Citizen Kane (1941)

Emily: Really Charles, people will think...
Charles: ...what I tell them to think.

Well it is true. I didn't think it would be.  But we all live in a post-Citizen Kane cinematic world. Having never seen it before, I tried to withhold judgement, but I failed. Each and every shot is designed, planned, positioned, and perfected. It was like watching a clip show of films I am now aware copied it. Source material is so vibrant. 

It's hard to describe the concept that modern viewers are programmed to respond to certain tropes, cuts, blurs, and omissions. We all implicitly understand the underlying storytelling structures of the media around us. Think of it like different eras of music. Baroque, Classical, Romantic, the Blues, Jazz, etc. The people of the time just got it. And 78 years later, I still just simply get it. Citizen Kane is the Brocca divide between the classical cinematic world and the blues. It established the 12 bars. 

Everything from bleeding images, films within films, low angle shots, shadow work -#Dontcolorize- 360 positioning, time cuts, and more built a new language. A cinematic framework that flows. 

The cinematography and directing set it apart, but the additions of a sharp script, wonderful acting, and the sad/poignant mystery of rosebud, make Citizen Kane an iconic classic. 

4.39 out of 5 stars

Spirited Away (2001)

"A human! You're in trouble!" -Lin

Here are few haiku's the express my thoughts on Spirited Away

Capitalism
Greed was death to the Kami
Rivers don't return

Could we be the pigs?
Does a trough fill our spirit?
Insatiable hole

Childhood ends in choice
The looking glass goes one-way
"Hei-sei" not "Rei-Wa"

In short, Spirited away is deep and wonderfully strange. 18 years on it is still jarring and relevant. Thought I am not sure how children feel about it. I'd have to ask them. I was not a child at the time, and that sensibility has not returned.

4.19 out of 5 stars.

Django Unchained (2012)

Calvin Candie: You, sir, are a sore loser. 
Dr. King Schultz: And you are an abysmal winner.

I like Tarantino films. I'd be saving this one. Lot's of people, who's opinions I respect, say this is one of his better films. And after watching, I admit that anything Tarantino directs rises of above schlock and into serious consideration. And the quality is HIGH. Unfortunately, when I compare Django Unchained to this other films, pre and post. It's not one I would revisit.  Top class, not top shelf.  Perfectly reasonable to disagree. 

Here's why? 

1. It's too self-aware
1. There are times and films where lines/decisions that slightly break the 4th wall or are taken for the gratification of the audience are wonderful. I think that Django proved a little too serious to benefit from those call outs unlike say "From Dusk till Dawn". 
2. Incongruous music
1. Having recently revisited Reservoir Dogs, where in a 1990s movie has a 1970's soundtrack. I love it. Even a Knight's Tale weirdly works. And I admit that "I've Got a Name." does capture an emotion...I don't think that's the bar for Django. Era or even closer era music might have been a step up.  This all a long way of saying that the song choice broke my beta mode of watching Django. 
3. The feeling of a lack of research
1. I am not questioning that Quentin Tarantino didn't do research in preparation for Django, I just think -emphasis on the think-that it involved more watching 1950-70's Westerns and 1970 Blacksploitation films. He's done this before. Unfortunately, Django might have benefited from slightly more era specific understandings.  Maybe he did. But, I didn't feel like it. (ahhhh feelings.)

There was much to love though.

1. I think this might be my favorite Sam Jackson performance. 
2. Leonardo DiCaprio was lost in the performance. And that was the amazing thing. 
1. It's very compelling to see racism depicted not as pure cruelty but cruelty in the amoral pursuit of capital and the defense of the status quo.  There is no other way. Racism/slavery IS the only option and cruelty is the only process to achieve perpetuity.  "Candyland will be here forever."
3. Jamie Foxx's outfits. -great costuming. 

4.0 out of 5 stars. 

Avengers: Endgame

SPOILERS

Steve Rogers: You know, I saw a pod of whales when I was coming up the bridge. 

Natasha Romanoff: In the Hudson?

Steve Rogers: There’s fewer ships, cleaner water.

Natasha Romanoff: You know, if you’re about to tell me to look on the bright side, um, I’m about to hit you in the head with a peanut butter sandwich.

Steve Rogers: Sorry. Force of habit.

