, but don't need me, I'll go." A lot like the premise of Mary Poppins.

It's a good-natured film, with some good performances by Anela Lanbury, Imelda Stauten (as the 'cook'), Celia Imrie (as the potential (not so good) stepmother; Kelly Macdonald (as the housemaid-cum-lady), and Thomas Sangster, as a precocious, intelligent child, Simon.

The children learn their five lessons; Nanny McPhee teaches them how to be a more functional family. She can then leave.

This is a kid's movie, and this kid (40-plus) enjoyed it. It's not as magical as Mary Poppins, but it has good moments.

Magic AND Slapstick - what more could the kids want?

[pippajulian · 7/10 · 28 October 2005]

My 9 year old niece giggled a lot of the way through this film, especially when the children said some "unmentionable" words out loud! But it had a moral message too (well enough hidden not to be didactic). Emma Thompson was virtually unrecognisable as the hideous Nanny McPhee, and her reactions (or lack of them) to the children's bad behaviour was beautifully serene. You could tell that she had the respect of the children in the audience, as well as her charges in the film. Of course we all knew (us adults at least) that it would all end happily ever after, but not before all the baddies had a good dose of custard pies and justice. A real "feel good" movie without being too treacly.

Good for kids, but not the best.

[lemonchild45 · 6/10 · 13 April 2006]

I must admit that I had much higher expectations of 'Nanny McPhee' than it actually delivered. Although it's an entertaining, funny and, at times, touching movie, I felt that there was a certain something it lacked and that something was actually Nanny McPhee. Considering she's the main character, I was surprised that, by the end, the storyline of her character had all but fizzled out. The movie started great, with eye-catching sets and quick humour (and even some 'bums' to keep the kids happy), but I can only rate it with a 6 out of 10, as I was fairly disappointed at the lack of focus on Nanny McPhee's 'rules' - which seemed to be the most important part of the movie at the beginning - and couldn't help but feel that she'd been forgotten.

All the same, I loved the ending, and the way that everything turns out; this movie definitely has something for everyone and, despite a certain amount of silliness, it's worth watching, especially to keep children entertained on a rainy day (but anyone who actually cares about a movie's plot and characters should probably be warned).

Funny, heartwarming family comedy...

[dwpollar · 7/10 · 7 May 2006]

1st watched 5/6/2006 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Kirk Jones): Funny, heartwarming family comedy with a great performance by Emma Thompson and awesome makeup to make this natural beauty look extremely ugly with warts and all. The story is about a father, who's wife dies and leaves him with seven kids that he can't handle on his own, and is in search for a nanny that the kids won't run off. The problem is that they've successfully done this 17 times in a row!! They really don't want a nanny and would rather have their mother back, or at least someone else to replace her and more attention from their busy, heartbroken father. He still talks to his wife next to the fireplace into her empty chair as if she still is there for him. But of course, she's not returning; but instead steps in magical Nanny McPhee as the 18th applicant, supposedly working for the government. She is a basically a witch. She looks like one, has the powers of one, but has the heart of an angel and sees straight into the hearts of the family and their needs. Early in the movie, some of the kids pranks are rather gruesome which gives the movie a slow start. One particularly eye-opening stint where they pretend to have cooked and eaten their youngest runs off an applicant very quickly. But after this, the movie does a great job of helping you see why the kids are reacting the way that they are, which is a big step above most movies of this type. Thompson actually wrote the screenplay to the film and is also the executive producer as well, I believe. She put a lot of herself into this movie but it has sadly not gotten the recognition it deserves. The set has a Harry-Potter-like feel to it, being British and dark but ends in a very light-hearted note which it very well should have. There isn't much else I can say about this movie except buy the DVD!! It's great entertainment with an awesome family-oriented message with a great ending!!

good fun!

