Emma Thompson takes aim at two different Julie Andrews vehicles with her children’s film “Nanny McPhee.” While her new nanny will be remembered as the “ugly Mary Poppins,” Ms. Thompson’s tale has a lot in common with the other of Ms. Andrews’s nanny films, “The Sound of Music.” Mixing the two tales gives “Nanny McPhee” a general whiff of fun and fairy tale, but leaves the film lacking either the moral lesson of the former or the emotional satisfaction of the latter.

Like Mary Poppins before her, the titular character of “Nanny McPhee” sweeps into the lives of her host family like the wind. Both nannies use magic to solve their family’s problems, and then, just as quickly, they are gone. Unlike Julie Andrews’s charming and elegant Mary Poppins, Emma Thompson (who adapted the screenplay from the “Nurse Matilda” series and stars here) is an atrocious site as Nanny McPhee. She has a ghastly appearance – set off by her one “terrible tooth” and various warts.

At the outset of the film it is not clear that she is a force for good. In this sense, McPhee is something of a throwback to the original Mary Poppins of P.L. Travers’s books. But Ms. Thompson is an endearing presence as Nanny McPhee, and she also wins over the children. By the end of the film, she may even have achieved the Poppins-esque task of being “practically perfect in every way.”

But where Mary Poppins used magic as an entertainment, to teach lessons that could easily be translated to good old human parenting, Nanny McPhee uses it as a means of control. Whenever the Banks children act out, she punishes them with magic. It’s amusing as wish fulfillment for adults to watch the CGI effects torture the children, but children won’t learn any valuable lesson.

In fact, they won’t learn much of anything from the movie. While it shares the conventional mores of both “Mary Poppins” and “Sound of Music” – in particular the idea of the nuclear family as the best way to keep unruly children in line – it conflates those films’ plots in a way that nullifies the morals of both.

Mary Poppins healed the divide in the Banks family by teaching Mr. Banks to pay more attention to his family and by making Mrs. Banks give up her pursuits outside her family – namely, her activism as a suffragette – to focus on being a stay-at-home mother. It is clear at the beginning of the film that their parents’ neglect is causing the Banks children to act out. By teaching the elder Banks the rewards of paying more attention to their children, the character of Mary Poppins teaches the family a lesson that audiences could take home to their own families.

“Nanny McPhee,” though, presents a family in the mold of the von Trapps in “The Sound of Music” – a group of “unusually naughty” children with no mother. Maria filled the gap in the von Trapp family, and re-created a successful group by winning Mr. Von Trapp’s affection. But Nanny McPhee looks to find a mate for the overmatched widower Cedric Brown (Colin Firth). The problem is, the audience (and the children) have has become far more attached to Nanny McPhee than his new bride – as nice as she is. Through the process of re-creating their nuclear family, Nanny McPhee also manages to tame his children.

Somehow, this process further cements the odd Victorian values of the film. Mr. Brown is only seeking a wife to please his benefactress, Great Aunt Adelaide (Angela Lansbury), who threatens to withhold her aid unless he finds a mother for his unruly horde. Rather than look for a way for his large brood to get by without the help of var ious waitstaff and governesses, Mr. Brown kowtows to the demands of society and looks for a woman – any woman – to marry. And Nanny McPhee is glad to help in this process.

And then she leaves. As she warned the children on her arrival: “When you need me but do not want me, I shall stay. When you want me, but do not need me, I must go.” And the lack of a coherent message – aside from “be good” – in “Nanny McPhee” makes the film a fleeting whimsy, meant to entertain during its runtime and then be quickly forgotten.

***

Silly Rachel (Piper Perabo). She decided to marry Heck (Matthew Goode) because he was her best friend. But on her way down the aisle, she fell in love – at first sight – with fair Luce (Lena Headey), leaving the poor girl to confront the great debate of this film.

Is it possible for love to grow gradually, or is it an unstoppable force that starts from the moment you meet the person you’re meant to be with?

Set in London and replete with young, shiny Brit wits, “Imagine Me & You” sets out to prove that if you’re young enough, cute enough, and attempt to be witty enough, no one cares what kind of person you are. (Also see Julia Roberts in “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and Hugh Grant in “Two Weeks Notice.”)

“Imagine Me & You” is so hell-bent on getting Rachel and Luce together that it forgets to add a little logic to the mix. For instance, why does Rachel bother to marry Hector? The only thing that ties her to him is her repeated insistence that he is her “best friend.” But doesn’t she realize the best thing about best friends is you don’t need to marry them?

As far as the moral equivalence of the film – these girls cannot be faulted for ruining a marriage because love at first sight must trump all else – well, what about the gilted husband? He fell for Rachel when they first met. But I guess as a man, he has less claim to Rachel’s heart.

And his complacent reaction – or that of every other character in the film – to the love of his life dumping him for a chick, are we to think he can’t get too upset at his wife leaving him because it is for another woman?

But maybe the filmmakers don’t think good old Heck is in such bad shape; after all, he’ll meet someone who loves him back one day. And besides, Rachel’s new girlfriend is pretty hot. Maybe they’ll let him watch.

mkeane@nysun.com