How do yo review only an ending? It would be like reviewing only the last 45 pages of a Robert Jordan book that's in the middle of The Wheel of Time series? Is that even possible?

Oh and that quote, I like it, but, it broke my concentration on the film because as far as I know whales can't live in freshwater like the Hudson. I checked at least 3 sources on the internets...I know, I know, not authoritative...and searched for distinctions between fresh and brackish water as the Hudson is a tidal estuary in places, but no where did anyone say that whales can live in freshwater.

Endgame was satisfying for those who were invested and seen all the other parts, enjoyable for those who are casual observers, and a remarkable production feat. And yet here's me not impressed by a stunning achievement; breathtaking in its scope, unsurpassed in its planning, meticulously written for each and every actor/character. I loved every second in the theater. There's even a MAC grad featured heavily #HeyMAC. But after consideration, I look for more in a movie. (And, of course, more MAC grads #HireMAC) 

Very little is wrong with Endgame and I am the one who is flawed...but such is the way of reviews.

My critiques:

1. By knowing they are going to win, we diminish the cathartic release. 
1. There was a trailer for the next Spiderman movie as a trailer.
2. I know that's basically impossible to keep a secret...but without even the attempt everything seems to be going through the motions for me as the audience....excellent acting, writing or production aside. 
2. I hate to sound like a SLATE writer, but the girl power assemble montage moment felt forced.
1. Force may be necessary to break through the feelings of a mass audience which includes me...and I approve of the tactic....but the indelicate nature of the moment overshadowed any impact. -feel free to apply a discount rate to my opinions as you see fit given my age, gender, socio-economic status, race, anything else you feel. I won't mind. 
3. I'm not sure that I noticed a greater theme beyond sacrifice. 
1. In the Infinity War, The Avengers were incapable of sacrifice. Over and over. In Endgame they were. Over and over. If that is the lesson to take from the combination, I have to ask; is that it? 
1. I maybe and most definitely am jaded, but I find that telling a large audience that the ability to sacrifice makes the difference between victory and defeat, morally simplistic.
1. I agree with the thesis statement, but without making concrete illusions to ways in which the thesis can be applied by the millions seeing Endgame is a bit of a waste. It will certainly have positive impact. Alerting people to this strategic moral position is a net benefit. But the lack of Call to Action -even if subtle- matters.
2. I once had a vision of someone running for President with the tagline of #Sacrifice.  I like it. Probably not a vote winner. 
4. Time Travel has been foretold....told...told...told. 
1. I love a good time travel movie.  I love even a bad time travel movie. Endgame was doing its best to not be cliche in the use of time travel, while still benefiting from it as  magical solution for the writers. Audience can only go fly into the past so many times before it's not old or new or new, old or old old or old, new; it's just been done.
1. On the plus side, Endgame did make a point of refining how audiences think about time travel in the future because time travel debates are a favorite of theorists and fans everywhere. 
2. On the minus side, the justifications for how it works were paper thin and no attempt was made to overcome that. 
1. I guess I and other audiences don't need explanation, just time travel. 
5. The entrance of Capt. Marvel was jarring
1. I think they just took for granted that you saw the post credit sequences of both Infinity Wars and Capt. Marvel. Which is a reasonable assumption, I guess. But for those who hadn't, her introduction was from out of no where. Just, boom, Iron Man is saved. And then she wasn't properly introduced. 
6. I absolutely got Battle Fatigue
1. There are ways to make a battle continuously interesting on film. So as to not become monotonous. The final battle sequence pushed into the fatigue stage with me. Only a little, but it was still enough. I had the chance to look up and around, crack my neck and think; "Their still fighting..". 

My little nitpicks don't matter. And not being able to illicit fundamental positive change in one's audience is an insurmountable standard. That I even held out hope, should say all you need to know about the quality of Endgame. 

Avenger Endgame, gave us the heroes everyone wanted. It just so happened that I wanted the heroes I think we need. 

3.8 out of 5 stars

  

Margin Call (2011)

"There are 3 ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat" -John Tuld

So I may be on a bit of a 2008 financial crisis kick, but it felt strange to not watch a counterpart to Too Big to Fail. They both came out in 2011. They both revolve around the amoral quandaries of business.

