Silver Linings Playbook

Pat is curiously confident and upbeat for someone who just got out from a mental hospital and under a restraining order from his wife. That’s because he’s determined to fix the damage he’s done to his life and surprise everyone by moving forward and upward. His motto is, “Excelsior!” Do you know what stage of bipolar disorder he’s in?

The number one task is restoring his marriage with his wife. After they divorced, he beat up her new boyfriend, but water under the bridge. Pat (Bradley Cooper) swears his parents, Pat Sr. and Dolores, (Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver), that everything will be fine. They’re not so sure. One of the pros of “Silver Linings Playbook,” the 2012 comedy by David O. Russell, is how Dolores is a stable and caring woman and has had so much experience in dealing with compulsive behavior, because her husband is a huge fan of the Philadelphia Eagles. Having been banned from the Eagles stadium for fighting, Pat Sr. now watches restlessly on his TV, convinced that the Eagles will win only if his countless fantasies are fulfilled.

Pat Jr. in desperation falls for Tiffany, played by Jennifer Lawrence, a young widow in the neighborhood. Roger Ebert noted in his review, “Lawrence appears here much transformed from the woman we saw in “Winter's Bone” and “The Hunger Games.” Still only 22, she looks softer, sweeter and somehow prettier than before, yet she plays Tiffany as all edges and elbows, who can understand Pat because she’s crazy herself.” People call her promiscuous, and she agrees. She’s ticked off about Pat because he continues to think about his ex-wife, played by Brea Bee – and also because a lot of her value to him is that’s she’s still in contact with the other woman.

In supporting roles, we meet Danny (Chris Tucker), Pat’s patient friend from the hospital, and Dr. Cliff Patel (Bollywood actor, Anupam Kher), his therapist. Danny’s worried that Pat is not taking his medication. Ebert said, “Dr. Patel plays an increasingly common type in American movies, the Indian immigrant who seems to embody certain stereotypes and then is revealed to be completely assimilated.”

Tiffany thinks she and Pat should make out. Pat disagrees. He doesn’t want to be unfaithful to his ex-wife. Tiffany’s eyes narrow. We see that Pat doesn’t have a chance. Ebert said,

This all builds up into a classic screwball comedy situation in which two bets are inspired — one involving an Eagles-Cowboys game and the other involving a ballroom dancing contest that Tiffany has forced Pat to join her in with a form of emotional blackmail.

How these bets play out I will, of course, not hint. I will note that Pat, in keeping with family tradition, gets in trouble at the game for fighting. Don’t you sometimes wish movies watched other movies? Imagine Pat running into the Patton Oswalt character from “Big Fan.” How cool would that be?

I love actors. I’ve been on an almost lifelong journey with Robert De Niro, and feel intimately familiar with him as an actor (not as a person). Here his work unobtrusively charmed my socks off. He’s harmlessly obsessed with the Eagles, gratefully in love with his wife and cluelessly supportive of his son, who he doesn’t realize is an apple who has fallen very close to the tree.

One of the creative and type of brave accomplishments of Russell’s screenplay (inspired by a novel by Matthew Quick) is the way it requires both father and son to face and deal with their medical issues and against all odds finds a way to do that through both an Eagles game and a dance contest. Ebert noted, “We’re fully aware of the plot conventions at work here, the wheels and gears churning within the machinery, but with these actors, this velocity and the oblique economy of the dialogue, we realize we don’t often see it done this well.” “Silver Linings Playbook” is so good, it could be an amazing old classic.

I had heard about this movie, but I didn’t really hear people talk about this. Then, when I was trying to find something to watch when I was exercising, and, I believe, I saw this on Netflix. I’m with everyone when I say that this is a good movie to watch. I can’t say how accurate this movie is with bipolar disorder, so only those who have it can tell. However, Cooper, De Niro, and Lawrence all play their roles very well. I think De Niro has a child who has bipolar, but I don’t know for sure. Julia Stiles is in here playing Lawrence’s older sister. I find it great that Cooper and De Niro are working together, as De Niro was Cooper’s inspiration to be an actor. Check this out if you haven’t because this is one to see.

Next week, I will be looking at another good movie to check out in the finale of “Robert De Niro Month.” Sorry for the late posting. I fell asleep because I was so tired from work.

