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.