Monty Python’s Life of Brian

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian” has been re-released, I suspect, because of the enormous box office of “The Passion of the Christ.” This is a classic bait-and-switch, because Brian, of course, is not Christ, but was born in the next stable. In cinema as in life, poor Brian never did the big numbers. When the film was released in 1979, it was attacked as blasphemous by many religious groups. Consulting my original review, I find I quoted Stanley Kauffmann in the New Republic, who speculated that Jesus might have enjoyed it; he had a sense of humor, proven by his occasional puns. That opens up another line of controversy: Are puns funny? Certainly “Monty Python’s Life of Brian” is funny, in that peculiar British way where jokes are told sideways, with the obvious point and then the delayed zinger.”

The tragedy of Brian, played by Graham Chapman, is that he has everything it takes to be a success, except divinity. Not that he has any passion to found a religion. He impresses followers who convince themselves he is the savior, is the object of unusual respect, and unsuccessfully tries to persuade his (small) crowds that he is not who they think he is. No, that’s the other guy. Ebert said, “His followers seize upon the smallest hints and misunderstood fragments of his speech to create an orthodoxy which they claim to have received from him.”

We see the real Jesus twice, once in the next manger (unlike Brian, he has a halo) and again when he delivers the Sermon on the Mount. Most biblical movies show the Sermon from a point of view close to Jesus, or looking over his shoulder. Ebert noted, ““Life of Brian” has the cheap seats, way down at the bottom of the mount, where it’s hard to hear: “What did he say? Blessed are the cheesemakers?””

Unlike Brian, “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” team had a distinguished family tree. Ebert mentioned, “It was in direct descent from “The Goon Show” on BBC radio (Spike Mulligan, Peter Sellers) and the satirical revue “Beyond the Fringe” (Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Jonathan Miller, Alan Bennett) — which was inspired by Second City. Cook and Moore also had a TV show named “Not Only…but Also,” which along with Second City more or less invented “Saturday Night Live.”” Then came the Pythons, who adapted best to movies (“Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” “Monty Python’s Meaning of Life”).

Ebert said, “The success of “Life of Brian” is based first of all on Brian’s desperation at being a redeemer without portfolio. He’s like one of those guys you meet in a bar who explains how he would have been Elvis if Elvis hadn’t been so much better at it. Brian is, in fact, not a religious leader at all but the member of an underground political organization seeking to overthrow Pontius Pilate and throw the Romans out of the Holy Land. There are uncomfortable parallels with the real-life situation in the Middle East, and a jab at the second-class status of women in the scene where men stone a blasphemer. The joke is that the “men” are women pretending to be men, because as women they never get to have fun attending stonings and suchlike. Monty Python rotates the joke into another dimension, since all of the women in the movie are men in drag (some of them risking discovery, you would think, by wearing beards).”

The movie helps by looking vaguely historically accurate (it used the sets build by Lord Lew Grade for Franco Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth”). It includes familiar figures such as Pontius Pilate, played by Michael Palin, but observes that he speaks with a lisp (his centurions weakly laugh behind his back). At important moments, he breaks into song, and there is a certain irony, considering how it is used on the movie, that The Bright Side of Life has taken on a long life in exactly the opposite meaning.

If the film has a message, and it may, it’s that a lot of what passes in religion for truth is the result of centuries of opinion and theory. Ebert noted, “Its version of the Brian legend is like a comic parallel to the theories of Christian history in The Da Vinci Code — itself a ripe target for Pythonizing. The difficulty with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that it is a translation of a translation of a translation of documents that were chosen by the early church from among a much larger cache of potential manuscripts.” “You’ve all got to think for yourselves!” Brian insists his followers, who obediently repeat after him: “We’ve all got to think for ourselves!”

I heard about this movie when Doug Walker said it was one of his favorite comedies. I would say it is also one of mine, despite that there are some controversial topics they joke about, like how Chapman and Palin do with the speech impediments. Still, I think this is a movie that everyone should check out, especially if you’re a Monty Python fan. This is currently streaming on Xumo Play, Pluto TV, Roku, Sling TV, The CW, PLEX, Peacock, and Prime to name a few. I knew about the end song before watching the film because we had a karaoke game where this song was an option on, and my brother had my mom sing along with him. If you don’t get easily offended by what they do with Christianity, then I would say to check it out and have a great time laughing. I’m not anti-religion, anti-Christian, atheist, or agnostic, as I respect all religions and faiths, and Monty Python does not try to offend in any way. I’m not a Monty Python fan, as I have only seen two of their movies and a couple of their sketches, but I think they are very influential and were a great comedic team. I have not seen anything else Monty Python related after this, so I do give this a recommendation. Just watch it and see for yourself.