The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle

The original “Rocky & Bullwinkle” cartoon show was smarter than it needed to be, and a lot of adults took a peek here and there. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It helped point the way to today’s crossover animated shows like “The Simpsons.” Now comes the movie version of the TV show (which was canceled in 1964), and it has the same mixture of dumb puns, corny sight gags and sly, even sophisticated in-jokes.” It’s a lot of fun.

The 2000 movie mixes the animated moose and squirrel with live action – and even pulls three of the characters (Natasha, Boris, and Fearless Leader) out of the TV and into the real work (where they’re played by Rene Russo, Jason Alexander, and Robert De Niro respectively, and explain “we’re attached to the project”).

The faceless Narrator importantly explains: “Expensive animation characters are converted to even more expensive movie stars!” Obviously, the Narrator always seemed to look outside the events and know that “Rocky & Bullwinkle” was only a cartoon. At one point in this version, he, voiced by Keith Scott, complains he now narrates the events of his own life. Also, the movie is self-aware. Ebert mentioned, “when someone (I think maybe Fearless Leader) breathlessly announces, “There has never been a way to destroy a cartoon character until now!” he’s asked, “What about `Roger Rabbit’?”” The story is about a plan by Fearless Leader to win world domination by hypnotizing everyone with RBTV (really bad TV). Only Rucky and Bullwinkle have so many years of experience at ruining the evil plans of Fearless Leader, Natasha, and Boris, and as they walk their way to a final fight, we also get a complete road movie (happily acknowledged as a cliché by the Narrator).

Ebert said, “The movie has a lot of funny moments, which I could destroy by quoting, but will not. (Oh, all right: At one point Rocky cries, “We have to get out of here!” and Bullwinkle bellows: “Quick! Cut to a commercial!”) As much fun as the wit is the film’s overall sense of well-being; this is a happy movie and not the desperate sort of scratching for laughs we got in a cartoon retread like “The Flintstones In Viva Rock Vegas.”” This is they type of movie where De Niro parodies his famous “Are you talking to me?” line with such cheerful fun that instead of complaining, we think – well, everyone else has ripped it off. Why shouldn’t he get his own turn? The movie is chock-full of cameos, including Janeane Garofalo as a studio executive, Randy Quaid as the FBI chief, Whoopi Goldberg as a judge, John Goodman as a cop, Billy Crystal as a mattress salesman, James Rebhorn as the president, and Jonathan Winters in three roles. Ebert noted, “Russo makes a persuasive Natasha, all red lipstick, seductive accent and power high heels, and De Niro’s patent leather hair and little round glasses will remind movie buffs of Donald Pleasance.”

However, the real discovery of the movie is its (human) protagonist, a 23-year-old newcomer named Piper Perabo, who plays an FBI agent. She has good comedic timing and is so attractive, she kind makes you pause the movie. Ebert compared, “Like Renee Zellweger in “Jerry Maguire,” she comes more or less out of nowhere (well, a couple of obscure straight-to-videos) and becomes a star right there before our eyes.”

Comedy is such a delicate type of art. Ebert noted, ““The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle” isn’t necessarily any more brilliant or witty or inventive than all the other recent retreads of classic cartoons and old sitcoms. But it feels like more fun. From time to time I’m reminded of George C. Scott’s Rule No. 3 for judging movie acting: “Is there a joy of performance? Can you tell that the actors are having fun?”” This time, you can. The right word for this movie is fun.

I remember seeing commercials for this movie and recall seeing this a lot on the movie channels when we first got cable. When I saw Nostalgia Critic’s review of this movie, I was expecting him to thrash it, like everyone else has, but he admitted to liking it. I didn’t see the entire movie until earlier this week. I started watching it, but then got sidetracked, and finished watching it yesterday. As a children’s film, I think this is fine. I would say check it out if you have a soft spot for good or bad puns, fourth wall jokes, and the type of awkward, yet still likeable charm. They got June Foray to reprise the role of Rocky, but Keith Scott voices Bullwinkle and the Narrator. Other cameos include Paget Brewster, comedian David Alan Grier, Don Novello, Jon Polito, Carl Reiner, Max Grodenchik, and Norman Lloyd. You don’t have to, but I still think you can give this one a try, if you would like to.

Next week, I will be looking at a good, but very emotional film, in “Robert De Niro Month.”