To start, without question Margin Call is superior to Too Big to Fail; acting, writing, pacing, dialogue, drama, directing, everything. I tip my cap to Zachary Quinto.

So for one thing, I appreciate at the care of the writers to abandon the "true story" aspect of the financial crisis.  Ken Burns will do the definitive documentary of the financial crisis some day and I look forward to it, but until that time my preference is for unrestrained art from writers.

At its core I took Margin Call to be about the amorality of strategy and money. In 2019, it's a little strange to be getting that message from Kevin Spacey, but it was 2011 and it works. The problem here isn't that the company survives...in fact that's the goal...it's that the moment they KNOW that what they are selling is toxic, it's immoral to sell it to someone else, especially without warning them of its putrescence. It's an abdication of culpability to the whole. -which is often a byproduct of "good" business strategy.

And it's in the grappling with the fundamental change of asset to liability of a given product that Margin Call delivers drama. "What should we do?"

3.68 out of 5

Too Big to Fail (2011)

Michele Davis : [horrified]  The *whole* financial system? And what do I say when they ask me why it wasn't regulated?

Henry Paulson : No one wanted to. We were making too much money.

In an otherwise blah affair that was recapping the financial crisis of 2008, a spark of joy was to be found. William Hurt as Henry Paulson.

As a business person, I see a lot of potential for drama in the financial crisis. But that may be a minority opinion. The drama is there if one is willing to be creative and truthful to the point of the your story.  But if you feel that you have to be truthful to the timeline, the players that people have heard of due to the recency of the events, then much that is worthy of good acting etc. must be sacrificed.

Such is the fate of Too Big To Fail....I  kept thinking of 2 Fast 2 Furious and wondered if anyone else was thinking they had similar titles that might confuse a certain percentage of potential viewers. -Aw man where are the cars?!  2B2F ultimately had too many cooks, too many known actors that needed screentime, and a time budget that was not made for a feature film viewing.

I know this because, characters were introduced with overlays of type for their name. Bill Pullman, James Wood, Paul Giamatti, Tony Shalhoub, Topher Grace, Cynthia Nixon, Ed Asner, and more. I was Paul Giamatti won the SAG award for his Ben Bernanke, but in my eye William Hurt was a cut above.

If you don't understand the mechanics of the 2008 financial crisis there are much better, simpler, stories out there. If you wanted more drama from a story about the financial crisis, there better, more poignant tales available.  All in all 2B2F is a middling middle of mediocrity with capable actors and a exceptional William Hurt.

3.0 out of 5 stars

Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

"I really hate Paris." -Gellert Grindelwald

In a rare feat, a sequel is better than the original. It's an even more remarkable because both films are atrocious. FB:CoG is better than FB:aWTFT -fight me.  But they are both horrible.

I was on a plane and it seemed like the time.  That is my excuse.

In this contest of ingrate siblings, no one wins. Not even Harry Potter fans.

Crimes of Grindelwald debuted 5+ new characters, went a into story that didn't make sense regarding a character briefly mentioned in the first Fantastic Beasts, wasted all the would be joy of magical Paris in 1923. It also butchered the Anakin and Padme level romance between Queenie (who I have no particular reason to hate...but I do) and Jacob. *He's a muggle. I don't care that I'm an American and have to use the trashy "No-Mag" nomenclature. pbhhhhh*

The creatures I didn't find interesting, the larger plot was purely for the long con, and basically all perfomances were wooden. It is the definition of a slog. I looked at my watch and my surroundings often. -and I was on a plane.

To JK Rowling:  I've read all the HP book several times and got happily lost. Thank you for them. Without maligning or disrespecting your talent, I think a book treatment of these stories was in order before any movies. Without books they're just ghosts of what we loved done with the minimum we required to be interested.

2.1 out of 5 stars

Dumbo (2019)

V. A. Vandevere: Is that a monkey in your desk?
[Medici opens his desk drawer, a monkey is holding a drink flask]
Max Medici: Just for emergencies.

If Tim Burton is involved, it's high percentage, I'll see it.  No one else quite masters the visual, the grotesque, the comic, the opaque, and the bizarre like Tim Burton. I sort of wish that other people payed me to exorcise my demons on screen too.