Next week, we will look at a fantasy comedy drama that is a good one to see in “Terry Gilliam Month.”

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

For this month, I thought of looking at films made by one of the great British filmmakers, Terry Gilliam. Let’s start this month with one of my favorite comedies and a classic that is loved by many, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” released in 1975, which is still extremely funny a little over 50 years later.

For the amateurs, the film’s story is right there in the title. The famous comedy troupe made a film all about King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table on a journey to find the Holy Grail. That is pretty much a minimal way to say these hilarious people are going to go on all types of misadventures, as they eventually go through some story on a holy quest.

Graham Chapman plays the protagonist as King Arthur, but he is joined by the entire cast including John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. The entire cast plays the different knights, along with many of the other characters seen throughout the film. Aaron Neuwirth said in his review, “I’m honestly not even sure what else I am supposed to say about the plot and characters this point, so I’ll stop.”

What makes this film work is the amazing hilarity that is helped by very smart comedians. Anyone who has never seen this film will probably recognize different references their friends have quoted over the years and be excited by the context. This is one of the most quotable films, but what makes it hold up so well is the amount of fun found behind every piece of comedy in this film.

Every Monty Python member was involved in “Holy Grail’s” production, with Jones and Gilliam as the directors. Neuwirth said, “This mix of creative control and limited funds also aided in making this film a difficult production, but an incredibly successful one. Yes, it has a cheap look to it, but that is very much how the team mines even more comedy out of the film.” Who needs horses, when you can use coconuts to make the sound of their galloping and then make so many jokes around that exact part?

Neuwirth credited, “There is also something to be said for this film’ staying power. A film does not just become one of the greatest comedies ever made for having a collection of jokes that play well. So much inspiration and intelligence surrounds those who grew up with a film like this and it helps that this film is so fixated on delivering on each new sequence, without dwelling too much on various bits.”

It is hard to describe what else makes this film a masterpiece, so to put it bluntly, it really just is. Yes, it’s a comedy and that is not enough to attract everyone, when it comes to telling someone what is funny, but “Holy Grail” is a film that really delivers everything. The fun, silliness, quotable moments, casting, and everything else have combined for a famous comedy and anyone not already impressed, this is the time to watch it.

Neuwirth admitted, “This film will never stop being hilarious to me and I can only hope new viewers realize why it is so special.” Basically, this is a comedy you have to watch right away.

Currently, this is streaming on YouTube, Roku, Pluto TV, The CW, Peacock, and Prime to name a few. If you haven’t seen this film, stop reading this review and go watch it. You have to see it to know what a great comedy this is. After watching it, you will understand, as you will be laughing throughout. Then, you will get all the references that people have made and will start quoting it yourself. See it if you haven’t because you will love it, I promise. I cannot give it a high enough recommendation. I saw a little bit of the film in college. One time for a Philosophy Logic class, and another in an Ancient Comedy class. Then, I saw the entire film because everyone was talking about it that I had to see it to believe how great of comedy this is.

Next week I will look at the next “Monty Python” film in the next review of “Terry Gilliam Month.”

The Intern

There’s something so relaxing about a Nancy Meyers movie. Everything looks so good. Both elegant and comfortable. Glenn Kenny said in his review, “It’s not just the real estate porn, which had its most blatant manifestation in the Hamptons beach house featured in Meyers’ ageism-juggling 2003 rom-com “Something’s Gotta Give.” It’s also the furnishings, like the rotating tie rack in the bedroom of the brownstone owned by Robert De Niro’s retired businessman in her latest, “The Intern.” It’s how all the surfaces gleam: “The Intern” was shot at locations mostly within walking distance of where I actually live, and while it is a very blessed part of Brooklyn, its windows are not normally quite as uniformly shiny as those of the buildings seen here.”