Awakenings

For this entire month, I will be reviewing films starring Robert De Niro that I have yet to cover. Let’s take a look at the 1990 classic, “Awakenings.”

We do not know what we see when we look at Leonard. Roger Ebert said in his review, “We think we see a human vegetable, a peculiar man who has been frozen in the same position for 30 years, who neither moves nor speaks.” What goes on in his head? Is he thinking? Of course not, a neurologist says in Penny Marshall’s “Awakenings.” Why not? “Because the implications of that would be unthinkable.” Ebert said, “Ah, but the expert is wrong, and inside the immobile shell of his body, Leonard is still there. Still waiting.”

Leonard is one of the patients in the “garden,” a ward of a Bronx psychiatric hospital that is named by the staff because the patients are there just to be fed and bathed. Looks like nothing can be done for them. They were victims of the great “sleeping sickness” epidemic of the 1920s, and after a time of sudden recovery they relapsed to their current situation. It is 1969. They have many different symptoms, but essentially, they all have the same problem: They cannot make their bodies do what their minds want. Ebert noted, “Sometimes that blockage is manifested through bizarre physical behavior, sometimes through apparent paralysis.”

One day a new doctor comes to work in the hospital. He has no experience working with patients. Actually, his last project involved earthworms. Like those who have gone before him, he has no hope for these patients, who are there and yet not there. Ebert said, “He talks without hope to one of the women, who looks blankly back at him, her head and body frozen.” However, he then turns away, and when he turns back, she has changed her position – apparently trying to catch her eyeglasses as they fell. He tries an experiment. He holds her glasses in front of her, and then drops them. Her hand reacts quickly and catches them.

However, the woman cannot move through her own will. He tries another experiment, throwing a ball at one of the patients. She catches it. “She is borrowing the will of the ball,” the doctor thinks. His colleagues will not listen to this theory, which sounds strangely metaphysical, but he thinks he’s getting somewhere. What if these patients are not actually “frozen” at all, but victims of a stage of Parkinson’s Disease so advanced that their motor impulses are cancelling each other – what if they cannot move because all of their muscles are trying to move at the same time, and they are unable to choose one impulse over the other? Then the falling glasses or the tossed ball might be breaking the restraint.

Ebert pointed out, “This is the great discovery in the opening scenes of “Awakenings,” preparing the way for sequences of enormous joy and heartbreak, as the patients are “awakened” to a personal freedom they had lost all hope of ever again experiencing — only to find that their liberation comes with its own cruel set of conditions.” The film, directed with greatness and emotion by Penny Marshall, is based on a famous 1972 book by Oliver Sacks, the British-born New York neurologist whose The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is a classic in the medical field. These were his patients, and the doctor in the film, named Malcolm Sayer and played by Robin Williams, is based on him. Williams had the opportunity to meet Sacks.

Ebert noted, “What he discovered in the summer of 1969 was that L-DOPA, a new drug for the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease, might in massive doses break the deadlock that had frozen his patients into a space-time lock for endless years.” The film follows maybe 15 of those patients, mainly Leonard, who is played by Robert De Niro in a brilliant performance. Because this movie is not a tearjerker but a smart look at a bizarre human condition, it depends on De Niro to make Leonard not a character of sympathy, but a person who helps us think about our own fragile look on the world around us.

Ebert compared, “The patients depicted in this film have suffered a fate more horrible than the one in Poe’s famous story about premature burial. If we were locked in a coffin while still alive, at least we would soon suffocate. But to be locked inside a body that cannot move or speak — to look out mutely as even our loved ones talk about us as if we were an uncomprehending piece of furniture!” It is this fate that is seen, that summer of 1969, when the doctor gives the experimental new drug to his patients, and in a miraculous rebirth they are free and begin to move and talk once again, some of them after 30 years of self-captivity.

The movie follows Leonard through the stages of his rebirth. He was (as we saw in the beginning) a bright, likeable kid, until the disease took over. He has been like that for three decades. Now, in the late 1940s, he is filled with joy and gratitude to be able to move around freely and express himself. He cooperates with the doctors studying his case. Also, he finds himself liking a daughter (Penelope Ann Miller) of another patient. Ebert mentioned, “Love and lust stir within him for the first time.”

