The end of the year has me in a movie-watching mood and I want to add the best of the best into my queue for the next few weeks. Similar to games of the decades, what are your movies of the decades and why?

I have just watched ‘Mary Poppins Returns’, after yesterday watching the original ‘Mary Poppins’ for the first time. I have not, to my knowledge, ever watched ‘Mary Poppins’ in full before now. I’ve caught snippets of it on weekend television, but I’ve never seen it from start to finish. Well, with our new Disney+ streaming subscription, I’ve finally seen ‘Mary Poppins’ for the first time yesterday, and followed it up by watching ‘Mary Poppins Returns’ today.

‘Mary Poppins Returns’ is a sequel in name only. It’s basically a remake of the original. It’s as if the director had a checklist of everything ‘Mary Poppins’ contained, and just checked them off in this sequel:

• Mary Poppins herself. Check.

• A dirty working-class friend with a heart of gold. Check.

• Children who didn’t know how to have fun. Check.

• A father who needed to rediscover his children and his own childish joy. Check.

• A woman who’s working for a progressive cause. Check.

• Bank seen as a negative institution. Check.

• Quirky relative of Mary Poppins who gives the children a different point of view. Check.

• Animated sequence. Check.

Actually, I’m surprised that there is an animated sequence in the sequel, given how much P.L. Travers reportedly hated the animation in the original. (Strangely, I’ve seen ‘Saving Mr Banks’ a couple of times, and even watched a documentary about Ms Travers somewhere along the way.) But I suppose she’s dead now, so her input is limited to just turning in her grave.

It even gets more detailed than that. Individual musical numbers have been mapped from one movie to another:

• Vaudeville-style song & dance number within the animated sequence, with the main characters performing alongside cartoon animals. Check.

• Big dance number featuring the aforementioned working-class friend and his colleagues. Check. The names even have a metaphorical resonance: “Step in Time” becomes “Trip a Little Light Fantastic”.

• Uplifting song at the end of the movie. Check. But instead of being about a child’s toy that flies in the sky (kite), let’s make it about a different child’s toy that flies in the sky (balloon).

It’s a shame that Julie Andrews can’t sing any more. It would have been lov-er-ly (ha!) to see her in the cameo role that Angela Lansbury had. Not that I have anything against Ms Lansbury: far from it! But Dick Van Dyke got a small role, and it would have been nice to see Ms Andrews pop up as well. A little on-screen moment between her and Emily Blunt would have been sweet.

There was one thing that the director left off his checklist, though: singable songs. While everyone knows “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” and can sing it at the drop of a hat, noone is going to be singing “A Cover is not the Book”, as fun as it was. “A Spoonful of Sugar” is fun and memorable, while “Can You Imagine That” is fun and forgettable.

This is not to derogate the performances. There were no weak links in this chain. Emily Blunt was spot-on as Mary Poppins. Lin-Manuel Miranda was technically great as Jack the lamplighter (and he certainly did a better Cockney accent than Dick Van Dyke – which admittedly isn’t hard). Miranda lacked a little heart, but is a great singer and dancer. The rest of the cast were also good. Not a sour note among them. They were just let down by a weak script and poor songs.

The new Mary Poppins movie is a watered-down copy of the original – and the original wasn’t the best movie in the world to start with! I love me a good musical. I have a whole shelf full of musicals on disc, along with assorted soundtracks. I can quite happily spend an afternoon with ‘The Wizard of Oz’ or ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’ or the family-friendly ‘My Fair Lady’. But ‘Mary Poppins’ was too bland for me. And its sequel/remake was even blander.

From Community to House of Cosbys to Rick and Morty, Dan Harmon made a name for himself as a comedy genius. IDK much about Justin Rowland, but I assume he's at least partly responsible for some of the most brilliant moments of Rick and Morty, and I'm not just talking about the jokes. Among other episodes, The Wedding Squanchers, The Rickshank Redemption, Pickle Rick, Rickmancing the Stone and Look Who's Purging Now show great mastering of how action scenes are supposed to work. They ally irreverence, great rhythm and creative use of violence to make delicious gory spectacles. Unlike the increasingly incomprehensible movie brawls of today (I'm looking at you, Marvel...), their battles can be just as fast, but their choreographs are dramatic and easy to follow while retaining a great degree of complexity.

Dan Harmon and his team have a lot to teach to Hollywood.

Partly because of the nature of the subject, most true-crime documentaries tend to emphasize dread. Some of them employ formal devices similar to horror movies, such as ominous soundtracks, dark lightning, and moody camera movements. My interest in the problem of evil is philosophical, and the constant attempts to induce fear are distracting.

I'm interested in documentaries that are more like case studies, with a clinical, speculative or even scientifical approach to the problem of evil embodied in criminal acts.

Any suggestions?

Not sure how spoilers are supposed to work here, but I deleted my other post and put the image in the comment

https://i.imgur.com/6EupcC0.png

T.W. - is Arthur imagining it in arkham asylum? When asked by the social worker he didn't have much of an answer why he was locked up before.

I'm interested to find out who you think is making good films? I'm also interested in what your favourite film from them is, and why you like it.

Feel free to interpret it how you like -- I'm interested in distribution as well as production companies, as well as producers, directors, writers, and actors.

This is what you get when you search VUDU for free science fiction movies. The plot is banal enough. A spacecraft is discovered in Colorado that is 14,000 years old. A linguist and her lover are hired to read an inscription and then summarily paid and told to go home by the mysterious and unlikeable head of the project, Richard Kontral.

This description in no way does justice to how bad the script is. My first theory was that a rich father gave his fourteen year old son a chance to create a movie for his birthday present. But it's really just a low budget sequel to an obscure cult film called Moontrap.

The lead character, Scout, is played by Sarah Butler who evidently rose to wordly fame in I Spit on Your Grave. Every line that Scout says to the villain includes adolescent sexual insults. The villain is I believe a washed up actor from an old sitcom called The Nanny. This guy is really hard to watch, the acting is as bad as the script.

There's a scene of robots fighting that looks like it was choreographed with Rockem Sockem Robots, a toy from my childhood. If you're a collector of bad movies, this is a true gem.

It was tough to watch, but our free streaming was slim pickings that night. I wanted to watch Day of the Triffids a classic bad movie from the '60's , but got outvoted. At least that movie was based on an interesting SF novel by John Wyndham. Maybe tomorrow night.