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.”

Blade: Trinity

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “I liked the first two Blade movies, although my description of “Blade II” as “a really rather brilliant vomitorium of viscera” might have sounded like faint praise. The second film was directed by Guillermo Del Toro, a gifted horror director with a sure feel for the quease-inducing, and was even better, I thought, than the first. Now comes “Blade: Trinity,” which is a mess. It lacks the sharp narrative line and crisp comic-book clarity of the earlier films, and descends too easily into shapeless fight scenes that are chopped into so many cuts that they lack all form or rhythm.”

The setup is a continuation of the previous films. Vampires are making a war to contaminate humanity, and the most powerful fighter against them is the half-human, half-vampire Blade, reprised by Wesley Snipes. He has been raised from childhood by Whistler, reprised by Kris Kristofferson, who recognized his unique ability to balance between the two, and is a dangerous warrior, but, despite some colleagues, seriously outnumbered.

Ebert said, “As “Trinity” opens, the Vampire Nation and its leader Danica (played by Parker Posey — yes, Parker Posey) convince the FBI that Blade is responsible for, if I heard correctly, 1,182 murders.” “They’re waging a gosh darned publicity campaign,” Whistler protests in that Kris Kristoferson seen everything voice.

Agent surround Blade’s headquarters, which is your simple action movie area combining the setting of a warehouse with lots of catwalks and high places to fall from and stuff that blows up good. Whistler goes down fighting (however a shotgun seems dated, given the sci-fi weapons somewhere else in the movie), and Blade is enlisted by the Night Stalkers, who reach him through Whistler’s daughter, Abigail, voiced by Jessica Biel. Ebert said, “It would have been too much. I suppose, to hope for Whistler’s mother.”

The Night Stalkers have information that the Vampire Nation is finding the original Dracula, because to spread the virus “they need better DNA; they need Dracula’s blood.” Dracula’s superior DNA means he can work by day, unlike his descendants, who must work by night. Ebert said “The notion that DNA degrades or is somehow diluted over the centuries flies in the face of what we know about the double helix, but who needs science when you know what’s right? “They found Dracula in Iraq about six months ago,” we learn, and if that’s not a straight line I’m not Jon Stewart.”

Dracula is some type of guy. Ebert said, “Played by Dominic Purcell, he isn’t your usual vampire in evening dress with overdeveloped canines, but a creature whose DNA seems to have been infected with the virus of Hollywood monster effects. His mouth and lower face unfold into a series of ever more horrifying fangs and suchlike, until he looks like a mug shot of the original “Alien.”” He doesn’t suck blood, he vacuums it.

Ebert said, “Parker Posey is an actress I have always had affection for, and now it is mixed with increased admiration, for the way she soldiers through an impossible role, sneering like the good sport she is. Jessica Biel becomes the first heroine of a vampire movie to listen to her iPod during slayings. That’s an excuse to get the soundtrack by Ramin Djawadi and RZA into the movie, I guess, although I hope she downloaded it from the iTunes Store and isn’t a pirate on top of being a vampire.”

Vampires in this movie look about as easy to kill as the creatures in “Dawn of the Dead.” Ebert noted, “They have a way of suddenly fizzing up into electric sparks and then collapsing in a pile of ash. One of the weapons used against them by the Night Stalkers is a light-saber device that is, and I’m sure I have this right, “half as hot as the sun.” Switch on one of those babies and you’d zap not only the vampires but British Columbia and large parts of Alberta and Washington state.”

Ebert continued, “Jessica Biel is the resident babe, wearing fetishistic costumes to match Blade’s and teaming up with Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds), no relation to Hannibal Lecter, a former vampire who has come over to the good side.” The vampire killers and their fellow Night Stalkers go in an increasingly cloudy series of fights with the vampires, making you ask this simple question: Why, since the whole world is theirs to take, do the vampires have to appear and fight the Night Stalkers in the first place? Why not just figure out that since the Stalkers are in Vancouver, the vampires should concentrate somewhere there, like Montreal?

“Blade: Trinity,” released in 2004, was a huge disappointment. There have been so many horror stories that were told about Wesley Snipes’ behavior on set. Allegedly, he was very difficult to work with, wouldn’t speak to his co-stars a lot, and used a racist word against Reynolds. Patton Oswalt said Snipes tried to strangle David S. Goyer, which Snipes as denied. However, Goyer made public about his difficulties with the production, telling The Hollywood Reporter that he doesn’t believe anyone involved with this film is happy with it. Oswalt also said that Snipes smoked weed in his trailer, refused to break character, and the filmmakers intentionally gave Reynolds “the worst jokes and puns” so they could “cut to Snipes’ face not doing anything because that’s all we could get from him.” Reports say Snipes was unhappy with the choice of director, refused to leave his trailer and communicated with the cast and crew using post-it notes. This put him in the negative light and damaged his career. Not long after this film, he faced legal issues and was in jail, and his leading-man status quickly disappeared. You might have heard Snipes allegedly refusing to keep his eyes open.

Other than that, they tried to make this film into a comedy, which is not what Blade is supposed to be. This, of course, was before Ryan Reynolds was liked today in cinema, because back then, his comedy didn’t really attract people. Nothing about it was funny in any way, but just came off as painful. I would recommend everyone to pass this up, especially if they liked the first two films. You don’t want to be disappointed by the end of the trilogy. Even WWE Wrestler Paul Levesque aka Triple H couldn't save this movie. However, you could see that Snipes and Reynolds have reconciled, seeing how Snipes made a cameo as Blade in “Deadpool & Wolverine.”