[kgreer-3 · 10/10 · 30 January 2006]

I took my almost-4-year-old and her two cousins (age 3 and 6) to see this and we all had a wonderful time! The cast was outstanding - Colin Firth marvelously befuddled, Angela Lansbury wonderfully austere, Emma Thompson gruesomely wise and endearing, and all of the children sweet and mischievous without being cloying and horrible. It was clever and never "dumbed down" as some movies peddled as family fare are these days. This film was both funny and touching. The scenery and costumes were also wonderful to look at -lovely use of color. Some reviews have said that the movie tries too hard to appeal to adults, but I disagree. If preschoolers can enjoy it, most children will. I highly recommend it to audiences of all ages.

An incredibly strong child cast leads a very nice film.

[poglatg · 7/10 · 3 October 2018]

With so many kids in the script, this was always going to be a difficult film to cast and shoot.

My goodness the kids were amazing. A competent to the point of being good script, a highly stylised colour pallate and cinematography, and a cast of well seasoned actors all helped, sure.

Making light of Emma Thompson's writing and acting, Angela Lansbury's acting chops is no small feat.

Great cast,well shot, all makes a very good film

Poor man's "Mary Poppins" lacks wonder, a sense of fun, or good lessons

[kylopod · 3/10 · 3 February 2007]

"Nanny McPhee" begins by showing a group of cheerfully horrible siblings who wreck their house, terrorize the cook, and quickly drive away every nanny their absent father (Colin Firth) hires. He keeps hearing a disembodied voice telling him that "The person you need is Nanny McPhee." We presume that if he hires this otherworldly woman, the kids will learn proper behavior, and possibly he will learn proper parenting. It was at this point that I smiled. The setup seemed nearly perfect, promising a fun, quirky kid's movie.

But even then, I had some nagging doubts. There was just a bit too much buildup. I realized that the film would have to work hard to make this character live up to expectations. Her entrance is greeted with a thunderstorm, her silhouette possibly intended as a visual allusion to Alfred Hitchcock's famous portly figure. Then we see her warty, bucktoothed face as she enters the mansion and goes to the kitchen where the kids are presently making a big mess. They're just about ready to treat her the same way they've treated all the previous nannies, but then she strikes her walking stick to the ground, and....

Well, I won't give away precisely what spells she casts to protect herself from the children's wrath and keep them under control. I'm not out to ruin anyone's fun, what little of it can be found in this film. To understand what went wrong, we need only look back to "Mary Poppins," the most obvious inspiration for this film. One of the special qualities of Julie Andrews' Oscar-winning performance is that she played the character as if she didn't need magical powers to handle the kids. The magic served the same role as it does in most good children's fantasies--to inspire the children's imagination. When that film wanted to make points about parenting, it promptly returned to the real world, where it belonged. In "Nanny McPhee," on the other hand, the magic is simply wishful thinking, an implicit admission by the filmmakers that in the real world they would have no idea how to deal with kids like these except through brute force.

Meanwhile, the father is trying to court a rich bitch so that he won't be disinherited by an aunt (Angela Lansbury). The movie wants us to believe that the woman he really ought to marry is his young scullery maid (Kelly MacDonald) even though the chemistry between the two is somewhat less than bristling. The subplot in which the kids attempt to sabotage the father's plans mixes uneasily with the magical material. There is a scene involving a dancing donkey that the aunt is too visually impaired to notice. Yet the father is also standing there and acts as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened!

Eventually, the movie resorts to unoriginal slapstick. If you think that kids might like this film, I should mention that the children I was with seemed bored much of the time. The story starts from an adult perspective, and it never bothers to create a sense of wonder in the magical events. Although it tries to have fun with the nanny's powers, it's a bit too pedantic to succeed.

Emma Thompson plays the title character with considerable skill, but it's a thankless role. She seems weary and fatigued, not relishing the task at hand. She never shows any affection for the kids, not even tough love, and they don't really come to like her. Their growing appreciation for her is strictly utilitarian, as they find her powers useful in helping them out of sticky situations.