Dr. Sayer is at the focus of almost every scene, and his personality becomes one of the highlights of the movie. He is also restraint: by shyness and inexperience, and even the way he holds his arms, close to his sides, shows a man cautious of contact. He was happier working with the earthworms. Ebert commented, “This is one of Robin Williams’ best performances, pure and uncluttered, without the ebullient distractions he sometimes adds — the schtick where none is called for.” He is a lovable man here, who experiences the amazing professional joy of seeing chronic, hopeless patients once again sing and dance and meet their loved ones.

However, it is not as simple as that, not after the first weeks. Ebert said, “The disease is not an open-and-shut case. And as the movie unfolds, we are invited to meditate on the strangeness and wonder of the human personality. Who are we, anyway? How much of the self we treasure so much is simply a matter of good luck, of being spared in a minefield of neurological chance? If one has no hope, which is better: To remain hopeless, or to be given hope and then lose it again? Oliver Sacks’ original book, which has been reissued, is as much a work of philosophy as of medicine. After seeing “Awakenings,” I read it, to know more about what happened in that Bronx hospital.” What both the movie and the book show is the huge courage of the patients and the deep experience of their doctors, as in a small way they reexperienced what it means to be born, to open your eyes and discover to your surprise that “you” are alive.

If you haven’t seen this movie, why are you reading this review? This is one of the best movies ever made. I’m not saying that because I’m a Robin Williams fan, but I seriously believe this movie was one of the groundbreakers of its time. Check it out if you haven’t because you will love it.

Apologies for the late post. Some personal stuff came up and I got delayed a lot. Stay tuned next week when I look at a film that I saw parts of growing up when we first got cable in “Robert De Niro Month.”

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again

If you loved the first “Mamma Mia!” movie, well, “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again,” released in 2018, offers even more – and even less.

Christy Lemire said in her review,

“The sequel (which is also a prequel) features a bigger cast, a longer running time, extra subplots and additional romantic entanglements. But it’s emptier than its predecessor and has even lower stakes. It’s less entertaining, and for all its frantic energy, it manages to go absolutely nowhere.

Once again inspired by the music of ABBA and set on a picturesque Greek island, the second “Mamma Mia!” is the lightest piece of Swedish pastry with the sweetest chunk of baklava on the side. And while that may sound delicious, it’s likely to give you a toothache (as well as a headache).

At one point, during a particularly clunky musical number, I wrote in my notes: “I am so uncomfortable right now.” But while the goofy imperfection of this song-and-dance extravaganza is partially the point—and theoretically, a source of its charm—it also grows repetitive and wearying pretty quickly.”

Not one moment reaches the catching euphoria of Meryl Street twisting around in a barn in overalls singing the title song in the original film, or the emotional depth of her singing The Winner Takes It All to Pierce Brosnan. Along that area, if you’re looking forward to see Streep display her playful, musical side again, you’re going to be disappointed. Despite her noticeable presence in the movie’s marketing, she’s barely in the sequel.

That’s because Streep’s free-spirited Donna is gone, we learn at the beginning, but her presence is felt everywhere in sad ways. Her daughter, Sophie, reprised by Amanda Seyfried, is reopening the inn her mom ran – now named the Hotel Bella Donna – on the same peaceful (and fictional) Greek island of Kalokairi where the first film took place. Writer-director Ol Parker (whose other work includes writing the “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” movies) goes back and forth in time between Sophie nervously finishing up her big party she’s planning and the story of how her mother originally ended up on this solitary island in the Aegean Sea – and became pregnant with Sophie in the late 1970s without being entirely sure who the father was.

Lemire said, “Lily James plays young Donna as a firecracker flower child—a friendly mess of wild, blonde curls and high, platform boots. (James’ sunny presence is one of the film’s consistent bright spots.)” We meet the younger version of her best friends and jumpsuit-wearing backup singers, Tanya (Jessica Keenan Wynn, doing a spot-on impression of Christine Baranski) and Rosie (Alexa Davies, filling in for Julie Walters). We see her flirt and fall for the three guys she has feelings for during the summer after college graduation.

First, there’s the nervous Harry, played by Hugh Skinner, who tries to charm her with his hesitant French in Paris. Then is the dashing Swede Bill, played by Josh Dylan, who charms her on the boat that carries her out to the island. Finally, there’s the aspiring architect Sam, played by Jeremy Irvine, who’s already vacationing on Kalokairi when she arrives. They will end up being played by Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard and Brosnan, respectively, and they will be forced into singing ABBA songs that clearly make them miserable.