Thank you for joining in on this year’s “Black History Movie Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed. See you next month with more excitement. 

Blade II

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, ““Blade II” is a really rather brilliant vomitorium of viscera, a comic book with dreams of becoming a textbook for mad surgeons. There are shots here of the insides of vampires that make your average autopsy look like a slow afternoon at Supercuts. The movie has been directed by Guillermo del Toro, whose work is dominated by two obsessions: War between implacable ancient enemies, and sickening things that bite you and aren’t even designed to let go.”

The 2002 sequel is an improvement on the first film, which was pretty good. Once again Wesley Snipes plays the Marvel Comics protagonist who is half-man, half-vampire. He was raised from childhood by Whistler, reprised by Kris Kristofferson, a vampire hunter who kept Blade’s vampirism under control, and trained him to fight the vampires. A long time has passed, Whistler has been kidnapped by vampires and floats unconscious in a storage tank while his blood is harvested, and Blade runs the streets in his solitary war.

Ebert mentioned, “One night acrobatic creatures with glowing red eyes invade Blade’s space and engage in a violent battle that turns out to be entirely gratuitous, because after they remove their masks to reveal themselves as vampires–a ferocious warrior and a foxy babe–they only want to deliver a message: “You have been our worst enemy. But now there is something else on the streets worse than you!” This reminded me of the night in O’Rourke’s when McHugh asked this guy why he carried a gun and the guy said he lived in a dangerous neighborhood and McHugh said it would be safer if he moved.”

The Vampire Nation is under attack by a new colony of vampires named Reapers, who drink the blood of both humans and vampires, and are greedy. Blade, who is both human and vampire, is in the middle of the road. If the Reapers are not destroyed, both species will die. Ebert noted, “If the Reapers are not destroyed, both races will die. This news is conveyed by a vampire leader whose brain can be dimly seen through a light blue translucent plastic shell, more evidence of the design influence of the original iMac.”

Blade and Whistler (now rescued from the tank and revived with a “retro-virus injection”) join the vampires in this fight, which is not without danger, because of course if the Reapers are destroyed, the vampires will turn on them. Ebert pointed out, “There is a story line, however quickly sketched, to support the passages of pure action, including computer-aided fight scenes of astonishing pacing and agility. Snipes once again plays Blade not as a confident superhero, but as a once-confused kid who has been raised to be good at his work and uncertain about his identity.” He is in love with a vampire Nyssa, played by Leonor Varela, but we feel a relationship between a vampire and Blade, called a Daywalker, is sooner or later going to end in arguments over their work schedules.

The Reapers are perfectly made for this movie. They all have what looks like a scar down the center of their chins. Ebert mentioned, “The first time we see one, it belongs to a donor who has turned up at a blood bank in Prague. This is not the kind of blood bank you want to get your next transfusion from. It has a bug zapper hanging from the wall, and an old drunk who says you can even bring in cups of blood from outside and they’ll buy them.”

We find out that it is a cleft chin, not a scar. These Reapers are disgusting. Ebert said, “They have mouths that unfold into tripartite jaws. Remember the claws on the steam shovels in those prize games at the carnival, where you manipulated the wheels and tried to pick up valuable prizes? Now put them on a vampire and make them big and bloody, with fangs and mucus and viscous black saliva. And then imagine a tongue coiled inside with an eating and sucking mechanism on the end of it that looks like the organ evolution forgot–the sort of thing diseased livers have nightmares about.” Later they cut open a Reaper’s chest cavity and Blade and Whistler look inside.

Blade: The heart is surrounded in bone!

Whistler: Good luck getting a stake through it!

Ebert noted, “Del Toro’s early film “Cronos” (1993) was about an ancient golden beetle that sank its claws into the flesh of its victims and injected an immortality serum. His “Mimic” (1997) was about a designer insect, half-mantis, half-termite, that escapes into the subway system and mutates into a very big bug. Characters would stick their hands into dark places and I would slide down in my seat. His “Devil’s Backbone” (2001), set in an orphanage at the time of the Spanish Civil War, is a ghost story, not a horror picture, but does have a body floating in a tank.”

Still when he was in his 30s, Del Toro didn’t depend on computers to get him through a movie and impress those with fancy fight scenes. He brings his scary phobias with him. Ebert ended his review by saying, “You can sense the difference between a movie that’s a technical exercise (“Resident Evil”) and one steamed in the dread cauldrons of the filmmaker’s imagination.”

In my opinion, I feel like “Blade II” is better than the first one. If you like the first one better, I understand. However, I am one of those people who prefers the sequel. When I saw it, I really got into it because the action was more intense, the story was gripping, the actors played their parts perfectly, and all around, Del Toro did an amazing job with this sequel. Check it out if you haven’t seen it yet. I saw this in parts on YouTube way back when you could only see movies split up into 10-minute videos. I have been meaning to go back and rewatch the trilogy, but I haven’t gotten around to it. See this sequel to know what I mean about this one being better than the first, in my opinion.

Next week, we will be sadly ending “Black History Movie Month” with the weakest of the “Blade Trilogy.”