The conceit is that the warts and blemishes gradually disappear from Thompson's face as she completes her work on the children, and she will look normal and attractive at the end. We can only guess that she's been the subject of some supernatural curse in the tradition of "Beauty and the Beast." I assume that the book on which the movie is based provides some background on the character, but curiously the film never does: we never learn a thing about where she came from or where she'll go when she's done with the kids.

The movie has one great line, when Thompson explains to the children, "When you need me but do not want me, then I must stay. When you want me but no longer need me, then I have to go." Since the film never develops a convincing bond between her and the family, much less shows how she is able to transform them, the line only serves as a frustrating reminder of what this movie could have been if it had lived up to its promising setup.

Enchanting

[moirazollinger · 10/10 · 26 November 2005]

I went to see this film today with my daughter, who is 31 and her 5 year old daughter and it's a long time since I saw such a truly wonderful film in the cinema.(and I go often)

I went as a typical granny, ready to enjoy the day out for what it was, but I said to my daughter at the end that if it had been a DVD, I would happily have watched it again right away.

Apart from the brilliant performances from all involved, this was a beautifully filmed piece of work. The staging and vivid colours used were absolutely perfect and each set was full of things to catch your eye.

I've always liked Emma Thompson, but not in a 'big fan' kind of way, but I must say she gave one of the most understated, beautifully controlled performances, and her wonderful character was magically endearing within moments of her arrival on the scene.

I thought hard before giving a rating for this film, but couldn't find one thing to stop it from being absolutely perfect.

A Nutshell Review: Nanny McPhee

[DICK STEEL · 6/10 · 10 March 2006]

Nanny McPhee, based on the Nurse Matilda books, tells the story of the Brown family. Mr Brown (Colin Firth) is a widower who has to single handedly bring up seven children. Make that seven mischievous children who has driven away a record 17 nannies. He needs to work to bring home the bacon, but cannot find a suitable nanny who could stand the children's antics. Until Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) turns up mysteriously one day (yes, she did knock), and weaves her brand of wit and magic into the Browns.

It's a simple fairy tale like story meant for kids, with lessons like listening to the adults, behaving, and love. Adding a tad complexity to the plot would be Mr Brown's desperate search for a wife to remarry, so that the family could continue to receive monetary support from their Aunt Adelaide (Angela Lansbury, Murder She Wrote, anyone?) But the storyline gets predictable halfway into the movie, and unless you're a ten year old, you'll probably figure out the plot from then on.

Along similar production styles like recent children-focused tales such as A Series of Unfortunate Events, the production sets are a sight to behold, especially during parts where the CGI, though simple, actually managed to add a touch of grandeur to entire scenes. While Nanny McPhee is the title role, we don't get much of the backstory of this magical nanny, so you'll have to take it at face value on what she's capable of, or read the books.

If children's acting (or lack thereof) get on your nerves, you'll be surprised at the tots' performances, even the littlest one. I thought Thomas Sangster, who plays the eldest son Simon, looked a bit like Freddie Highmore. Possible challenger there. The pacing of the movie is kept even, with comedic situations thrown in aplenty to probably make you forget about the average storyline.

So if you're in for a movie which is kept really simple, and suitable for a family with small children, then look no further, Nanny McPhee will be the movie of your choice this week.

Nanny McAverage

[Edu-16 · 5/10 · 5 February 2006]

I'm normally a great fan of Emma Thompsons - and a sucker for sentimental, magic based films like this one. However, this is not a very good movie for lots of reasons. I can only think the current rating says more for the competition at the moment, and possibly the US's penchant for British movies in general.

I didn't feel that the cast really believed in it. Colin Firth and Emma T I thought were miss-cast. Emma T seemed terribly static. Her teeth encouraged her to hold the same pose/ expression all the time - something that I found un-nerving after a while from such a usually fantastic actress. (Suspect job of directing caused her to skimp on her own character). Colin Firth seemed totally lost as an undertaker?!!- and I couldn't help thinking Hugh Laurie might have been a better choice.