And for Tim, -and yes we are on a first name basis-  Dumbo presented a unique challenge. It's a remake. It's also a film with the hero, villain, and director of Batman Returns.

Normally, I harp on remakes. They generally do not appease. They are unnecessary. New statements should be make rather than hashes. Yada yada yada. But, in the case of Dumbo, I am willing to entertain that this cover is unique from the original while being faithful. Which is high praise.

Dumbo is a sad movie.  And thus, I am perfectly content that it remained a sad movie. It's about ostracization, group think, family separation, empathy, animal cruelty, and racism. These are not happy topics. Even the circus is not actually a joyous place -in today's society.

I am not huge fan of allegory, but even I couldn't help but see the connection between V.A. Vandevere and Walt Disney. (This is not coincidently a  Walt Disney Production.) Breaking with many of the outlandishly racist parts of the original, Tim had to take the story elsewhere, and his choice was to bite the the hand that feeds him. To make it seem as if Disney stifles wonder in favors of power, luster, money, and fame.

1. I am surprised that Disney let this happen. It's a not every company that release critique of itself. 
1. I wonder if this is Tim's response to Marvel and the internalizeing of Pixar etc. 
1. When one suckles at the teat of conglomerates, how is one to shine light on their flaws? 
2. Maybe Disney meant to do this to deflect criticisms. "Yeah...sure Tim....go ahead and make an allegory portraying our magical founder and parks as hollow, poorly run illusions, that distract from the truly magical." All the while knowing that they would get respect for allowing it rather than criticism for their practices. 
1. I doubt it, but that would be diabolical.

So, I recommend Dumbo for the following reasons. 

1. Time Burton letting a sad cruel movie be sad and navigating homage with individualism. 
2. Danny DeVito
3. *and this strange to me* Collin Farrell -wonderful job
4. if you wanted to pay Disney to stick it to Disney. 
5. Pink elephants go on parade!

3.83 out of 5 stars 

Vertigo (1958)

Madeleine Elster/Judy Barton: Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere.

John "Scottie" Ferguson: How about a drink? -or some variation over and over.


Jimmy Stewart looks better in black and white. He just does.

I'm hesitant to lavish praise on what is widely considered a classic because I don't think there is much I can say that hasn't already been said by critics, students, professors, bloggers, etc in the 61 years since its release. At this point, my pronouncement of its worth is lost long before I write it. Suffice it to say, Vertigo is worth the watch.

 But, I would be remiss if I didn't remark on the effect it has had on my thought process. It got me to think about legacy, temporal truths vs self-evident ones, and mostly obsession.

A hypothetical question: how would you want an audience or a critic to react to you on screen 60 years from now?  Is it even worth it to try and meet a vague future's expectations? If you do that, what about the views of the present?

A quick trip to Wikipedia on Vertigo told me that it barely broke even on initial release. So, then why are we all so obsessed with it? It's returns were meh..and 1958 audiences felt the same.  Well one answer could be that the audience changed between release and its revival. Hitchcock may have been trying to connect with his present but hit the bullseye on a future Zeitgeist.  The question is was it intentional?

So why did the audience feel differently about male-obsession in the mid 1960s then they did in 1958?  Which is closer to how we feel now? I don't know. My first thought is simply that the 1960s and feminism, changed the landscape of critics and the audience. The proliferation of violence and young obsessive behavior merited a reevaluation to Hitchcock's understanding of it.

My last thought was that it's far easier to follow through on obsessive behavior today than in 1958.  We all should know. It's called social media. In 1958, you had to work at it hard and it showed that you followed through. Now you just follow their instagram.

You know it's a dark entry when Hitchcockian hallucinations are our reality.

4.2 out of 5 stars.  

Captain Marvel (2019)

"I have nothing to prove to you." -Carol Danvers

Captain Marvel was well made and completely acceptable. That's pretty much it.

It's a small part of a greater tapestry that  I mostly consider art. But individually, it's just a cog.

Points in favor:

-Annette Bening is a super cool choice for the Supreme Intelligence.
-They didn't have to sell that it was the 1990's through specific dialogue.
  "Yo man, It's 1995!"

I'll still totally go see Marvel movies but I think we're past reviewing each one for individual merits.  I leave the window open for future points...but meh. Captain Marvel was completely forgettable were it not part of the MCU.