Lemire pointed out, “Ah yes, the ABBA songs. They provided the confectionery connective tissue for the smash-hit stage musical and the original movie. This time, the ‘70s Swedish supergroup’s tunes that are the most rapturous are also replays from the first go-round: a flotilla of fishermen singing and prancing to “Dancing Queen,” or the splashy finale uniting the whole cast for “Super Trouper.”” A lot of the soundtrack has lesser-known songs, and the uninspired way those songs are staged and choreographed rarely allows them to shine.

Lemire noted, “Once again, though, these actors are such pros that they can’t help but make the most of their meager material. Baranski and Walters in particular have crackling chemistry again. The brief moments in which the supremely overqualified Firth, Skarsgard and Brosnan pal around with each other as Sophie’s three dads made me long to see them together in something else. Anything else. A documentary in which they have lunch on the porch under sunny Greek skies, even.”

Then Cher appears. That would seem impossible for this popular singer ever to be controlled. However, as Sophie’s frequently absent grandmother, Cher seems strangely ruled in. Again, it’s the strangeness of the choreography: She just somewhat stands there, singing Fernando, before firmly walking down some steps to greet the person who she’s singing. (As the hotel’s caretaker, Andy Garcia conveniently plays a character named Fernando, which is a funny part.)

Lemire ends her review by suggesting, “But if you’re down for watching A-list stars belt out insanely catchy, 40-year-old pop tunes in a shimmering setting, and you’re willing to throw yourself headlong into the idea of love’s transformative power, and you just need a mindless summer escape of your own, you might just thoroughly enjoy watching “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again.” Don’t think, and pass the ouzo.”

I was surprised to hear that they made a sequel to “Mamma Mia!” That too, a decade later. What was so great about the first movie that they decided to make a sequel? The first one wasn’t all that great to begin with. The sequel doesn’t even try. I saw this on Netflix, I believe, while exercising and I didn’t like it at all. This is probably worse than the first movie. Guys, do yourself a favor and don’t see this film on Peacock, where it is currently streaming. If you saw the first one and didn’t like it, then avoid the sequel, especially if you’re an ABBA fan. Brosnan can’t sing at all and he embarrasses himself in this film by singing poorly.

Alright, we have come to the end of “Pierce Brosnan Month.” I’m sorry that most of the reviews were negative, but that’s how things are sometimes. Stay tuned next month for more excitement coming right at you.

Mamma Mia!

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “I saw the stage version of “Mamma Mia!” in London, where for all I know, it is now entering the second century of its run, and I was underwhelmed.” The 2008 film version has the enjoyment of casting Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Amanda Seyfried, Colin Frith, and Julie Walters, but their skills are taken very think. Also, if you like this, there are so many song covers of ABBA. Ebert admitted, “I don’t, not much, with a few exceptions.”

Ebert admitted, “But here’s the fact of the matter. This movie wasn’t made for me. It was made for the people who will love it, of which there may be a multitude. The stage musical has sold 30 million tickets, and I feel like the grouch at the party. So let me make that clear and proceed with my minority opinion.”

The film takes place on a Greek island, where the characters are made to hang on roofs, dangle from ladders, enter and exit by trapdoors, and prance around the numerous local people. Ebert noted, “The choreography at times resembles calisthenics, particularly in a scene where the young male population, all wearing scuba flippers, dance on the pier to “Dancing Queen” (one of the ABBA songs I do like).”

I don’t think contrived would be the right word to describe the story. Meryl Streep plays Donna, who runs a tourist hotel on the island, where she has raised her daughter, played by Amanda Seyfried, up to the age of 20. Sophie has never known her biological father and is engaged to Sky, played by Dominic Cooper. However, now she finds an old diary and invites the three possible men to her upcoming wedding. She’s sure that she’ll know the right one when she sees him. They are Sam (Pierce Brosnan), Bill (Stellan Skarsgard), and Harry (Colin Firth), and if you know the first thing about camera angles, shot choice, and screen time, you will be able to pick the right person – if not for conceiving reason, then for the one most likely to succeed in one way or another.

Obviously, Donna doesn’t know anything about her daughter’s invitations, but even so, it must be said she takes a long time to figure out why these three men were invited. Doesn’t she think it would be obvious? She has serious conversations with all three, two appear to have been one-night stands. For them to sail over to Greece for her after 20 years really makes you think how charmful she is.