Overall I thought the film was uneven. The look was inconsistent, and seemed to fall somewhere between Victorian period drama and Charlie and the chocolate factory. The acting was also lumpy - with some being terribly OTT such as Landsbury and Celia Imrie - and others more natural - such as Firth and the servant girl. For a film that much more successfully melds visual and acting styles see 'Lemony Snickerts Unfortunate Events'.

The story itself seemed to be terribly predictable - with no surprises. And the last unforgivable crime for a film with so much UK talent - it's not very funny.

The Painter

[tedg · 14 February 2006]

I admit it. I'm weak. I posture about the incidental contribution of acting to the film enterprise, and then like every other human, I attach my colors to a few of them and follow their artistic lives. In a way, I fall in love.

Oddly, these ones that seduce me aren't necessarily the ones I consider the best, the challenging, lifealtering ones. These women (of course for me they are women) are simply the ones that carefully meld with the forces of the universe and channel them through me. They are my fairy lovers, my guardians, the source of renewal.

This happens when I encounter a film that is intelligently conceived as a saddle for channeling art, with a saddle for the rider. And on that saddle we find someone that knows the score, knows how the machinery of this film works, knows (intuits more likely) how all films work, and knows something about how I work.

This happened for me with "Carrington." It was a simple, layered construction: an artist (the filmmaker) displaying an artist (Emma Thompson) surveying a loved artist from yet another layer, each one unreachable in some ways but the layers penetrated in others.

The thing was constructed for her physical manner. The dialog, as it happens, is ordinary, incidental. I knew in that period of swoon that here was a woman who understood. Here was an actor that not only could create a character, but a film as well. This was someone big enough.

And yes, she did. "Sense and Sensibility" was a triumph of capturing Austin dreaming. And the business about layers in the recent "Pride" must have been hers. Now this.

If I told you the story, you'd gag. As a plot, it is a simple cobbling together of parts from the children's lunchbag, all the way down to a dancing donkey, a pie fight and a Cinderella wedding. But trust me, the story doesn't matter.

The overall shape of the thing is that it is a book being read by a scullery maid, a book that "comes true." At the same time, it is a "Peter Pan" with slightly adjusted context but precisely the same magic. Oh and we last saw this scullery maid as Peter Pan! Both of these notions are exploited by our Emma. She stands in three worlds: the world of the children. (There are several episodes where only she and the children know or recall what has happened.) There's the magical world she came from. More about those two in a moment. And there's the world of us the viewer, which she spends a good half of the time in.

Her magical phrase for us is a simple "Hmm." When she says this, it is not for those around or even for herself, but for us. Her complementary magical phrase, the one that pierces from her magical eye to the world of the kids and their Dad is "I did knock," when of course she hasn't.

What makes all these layers work for us is the way the production design is pulled off. I suppose we have Tim Burton to thank for this particular cinematic device. And it is pulled off much better than in any Burton (or Gilliam) film. Someone had the skill to make the world of the film strange enough to be halfway between reality and McPheeism, but constrained enough that they don't have a humorous identity in themselves.

The last time I saw such architectural sensitivity was in "Casper."

See how that production design in tone carries through the secondary characters. You have Mistress Quickly from Shakespeare, the Mad Duchess cook from Alice in Wonderland, taken straight from the Tenniel etchings (she has it in writing! that the kids cannot enter). Oh, and there's this dance with the dead of our clueless Dad, who literally works with corpses and two Mel Brooks-inspired assistants, who we know are two of the most serious tragic actors alive.

It is all much more subdued than the sharp edges of "Unfortunate Events," and less overtly comic than Burton. It is all there as a sort of expanded costume for our Emma. Our Emma.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The talented Emma Thompson plays an "uglified" Mary Poppins...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 24 December 2010]

NANNY McPHEE is not a perfect film for children or adults, but it does pass the time pleasantly with some gorgeous color photography that has to be seen to be believed. The cinematography is top notch, the Patric Doyle score is full of deft touches, and the cast is impeccable.