Kenny continued, “And often this soothing quality serves as a distraction from how inane and uncomfortable a movie such as “Something’s Gotta Give” can be. But here’s the thing: “The Intern,” while having its share of silly moments, is the most genuinely enjoyable and likable movie that Meyers—a longtime writer and producer before taking up directing—has put her name to since, oh, I don’t know, 1984’s “Irreconcilable Differences.””

De Niro has the main role here, like in “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” and even “The King of Comedy.” His character’s name is Ben Whittaker, and he’s a retired, wealthy widower in Brooklyn who’s bored with the amount of free time in his current, comfortable way of living. He applies for a position in a “Senior Intern Program” and an e-commerce concern called “About The Fit,” and ends up reporting to its founder, Jules, a classic, for Meyers, 21^st Century entrepreneur character. Not too far underneath her bright exterior (she IS played by Anne Hathaway) is a highly motivated and possibly restricted go-getter.

Kenny credited, “De Niro’s character here is one that he pretty much never played during what many consider his acting heyday: a decent, straightforward, non-neurotic regular guy who’s gotten somewhere good in life. And in this movie, he plays it rather well. There’s something slightly Woody Allenesque about his opening scene, in which he constructs a job-application video. His role calls for him to do a certain amount of mugging as he interacts with younger colleagues and learns about the Weird Things These Kids Today Do With Their Relationships And The Internet and such. Thankfully, the movie doesn’t dwell on senior-citizen bemusement with the Digital Age all too much; one of the points of De Niro’s character is that he’s alert and competent and wants to be of service. He has a hard time being of service to Jules, whose relentless focus makes her immediately distrustful of anyone who has an insight as to how she conceives and runs her business. And the movie is rather good at the details of that business, and the way that Jules’ vision for it defines its practical particulars.”

Kenny continued, “But Ben manages to get into Jules’ good graces partly via patriarchal stealth, as when he confronts Jules’ driver after seeing him take a few nips out of a paper bag right before the soon-to-be-ex-employee is supposed to take her to a meeting in Manhattan. Ben’s internship happens to coincide with a challenging period in the growth of Jules’ company; Jules’ aide-de-camp Cameron (a very understated Andrew Rannells) brings her the unusual news that the company’s investors, while delighted with its success, would like to bring an outside CEO to the company. Jules dutifully interviews prospects even as she’s dizzied by the idea that she could be effectively ousted from her own creation. In the meantime, her home life—she has a too-milquetoasty-to-be-a-bro-dad husband (Anders Holm) and a predictably delightful and adorable young daughter (JoJo Kushner)—is taking the standard can-a-career-woman-have-it-all hits. And at least one hit that’s not so standard, or maybe I should say, not so easy to stand.”

Through everything Ben keeps a careful, sympathetic watch – early in their relationship, Jules admits her discomfort with him as rising because he’s too “observant” – and when he comes to give her help, he does so in a subtly brave way that actually parallels any “here is dad to save you” expectations. As it happens, Ben sincerely cares for Jules – looks up to her, you can say – and when he does bring his experience as a businessman to help Jules in her own business, it’s in the spirit of sharing knowledge besides correction. At the worst, Ben gives Jules the guarantee that the thing to do is be tough and go after what you want.

Kenny said, “The adages of “The Intern” are delivered in a comedy package that, for the most part, is sane, sweet, and smart, and a lot of the time, actually funny. A budding romance between Ben and the company’s in-house masseuse (Rene Russo) is fodder for two groan-inducing visual gags. But a silly set piece in which Ben enlists some of the younger goofballs of About The Fit on a housebreaking mission, replete with latter-day “Ocean’s Eleven” references, is actually a tolerable bit of rompage. And everyone in the cast, including Hathaway, who, for the record, I have never not liked, is extremely appealing. “What have you done with my husband?” my wife asked me the other night when I came home and told her I’d had a genuinely good time watching a Nancy Meyers movie. What could I say?” You’re never too old to keep an open mind.

This is another comedy that everyone should see. Even though you could call this a comedy, there are some genuine moments in here that feel really good. Like when De Niro speaks to Hathaway about his life experiences to help her out, it really says a lot. If you haven’t seen this, I would recommend it because you will enjoy this one a lot. I know I did when I saw this as a rental with my sister from the library.

Alright, that ends “Robert De Niro Month.” I’m sorry for the late posting, as I fell asleep then I had family over tonight. Stay tuned next month to see what other excitement I have planned.

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.