2.7 out of 5 stars.

The Hunt For Red October (1990)

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: Oh, yes.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.

In what I consider a strange hole in my knowledge and movie catalog.  I had never seen The Hunt For Red October (THFRO). Never. Not on TNT. Never. I've always known of it, but it just never was a priority, I guess.

It's been 30 years since the filming, and much has changed, Alec Baldwin especially. But what grated on me was how much less scared I was/am of an outside threat to national security. So.. spoilers...The Russians develop a new kind of submarine propulsion that is silent. (It isn't. Courtney B Vance can just hear it, apparently.) And with that silent system Soviets could, without warning, launch atomic missiles at the United States. This is the terror that is to be averted by the intrepid Jack Ryan.

As plot devices go, Tom Clancy knows how to push national threat, espionage, and a very small amounts of heroism into a decent mix for a current audience about to get into the Gulf War. Unfortunately, for me, it didn't age well and in hindsight it reeks of nationalism.

Now to what I noticed.  I am jaded and not at all afraid of national security threats or terrorism -especially when those concerns are the driving force behind a narrative. I might be alone in this. But I am just not frightened or even scared of these things. -maybe if it was a current film...but even then.

Am I a monster for not being invested emotionally in the security and lives of my fellow citizens or of other humans across the board? I am not sure. The national security threat, terrorism threat, story is now so over done in my history of media consumption that it is basically meaningless.  I no longer care -at least in story sense- about the potential of a terrorist threat or security calamity. I think each of us has witnessed at least 1-2 crimes against humanity in terms of death and violence on screen and all that's happened for me is a lessening of the impact. Yikes!  This is perhaps the scariest thought I've had on this blog.  Pro-longed exposure to existential threat only lessens fear and empathy.

So, THFRO is a decent film that is no longer impactful in any sense. Other than seeing an all-star cast then and now.

2 final points:
-Stellan Skarsgard makes a pretty great Russian commander.
-Basil Poledouris should just have been hired for more soundtracks.  -Bravo

3.1 out of 5 stars

-So consider also that this film came out as the Soviet Union was crumbling. When the media restrictions fell and movies flooded into Russia.  THFRO would have been 1 of the first.  How might the Russians feel about it?

The Catcher Was a Spy (2018)

William J. Donovan : You're an unusual man Mr. Berg, you speak 7 languages, you're an athlete, you're more than up to the physical requirements of the job...

I'm on a bit of a streak of picking films that just leave me feeling incomplete. And so it continues.

For me it, it was like The Catcher Was a Spy went out of its way to not focus on the interesting, captivating, story that was being presented. In fact, they had Jeff Daniels state the exact opposite of what would be captivating. "if there's a 1% chance of imminent doom then we go stop it..."  But, that statement means that the whole story is after a 1% check-in. The really good guys were being sent on missions with much more credible impact. Poor structure if there ever was.

But worse, was that with the lack of investment, the final decision, by Mo Berg, lacked any impact or sense of closure. The film just stopped and evaporated like a smoke into a Parisian night. 

But, Paul Rudd makes a good go of a dramatic performance.  I think he should continue down this path for his career.

Bottom-line, design and structure doomed this film, there was nothing solid execution could do.

2.8 out of 5 stars. 

RBG (2018)

"I'm very similar to the Notorious BIG; we're both from Brooklyn." -Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It's a bit of a praise bio. I'm of the opinion that she deserves praise, but if you were interested in a more nuanced understanding of her cases, her legal scholarship, etc.  -Which I am- then RBG will leave you a bit underwhelmed.

For those who are unfamiliar with the workings of the US Supreme Court and the positions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I highly suggest RGB.  If you just want to revel in the career and impact of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I suggest RGB.  If you just hate RGB, yeah you should watch it.

That said. It's not a particularly inspired biographical film.

3.4 out of 5 stars.

Chappaquiddick (2018)

"The bay of pigs was better a better run operation." -Robert McNamara

In a very brave bit of decision making the John Curran,  Chappaquiddick's director, chose to pull the curtain back on half of Roshomon. The payoff could be huge if we accept that the events presented in the film are both real and made up....and that a person has the ability to curtail aspects of both in to a singular version moving forward that is agreed upon.  -history is just a bunch of agreed upon lies.