But the script seems like a rather patchwork sort of thing, uneven but overall has enough interest to keep anyone entertained with this story of a nanny who assigns herself to take care of a widower's seven unruly children in Victorian England. However, it's not up to the standards that Miss Thomposon imposed on her script for SENSE AND SENSIBILITY.

Emma Thompson has been uglified with warts and a protruding tooth to make sure we don't regard her as another sugar-coated version of Mary Poppins. It's a role she apparently feels comfortable in despite what her fans may think. But she's written a wonderful role for COLIN FIRTH as the father who has absolutely no control over some noisy children, yet manages to keep a cheerful disposition on the surface. He proves adept at playing impish humor and runs away with most of the acting honors.

Angela Lansbury too has been harshly made up sporting an over-sized crooked nose to play the strict Aunt Adelaide and she is strident, foolish and hilarious in the part, obviously not giving a fig what her fans might think of her appearance. Her scenes with Firth are among the most humorous in the film. Derek Jacobi, Imelda Staunton and Kelly Macdonald stand out in vivid supporting roles.

The children are believably rowdy, especially the boy Simon played by Thomas Brodie-Sangster, a mischievous combination of good and evil.

Technically, the film is a marvel to look at--gorgeous outdoor settings and overstuffed interiors in stunning color, and well paced by director Kirk Jones.

How British. Not very good, though.

[siderite · 7/10 · 16 February 2006]

Imagine a cross breed between Harry Potter and Mary Poppins. The nanny from hell comes to take care of some horrible brats that can't be controlled by their almost absent father. She uses magic and cunning to make them like her and obey. In the end, everything is OK and everybody is happy.

"How British", I thought while watching this film. I could have imagined a similar movie with soldiers being abused by their officers in the army while trying to maintain their individuality and losing and then agreeing that it's for the best. In this particular movie, the nanny is well intentioned, but she could have been just as well a child eating witch.

No matter how you try to look at it, the father is a weakling, making too many children when he has no way of supporting them, then having to stand the abhorring attitude of his rich aunt just for the money, while being more interested in his newspaper than in his children. The children are clever and mischievous and I am sure that in the book you get to like them, but in the film they just shift from hellbent to little angels in a matter of minutes. The beautiful maid that has an inferiority complex because she is undereducated manages to get over her complex by... education. The aunt is just plain silly and played by an actress that no one ever liked. The cook is just a walking cliché, just like the evil step mother.

In the end you just feel that you have been force fed lessons of morality that you either didn't want or you already knew. And Emma Thompson, such a great actress, is lost in this movie. She plays beautifully, but, alas, this isn't a great movie.

I Want You, I Need You

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 29 January 2006]

Greetings again from the darkness. This is a very enjoyable story for all ages. Director Kirk Jones (the marvelous "Waking Ned Devine") presents the Emma Thompson adapted screenplay of the "Nurse Matilda" books in an almost live-action cartoon manner. The colors and visuals are delightful without being overwhelming. There are many light moments and nothing that will truly frighten even the youngest kids.

Colin Firth (best known for his romantic comedies) is a widower father of so many kids I couldn't keep track. The evil aunt (played in perfect Cruella Deville mode by Angela Lansbury) has threatened to cut off the allowance if Firth does not re-marry. Of course, the track record of his kids (17 nannies run off) does not bode well for Firth and the splitting of the family seems imminent. Enter Nanny McFee.

Emma Thompson is marvelous as Nanny McFee and brings her "charm" to the task of teaching the children 5 lessons, while claiming no responsibility for anything else they might learn along the way. The kids are all fabulous and the best scenes involve the new Nanny and the mischievous kids. This would not be a real fairy tale without a true love ... Evangeline is played by Kate Winslet look-alike Kelly MacDonald ("Gosford Park" "Finding Neverland"). It is also a bit of a shock to see Oscar nominated ("Vera Drake") actress Imelda Staunton as the stressed out, highly made-up, over-protective cook, Mrs. Blatherwicke.

