Mary Poppins is, as we know, practically perfect in every way.

So, too, is Mary Poppins, the classic 1964 film about a magical governess that still stands today as a masterpiece of musical cinema.

Mary Poppins Returns is ... well, it's not practically perfect, but it's about as close as you can get without rejuvenating Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke, the stars of the original film and the source of much of its magic.

The first movie is simply delightful, a translation of the P.L. Travers book and its title character to the big screen in a way that might not have pleased the author, but certainly thrilled generations of viewers.

You know the story, but let's recap. George and Winifred Banks (David Tomlinson and Glynis Johns) live in 1910s London, where he, a banker, and she, a suffragette, distantly raise their children with the help of a nanny. When the children, Jane and Michael (Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber), drive the nanny away with their mischief, Mr. Banks begins enquiries for a respectable disciplinarian to keep the children in line. What he gets instead is Mary Poppins (Andrews).

She, with the gleeful aid of chimney sweep Bert (Van Dyke), takes the children on magical adventures, full of memorable songs, improbable events and lots of laughter. In the process Poppins also reignites a bit of youthful glee in Mr. Banks, reconnecting him with his children ... which was likely her aim all along.

One can't say enough about the marvelous performances by Andrews and Van Dyke, whose singing and dancing are just wonderful. Andrews also is a master of a certain aloofness that masks her deeply caring spirit -- and she carries a bigger-on-the-inside carpet bag that is just one of the several reasons to believe that Poppins just might be a Time Lord.

The songs, of course, are unforgettable.

It's been more than a half-century since the movie's release, and it's still every bit as much fun as it was the first time I saw it. I truly loved sharing it with my kids who, at age 7, were completely swept up in its dazzle (and quickly memorized how to say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"). If you know a child -- or, let's be honest, a grownup -- who hasn't seen it, please introduce them to it as quickly as possible. And if it has been a while for you, treat yourself and have another look.

That brings us to Mary Poppins Returns, the 2018 sequel that borrows from Travers' later books but also veers sharply from them as well. (Some say -- and, not having read them, I don't know -- that this version of Poppins is closer to Travers' intentions.) In this story, Jane and Michael (Emily Mortimer and Ben Whishaw) are adults; Michael is widowed, with three young children of his own, and he lives in the house he grew up in, while Jane is single, an activist for workers' rights and the children's beloved auntie who just happens to be visiting when disaster strikes.

Michael is something of a dreamer, a would-be artist who's been lost since his wife's death, and despite a job at this father's old bank, he's about to lose the house because of a defaulted loan. An unscrupulous banker (Colin Firth) who hides evidence of Michael's long-lost bank shares brings the family to the brink of ruin ... until Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) returns on a kite to watch the children and, as she does, set things right. Of course, there are also plenty of whimsical adventures, which she often takes with the help of lamplighter Jack (a jovial Lin-Manuel Miranda), a protege of old Bert.

There are lots of wonderful nods to the original movie, from the nearly-punctual admiral next door and a brief glimpse of the old woman selling bird seed outside St. Paul's Cathedral to Mary's self-admiring reflection, her talking parrot-head umbrella and, of course, her bigger-on-the-inside carpet bag. There's even a throwaway line to let us know that old Bert is doing well for himself these days.

The songs and dance routines are good without being as memorable as the originals; I enjoyed the music thoroughly and yet none of the tunes stuck in my head. (Go on, just try to shake "A Spoonful of Sugar" out of your craw once it gets going.)

Blunt is about as good a Mary Poppins as one could expect without actually cloning Andrews. She is prim and ever so proper, but still has the air of fun that Poppins keeps burbling under the surface. I've read that Andrews herself gave Blunt's performance a stamp of approval, and I can see why -- and yet, she's not Andrews, and something indefinable is missing. Miranda, too, is a good working-class stand-in for Van Dyke -- his singing is fantastic and he brings a real sense of fun to the role -- but Van Dyke has a certain magic about him that cannot be denied. (I'd have to say Miranda does the better accent, however....)

I question the need to introduce so obvious a villain to the film -- Poppins in 1964 made do quite nicely without one -- but at least it's not too intrusive. Michael's financial woes certainly bring a bit of drama to the storyline ... but, again, it's not really necessary. Neither is the budding romantic storyline, which is sweet in its way but still entirely superfluous.

Mary Poppins Returns is really an excellent film, and I suspect most children will be delighted with it. But it doesn't capture the aura of wonder that its predecessor still evokes today.

Bottom line: Both movies are worth watching, but if you can only choose one, stick with the original.