Ebert admitted, “The plot is a clothesline on which to hang the songs; the movie doesn’t much sparkle when nobody is singing or dancing, but that’s rarely. The stars all seem to be singing their own songs, aided by an off-screen chorus of, oh, several dozen, plus full orchestration.” Streep doesn’t look like the right choice to play Donna, but I have noticed that she can take on any role. She can even pull off singing Money, Money, Money.” She has such a happy face and looks to be enjoying herself.

Ebert noted, “Her two best friends have flown in for the occasion: Tanya (Christine Baranski), an often-married plastic surgery subject, and Rosie (Julie Walters), plainer and pluckier. With three hunks their age like Brosnan, Firth and Skarsgard on hand, do they divvy up?” Not really. However, a lot of big romantic decisions do take place in a few short days.

The island is beautiful. I wouldn’t be surprised if people went to Greece after seeing this film. Ebert noted, “The energy is unflagging. The local color feels a little overlooked in the background; nobody seems to speak much Greek.” Then there are the ABBA songs. There are people who know them and may think they know them too well or maybe they can’t get enough of them. Ebert admitted, “Streep’s sunshine carries a lot of charm, although I will never be able to understand her final decision in the movie — not coming from such a sensible woman.” Love seems to have its way, which we always see.

I remember seeing commercials for this film of people singing the title song before cutting to clips of the cast singing the title song in the film. However, I had no idea that they were covering an ABBA song because I had never heard of them before. That is until a couple of years ago when I used to work at a Children’s Museum and I heard a few ABBA songs playing on their Spotify playlist on a repeated loop. Because of that, I decided to look up where the film was streaming, and I found it on Prime. When I saw this on Amazon Prime, I ended up not liking this so much. I didn’t really like how the characters acted, but I will say that I did like the look of the film and it did make me go to the library to get the ABBA soundtrack downloaded to my iPhone. I don’t recommend this film because it will make you want to go to Greece and apologize to the people there for having this film shot on their island and apologize to all the ABBA fans, even to any of the band members, if they are alive today, that this film covered their songs.

Next week, I will be ending “Pierce Brosnan Month” with the sequel to this film, which came as a surprise.

Quest for Camelot

“Quest for Camelot,” released in 1998, is still another studio trying to seize the helm of family animation away from Disney. It was from Warner Bros, which made it large with the colorful and funny “Space Jam,” but now looks to regress into copying Disney. The animation isn’t lively, the characters aren’t very interesting, and the songs are tedious.

“Space Jam” and “Anastasia” from Fox were the only non-Disney films to steal some of the gold from Walt’s children. Since allegedly, “Quest for Camelot” cost $100 million and yet lacks the charm of something like “Beauty and the Beast,” maybe it’s time for Warner Bros. to find a different method – maybe animation targeted towards the teenage and adult age range, which does so well in Japan.

“Quest for Camelot,” like countless animated films, is a blueprint with which rapidly new characters are made. We need a young protagonist, and get that in Kayley (Meredith Gordon from “Heroes,” Jessalyn Gilsig), the brave teenage daughter of Lionel (Gabriel Byrne), one of Arthur’s knights. As you guessed, Lionel is killed in the beginning when defending Arthur, voiced by Pierce Brosnan, because the protagonists of animated films must always have only one parents (later, Kayley’s mother (Jane Seymour) is conveniently kidnapped).

We also need a villain (Ruber, the evil and jealous knight (Gary Oldman)), a villain’s evil sidekick (the griffin (Balki from “Perfect Strangers,” Bronson Pinchot)), and a villain’s sidekick who turns good (Bladebeak the chicken (Jaleel White)). We need a young man to help the heroine on her journey (Garrett, the blind forest resident (Cary Elwes)), a hero’s noble friend (silver falcon (Frank Welker)), and the hero’s comic relief (Devon and Cornwall, the two-headed dragon (the late Don Rickles and Eric Idle)). Then have Ruber steal the magic sword Excalibur, and have Kayley and Garrett try to retrieve it, throw in some songs and a lot of animated action, and you have your movie.