Unfortunately, the gamble did not pay off. Even a solid cast,  decent writing, and a very good performance by Jason Clarke could not over come the fatal flaw of this unreal telling of alternative history. It is not in the nature of the audience to be highly informed and most expect Hitchcockian directives on what to think. This is my opinion with regard to mass appeal.

Thus, Chappaquiddick ended up meaning very little, historically, theatrically, emotionally, et all. If I hadn't been in the minority that wanted to know a little more about the historical events, it may have tanked harder. Curiosity is not a great motivator for selecting/going out to see a film.  It's enough when you are stuck on a plane though.

Clancy Brown. Please be in more things.  Please voice more things. I consider you a consummate professional actor.

2.4 out of 5 stars.

In an alternate reality, I would like to make a Roshomon film about Chappaquiddick. First, we'd watch Kennedy's version, then we'd watch Ms. Kopechne's version through a medium, then we'd watch from the perspective of Joe Gargan.

Vice (2018)

"What do we believe?" -Dick Cheney

In sort of a strange tribute to nihilism, Adam McKay created a bracing portrait of Dick Cheney.  And its utter garbage.  And that's the point. So, well done......? But, also....No, No, No, No, No, This absurdist farce is like gum from one's shoe on the wall at the MET. And thus, as a film, I think it fails utterly.  As a bold faced critique of current American reality, I expect film schools in 20 years (if those will even exist...) will consider VICE iconic.

I especially hated the Shakespeare bit. I think audiences members like me were supposed to.

Christian Bale is ridiculous as Dick Cheney. But so much so that I forget to laud him...which makes the transformation more complete.  Unfortunately,  he also submerges the performance to the goals of the film, it is ultimately forgettable.

1.6 out 5 stars.

What will future historians think of us?

The Imitation Game (2014)

Alan Turing: Do you know why people like violence? It is because it feels good. Humans find violence deeply satisfying. but remove the satisfaction, and the act becomes... hollow.

It's not often that I compliment a film on its theatrical choices when attempting to adapt a (generally perceived) boring subject. My standard is that if one sacrifices the true essence of the technical elements, the challenges, the math, the fundamental forces that must be overcome by our heroes for the sake of a stupid audience, then the adapted script is a failure. In that, I would prefer subject matter expertise and in depth points motivations over easily digestible visuals.  I understand this makes me a minority.

But, The Imitation Game succeeds where many many films fall flat. Yes, the story is ahistorical for the purposes of drive, emotion, conflict, simplicity, watchability, etc. (and if you are one of those people who delight in pointing out historical inaccuracies; I don't. Here is the wiki page with a complete section for all you completionists. It's a drama, feel free to watch a documentary or read.)

What I loved was the attention to the details that matter. 

1. Charles Dance plays perfectly the beuqacratic/military insistence on results, progress, order, time-tables, always always risk adverse. This has always been a critique of government, military, and business thinking in times of crisis. The Imitation Game never looses a moment to remind the audience that results are expected.
2. That scene where they realize they can't tell anyone.  What a horrifying position to be in where you know all, but if you tell or act like you do, everything changes? It changes every encounter from random interaction in the fog of war, to a known sacrifice. 
3. The characters breakdown of the scale. It's on the order of 150.7 trillion combinations to break ENIGMA.  So...how would you solve it each day? As fast as possible? And it changes at 5am daily.

4.0 out of 5 stars.

The Accountant (2016)

Dana Cummings: What do you have to hit to dent a steel thermos?

Ummmmm what...? Too many concepts man.  and then the reveal at the end. Just way too much going on. Oh and the motivations of everyone are unclear. 

Each idea could have been a serviceable movie....but together it's just a jumble of blerghhh

Movie 1: The FBI is on the hunt for an accountant to the world's villains.  -Just that. Works.

Movie 2: Two brothers are brutalized by their father into viscous mercenaries. One has an ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder). They are separated and then face off years later in Spy vs Spy scenario.  -again works. 

Movie 3: New Accountant at a firm unearths financial shenanigans in prep for public offering. The management responds with deadly force.

Movie 4: Accountant to the world's villains has had enough and turns the table since he/she knows their secrets and sins. 