No great mystery to the story, but it is told and filmed in a very accessible, enjoyable manner. Perfect movie for families although the youngest may struggle a bit with the dialogue.

One of us liked It; The other one...hmmm

[Travis_Moran · 7/10 · 23 February 2006]

by Travis & Annette.

For the most part this was an enjoyable movie. And it's a fine choice for family entertainment.

ANNETTE: Nanny McPhee's character was my favourite. She has excellent stage presence. Mr. Brown was my second choice. He was actually lovable in a puppy-dog sort of way. The kids were cute but not especially notable. They filled out the purpose of the story fine, but I didn't find myself warming to them much.

TRAVIS: This is not my type of movie, but I'll try to be fair about it. I also liked Nanny McPhee the best, but the rest could've easily put me to sleep. I felt the only decent characterisation was McPhee. Kid actors sometimes get on my nerves a bit, and these were an incessant reminder of that fact.

ANNETTE: Once scene in particular seemed a bit out of character for the rest of the movie...the dancing donkey. But I was so enchanted by the snowy wedding scene. I would like to be married like that. I also enjoyed the food fight more than I usually do that type of thing.

TRAVIS: I ain't getting married in the snow! But it wasn't a bad scene. Often during this film, I was very much reminded of "Mary Poppins" and that "Lemony Snicket" movie (both of which I didn't really care about much). Now, if I had kids, I would still feel really good about having em watch this film; But, for me, even tho I feel it's a decent movie, it's just not my genre. Predictably, the food fight was my favourite scene.

Our combined rating was 7 on this.

ANNETTE: I felt this was a good production, with decent acting and a very good story. Great for families. I'm giving it a 9.

TRAVIS: A 5 is about my limit on this type of stuff. Even "Mary Poppins" couldn't get much more out of me even tho it was highly rated. But I will recommend this as a fun family film. If you have kids, give it a shot.

Perfect escapism!

[pam-146 · 9/10 · 9 October 2005]

Saw the film this morning at a Sunday Times preview and I'd like to think that more than a few of you will be eating your words when you see the finished product. It's beautifully put together, with lots of humour, the attractive Colin Firth and many superb performances. Celia Imrie creates a colourful character in Mrs Quickly, Imelda Staunton is fantastic as the cook (Mrs Blatherwick) and Angela Lansbury is expertly cast as Aunt Adelaide (despite the feathered dress making her look like a turkey!) As guessed at on another thread, Nanny McPhee does teach the children - that manners matter, you should be responsible for your actions, and that actions have consequences. It isn't dumbed down, there's certainly no 'dopey dialogue' - and there's also no annoying Americanisms as beset Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.

At first glance, you could imagine Emma Thompson giving a very over the top performance, given the warts, over-sized nose and tooth. Instead she gives a careful and considered performance - everything in the right measure.

Enjoy Nanny McPhee for what it is - a large dose of magical escapism with plenty of laughs for good measure. A few rude words and food fights to keep the kids (and parents) happy, oh and a dancing donkey, but overall a film that is lots of fun. Can't wait for the DVD.

Talking babies are always creepy.

[sivartis · 6/10 · 24 January 2006]

Nanny McFee is unabashedly a fairy tale. It's important to say this up front because if not viewed through the eyes of someone watching a fairy tale, one could conceivably come up with an array of complaints about the film. However, it is a fairy tale, it is obviously trying very much to be a fairy tale, and in that regard, it succeeds admirably.