Roger Ebert admitted in his review, “I’m not putting the formula down. Done well, it can work, and some version of these ingredients now seems to be required in all feature-length animated films. But “Quest for Camelot” does a fuzzy job of clearly introducing and establishing its characters, and makes them types, not individuals. Their personalities aren’t helped by the awkward handling of dialogue; in some of the long shots, we can’t tell who’s supposed to be speaking, and the animated lip synch is unconvincing. Another problem is the way the songs begin and end abruptly; we miss the wind-up before a song and the segue back into spoken dialogue. The movie just doesn’t seem sure of itself.”

Will kids like it? Ebert answered, “I dunno. I saw it in a theater filled with kids, and didn’t hear or sense the kind of enthusiasm that good animation can inspire. The two-headed dragon gets some laughs with an Elvis imitation. But there’s a running joke in which one head is always trying to smooch the other one, and the kids didn’t seem sure why they were supposed to laugh. There’s also the problem that Ruben is simply a one-dimensional bad guy, with no intriguing personality quirks or weaknesses; he pales beside Rasputin in “Anastasia” or Scar in “The Lion King.” Of the supporting animals, the falcon has no particular personality, and Bladebeak is a character in search of a purpose. Even the vast, monstrous dragon that ends up with Excaliber (as a toothpick) is a disappointment. When the heroes find him in a cave, he doesn’t exude much menace or personality; he’s just a big prop.”

The most interesting character is Garrett, who we find out was rejected from Camelot because he was blind, and now lives in the forest with the falcon. “I stand alone,” he sings, but his friendship with Kayley is the only believable one in the movie. We also find it strange that the plants in his forest are more interesting than most of the animals. There are eyeball plants that snap at people, helicopter plants that give free rides (more could have been made of those), and plants that chomp at ankles and elbows.

Ebert is right when he said, “Really good animation can be exhilarating; I remember the “Under the Sea” sequence from “The Little Mermaid,” and “Be My Guest” from “Beauty and the Beast.” In “Quest for Camelot” there are no sequences that take off and soar, and no rules to give shape to the action scenes (if Excaliber is really all-powerful, how is its power exercised, and why can its bearer be defeated?).” The movie’s fundamental formula is so familiar that there’s no use mentioning a recap unless you have convincing characters and good songs. Ebert asked, “Enormous resources went into the making of this film, but why wasn’t there more stretching and creativity at the screenplay level? Why work so hard on the animation and run the plot on autopilot?”

Don’t see this movie. It was one of the most underwhelming animated movies of the time. The characters are copies (Kayley’s animation is a copy of Belle, Devon and Cornwall are a copy of “Aladdin’s” Genie), the story is not connected with the Arthur legend, they make references to “Taxi Driver” and “Dirty Harry” (as if they think those are the movies kids watch), and there are so many things that are not explained. I know that the forest is enchanted, but that’s just vague, and Ruber gets the potion from some witches, but when did those exist in Camelot? However, other stuff, like Buckbeak change sides, putting Excalibur in the stone heals everyone, but doesn’t heal Garrett’s blindness, are never explained. Don’t you think we deserve that? To add insult to injury, this was John Gielgud’s last film of his career. How come Gary Oldman played obvious villains at the time? This and “Lost in Space” came out the exact same year and Oldman played the obvious villains with the same motives in both films, which makes you wonder. I would just suggest people to go to “Medieval Times” instead of watching this garbage. Avoid this movie because you will be very disappointed by it.

Next week, I will be looking at another musical that I’m not a fan of in “Pierce Brosnan Month.”

Mrs. Doubtfire

For this entire month, I will be reviewing movies with Pierce Brosnan that I have not reviewed. To start off this month, I will be looking at the 1993 comedy that is one of my all-time favorites, “Mrs. Doubtfire.”

Why can’t a woman be more like a man dressed like a woman?

Rita Kempley said in her review, “"Mrs. Doubtfire," a kind of "Charley's Aunt" with voguish family values, skirts the issue with hairy-legged hilarity and hug-a-bug-ability.” Produced by Robin Williams and his at that time wife, Marsha Graces Williams, the movie is mainly a showcase of Williams’ comic genius, but it also has one or two stuff to say about raising children – the stuff you see in cereal commercials.

Williams, at the height of his mad form, goes through his various familiar impressions – Gandhi to Tweety Bird to Barbra Streisand – before focusing on his nanny protagonist. Kempley compared, “He's downright irresistible as the redoubtable old housekeeper, who appears to be the love child of Mary Poppins and Hulk Hogan's "Mr. Nanny."”