So yeah...The Accountant fails to accomplish any of the above, and thus isn't really worth watching in comparison to innumerable shoot em ups, action films, and thrillers. 

2.1 out of 5 stars. 

Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

*Spoilers*

"What's a Leerie?!" -Jack

"The cover is not the book." -Mary Poppins

As an unnatural optimist, I obviously enjoy the original Mary Poppins quite a bit. I can sing many of the songs verbatim, and to borrow Kondo-san's phrase..it sparks joy for me.

"And you'll receive that sense of stature -as your affluence expands.  To that high financial strata -that established credit now commands." 

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Mary Poppins Returns. I merely made me happy for a little over an hour. That's not bad. Many movies just make me upset at humanity. But, MPR's ignition of joy simply failed to conflagrate.

-The formulaic, glue-like adherence to the structure of the original made the whole worse.
-The songs were mostly asymmetric and thus not as high quality ear worms.
-I kept thinking the leeries were doing a pole dance.....which they were.
-If you are a fan of true and authentic accents...close your ears.
-I totally get that Lin Manuel CAN rap. I just don't think he had to in a Mary Poppins.
-Jack and Jane was completely forced and devoid of love.
-I just think it was written by committee to try and have something for everyone...which meant it fully satisfied no one.

On the positive
-Dick Van Dyke can still tap dance.
-Angela Lansbury can still sing.
-Ben Whishaw made me cry with the song "A conversation"
-If you appreciate the truly authentically made up accent...then Lin Manuel continues the tradition.
-I like Emily Blunt's curt portrayal of Mary Poppins.  Meaner is better.

3.5 out of 5

If you are need of a pick-me-up.  I suggest it.

Our Brand is Crisis (2015)

Jane: If you should feel emotion, could you just turn towards the camera?

Pat Candy:
You know, when Adlai Stevenson was running for president A woman came into him on a rally one night and said, "Every thinking person will be voting for you." Stevenson said "Ma'am, that's not enough. I need a majority."

If you are already jaded towards politics, or have been paying attention politically in the last 5 years, I don't recommend Our Brand is Crisis. If you are still capable of belief in the system, I recommend that you stay that way and don't watch Our Brand is Crisis.

As a jaded individual, I learned nothing new and achieved no epiphany of conviction or status from OBiC.  It was a nothing. Perhaps that was the point? If that was the point, why was the movie made? It had capable stars, a reasonable script, quick dialogue, a charlatan message, and I laughed at maybe 1-2 points. So why did I feel so...blergh about it?

My answer came in the realization that I watched OBiC in the fall of 2018.  It came out in 2015. In 3 years the shelf-life and meaning of OBiC has been rendered moot by actual national and global politics.

My advice is watch the news. You will both laugh and cry a lot more.

2.9 out of 5 stars. 

Quincy (2018)

"Melody is king, and don't you ever forget it. Lyrics appear to be out front, but they're not; they're just an accompanying factor. If they're good, you're really in good shape. Lyrics are written to be rewritten." -Quincy Jones

What a strange meta-documentary?  Half is self-serving subjectivism of the subject. Quincy Jones is in control of Quincy Jones's bio-documentary. The other half is under the control of Rashida Jones, his daughter. My read was that she wanted to capture her father on tape for posterity and as a sort of living mirror.  Quincy is slowing down, and here is her chance to have him comes to terms with that. 

So I am unsure what to believe as truth in Quincy. Q likes Q to be positive. Rashida is reticent to unvarnish his reputation, -in terms of the music. The only thing I take as truth is the timeline. If you were looking for a biographic documentary that is overwhelmed by the near Ceaser-esque productivity of its subject, look no further.  I firmly believe that Quincy Jones was/is a tremendous musician, composer, and performer. It's like 2 hours of hearing "ohhhh he wrote that, too!" from everyone  watching.   Hats off to Q and his ridiculous quantity of successes. 

The one part of the film that seemed wildly, if not stagedly, honest were the sections on the family regrets of Quincy.  It's difficult not too feel that somethings are left unsaid, but that to give so much time to his failings as a husband and how his need to work overwhelmed his children is a rather wrenching decision. 

On the whole I recommend Quincy. Enjoy the music and the history lesson. Be changed by his life lessons. 

3.6 out of 5 stars.