The film stars Colin Firth as Cedric Brown, the widower father of seven unruly little brats who pride themselves on the speed with which they scare away nannies. They are almost comically naughty, highlighted by an introduction where they pretend to eat their baby sibling in order to get rid of nanny #17. Mr. Brown is at his wits end when he runs out of nannies to hire, and he hears a voice say "Nanny McFee is who you need." It was a bit disappointing when McFee (played perfectly by Emma Thompson, who also wrote the screenplay) shows up at the Brown Manor front door, without any effort on Mr. Brown's part to get her there, but then, it's only a fairy tale. The challenge in the story comes when Brown is given an ultimatum by his wealthy great aunt (Angela Lansbury wonderfully channeling a cranky nearsighted tortoise) to either get married by month's end, thereby providing the children with a necessary mother figure, or cease to receive her monthly stipend, which is all that is keeping the Brown family in their home and together.

Twists and turns are not the goal of Nanny McFee. You know who Mr. Brown is going to marry the moment you see her. You know that the children are going to learn to love Nanny McFee and that she's going to have to leave them when they do. McFee is not about surprises for the viewer. It's about getting lost in a fairy tale. I believe that for the most part, this movie achieves everything it tries to achieve. I only wish I had been able to enjoy it with a niece or nephew, to get their point of view. My guess is, kids will love it. Mary Poppins it isn't. It doesn't have the depth, and it feels heavy-handed at times (well, most of the time). At some points McFee seems too colorful, the gags too cartoony. Plus, Mary Poppins was smart enough not to have a talking baby in it, and I'm sorry, fairy tale or no, talking babies are always creepy.

Besides that small flaw, and a really loud presentation at my theater, I enjoyed Nanny McFee. It's definitely aimed at the kids, but grownups won't be completely uninterested watching it. The performances by everyone in the cast were fantastic, with special kudos going to the children. Finding seven children who can convincingly play their roles is challenging to say the least. A standout from the young group is Thomas Sangster (Love Actually) as the ringleader older brother Simon, the last to accept Nanny McFee into his heart (awww….). The film has a satisfying final scene but never answers the question; who is Nanny McFee? Well, it's either a good conversation starter for the family or a question to be answered in the sequel.

Ugh no.....

[FireAngel2 · 2/10 · 21 February 2006]

I did not like this movie. I mean, it was so predictable. I just knew the guy (I forgot his name, so in this review he will be known as "the dude") wasn't going to marry Mrs Quickly, and two minutes into the movie I knew there was love between Evangeline and the dude and they were going to get married. And then the snow turned Evangeline's dress into a totally different wedding gown. What was up with that? And the way the mothers rattle just fell from the sky...it was just so fantasy-fluffy-fairy tale. You know, just too cotton candy. Half the time I was like "huh?!?", and the other half I was rolling my eyes at how corny it was. The whole thing was just kinda cheesy.

Extremely Colorful, A Fun Film Enchanced By Emma's Title Role

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 14 August 2007]

This was a pleasant surprise, much better than I anticipated. I figured Emma Thompson would be good in the title role because you can usually count on her to be entertaining in form or another, cerebrally, emotionally or comically. What I didn't figure on was the fun, extremely colorful story, overall. This was like a banana split for your senses - all kinds of wild treats for the eyes and ears.....to taste, so to speak.

This film features outrageous color schemes from the word "go," from the interior of the "Brown's" house, to everyone's apparel to the scenery outside. It almost reminded me "The Cat In The Hat" with its crazy colors.

All the characters are as exaggerated as the colors, too. The kids may be brats but they aren't bad once they get some needed discipline and love from Nanny McPhee. They are still fun to watch, and all are quite different in appearance and mannerisms. Thompson is a howl as Mary Poppins-like McPhee and so are the supporting characters. There were no sappy songs, either. This is not a musical.

The only character annoying to me was the kids' dad, played by Colin Firth. The actor was fine but his character was so wishy-washy, so wussy, he was barely tolerable for much of the film. By the way, you might not recognize the famous Angela Lansbury in here. Everyone, including her, must have had a great time filming this movie.

Only the final wedding segment got carried away with juvenile silliness; the rest was fun for adults and well as the kids, who must have loved this all the way through.