Based on the book Alias Madame Doubtfire by Anne Fine, the film is about Daniel Hillard (Williams), a childlike voice actor who loves his three kids so much (Lisa Jakub, Matthew Lawrence, and Mara Wilson). These qualities that commend him to them – a sweet craziness and a carefree type of fun – prevent him from being a good husband to Miranda, played by Sally Field, a hardworking mom who divorces him and wins custody of the kids.

Not wanting to be separated from his children for even a day, Daniel disguises himself as the old-fashioned Mrs. Doubtfire and his hired on as Miranda’s housekeeper. Kempley said, “Of course, nobody in her right mind would be fooled, but that is, of course, Victor/Victoria's Secret -- the essence of both the movie's heart and its howls.”

Daniel, taken into his wife’s confidence as Mrs. Doubtfire, learns what she really thought of him: “I just didn’t like who I was with him.” Meanwhile, Daniel, as an old British lady, attracts the attention of a bus driver, played by Sydney Walker, who is not the least uninterested when seeing Mrs. Doubtfire’s hairy knee: “I like that Mediterranean look. It’s natural, healthy.”

Kempley noted, “Inevitably, our hero has the all-too-familiar problems with high heels and purse snatchers, but these prerequisites of cross-dressing are quickly dispensed with. Daniel, you see, has had lessons from professionals -- not to mention the blessing of genuine gay people.” This disguise came with the help of his makeup artist brother (Harvey Fierstein) and his boyfriend (Scott Capurro).

Kempley said, “As "Uncle Frank and Aunt Jack," they are very much a part of this movie family, an inclusive organism that extends finally to Miranda's new boyfriend (Pierce Brosnan), who like Mom herself is little more than a dandy foil for the hero.” Others include the late Robert Prosky as the old station manager who helps Daniel toward a happy ending and the late Anne Haney as the court liaison who investigates Daniel’s living conditions.

Kempley noted, “The most thankless role belongs to Field, who is career mom as scapegoat for the downfall of civilization. But Field perseveres, recalling Cinderella's buddies, the cartoon bluebirds.” When Williams gets to improvise the heartstrings tugging speech at the end where, as Mrs. Doubtfire, he tells the one about there being all kinds of families and that’s ok – Field gets to the heart of the matter. “Mrs. Doubtfire brought out the best in (the children) and in you,” she says. “And you,” he replies.

Kempley noted, “In "Tootsie," Dustin Hoffman found that he was actually nicer in a dress too -- which in no way explains why women remain basically unchanged when clad in pantsuits. But that is not the point. Maybe there is no point, except to laugh while absorbing the goopy propaganda. And you will laugh till your ribs ache -- not because director Chris Columbus of the "Home Alone" movies has a gift for farce, which he does, but because Williams is to funny what the Energizer Bunny is to batteries.” He just kept going nonstop.

I remember seeing commercials for this movie when it was advertised that it was airing one night. All of us sat and watched the entire movie that night. We own the VHS and I remember laughing nonstop at this movie because it was that funny. I can’t remember if this was the very first Robin Williams movie I saw or if it was one of the first. I think “Aladdin” was the first Williams movie I saw, but I can’t remember. Still, this movie is one that everyone should see. It is currently streaming on Netflix and Disney+, so you should see it. This is one that shouldn’t be missed by anyone. When Williams calls Field as the various applicants for the housekeeper, that was downright hilarious. Both Williams and Field probably understood the subject matter of the movie, both who had gone through divorces prior to this film, which I can also understand, as I am going through that currently, which is almost finalized. Thankfully, I don’t have children, or that would have been exactly as the film portrayed it. I read somewhere that Matthew Lawrence saw how depressed Williams was in his trailer between takes, and he was able to see how depressed comedians get, especially with the most gifted one we ever had in Williams. The serious moments were really needed and they helped the movie out, especially when they made you feel the same emotions. Originally, they were going to end the film with Daniel and Miranda getting back together, but they changed that because it would have given children of divorced parents false hope that they’re parents would eventually get back together, which doesn’t always happen. See this movie, as it is one of the best comedies ever made with some realistic stuff in here that people will be able to relate to it.

Next week, I will be looking at one of the worst animated movies in “Pierce Brosnan Month.”