This is simply good entertainment and highly recommended.

Emma Thompson brings magic for all the family.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 15 April 2010]

17 governesses have tried to run widower Mr. Brown's house, all have fled after being terrorised by his out of control children. Enter the mysterious and unsightly Nanny McPhee, whose magical timing could not be more apt.

Emma Thompson adapts from a series of books written by Christianna Brand known as the Nurse Matilda stories. Directed by Kirk Jones (Waking Ned), Nanny McPhee is a delightfully funny family adventure that should hopefully cheer the bluest of hearts. With a very old fashioned ethic at its heart, the film loads in some modern day tricks and eye pleaser's and washes it in vibrant colours. Set in some unnamed place, the film is like a fusion of Alice In Wonderland and Mary Poppins with a slice of Love Actually thrown in for the adults.

Thompson takes the lead role and has a blast with it, it seems that McPhee is a role she has waited a long time for. Attacking it with gusto yet constantly having a cheeky glint in her eye, Thompson is just perfect and it comes as no surprise to learn that the sequel is imminent. The rest of the cast keep it fun, Colin Firth as Mr. Brown is playing it as Colin Firth does, elegant yet borderline soft, and Imelda Staunton is revelling in playing the almost nut case Brown family cook. Then there is Celia Imrie's horrid Mrs Quickly, big hair, big smile and big bosom, her scenes in the last quarter are quality comedy, while the beautiful Kelly Macdonald impacts with what is the crucial, yet small, role. The kids are not sickly or annoying, led by Love Actually's Thomas Sangster, director Jones deserves much credit for bringing them all together to engage and entertain without pointless histrionics.

But this is Thompson's show, a memorable turn in what is clearly a source subject close to her heart. 7/10

Where is Julie Andrews when you really need her?

[Buddy-51 · 4/10 · 6 July 2006]

Except for the fact that the characters don't break out into song at regular intervals, "Nanny McPhee" is a weird hybrid between "Mary Poppins" and "The Sound of Music" (hereafter to be referred to as MP and TSOM), with an uglied-up Emma Thompson replacing the anything-but-ugly Julie Andrews in the lead role.

Miss McPhee is a British nanny with magical powers who arrives unannounced at the doorstep of one Mr. Brown (MP), a widower with seven unruly children (TSOM) who, due to business and financial pressures (MP) and grief over his wife's death (TSOM), has been rather neglectful of his progeny of late (both MP and TSOM). The children have successfully driven away all the town's employable nannies with their precocity and unruly behavior (MP and TSOM), but could they have finally met their match in the mysterious Nanny McPhee? There's also a subplot about Brown bringing home an odious woman to be a new mother to the children and their attempts to sabotage the effort that has "The Sound of Music" written all over it. And the final scene is such an unabashed and shameless rip-off of the closing moments (albeit sans umbrellas and kites) of "Mary Poppins" that I can't believe there aren't grounds for a copyright-infringement lawsuit here.

Since "Nanny McPhee" has stolen virtually every one of its plot points from those two previously mentioned classics, it's hard not to weigh this film against the originals and to find "Nanny McPhee" wanting in every respect. This is a drab, cheerless film filled with overdrawn caricatures and unappealing visuals. Nanny McPhee, replete with uni-brow, hairy warts and a prominent buck tooth, is herself so physically repulsive that she is liable to give impressionable youngsters nightmares for months afterwards. And buried under all that restrictive and distracting makeup, Emma Thompson can't even begin to deliver anything like a full-bodied, well-rounded performance. Of course, since she herself wrote the screenplay (based on the books by Christianna Brand), she probably has no one to blame but herself for her predicament. Pity, instead, poor Colin Firth and Angela Lansbury, fine performers who seem to be marking time waiting for some better roles to come along.

My big question when it comes to "Nanny McPhee" is why settle for this cheap knock-off when the originals are readily available and so much better?