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.”

Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President

For this year’s “President’s Day Movie Review,” I will be looking at the 2020 documentary, “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President.”

This is an energetic celebration of a good man, who became one of USA’s most effective former presidents.

Whether or not history will look nicely at his presidency, the Georgia peanut farmer who came up to the country’s highest elected office was undeniably a lovable man. Back in the 1970s, his relationships with some of the biggest names in music helped expand his charm.

In the documentary, Grammy award-winning producer turned director Mary Wharton looks at the middle of music and politics. The film takes us behind the scenes with some of rock & roll’s most famous singers and (at that time) 95-year-old President Carter in a series of intimate interviews.

Among the musical stars shown in the documentary, we hear from Jimmy Buffet, Garth Brooks, Rosanne Cash, Larry Gatlin, Willie Nelson, Nile Rodgers, Paul Simon, Trisha Yearwood, Bono, and even Bob Dylan. Jonathan W. Hickman said in his review, “But most touching, I think, are the interviews with the late Gregg Allman (who died in 2017).”

“The Allman Brothers helped put me in the White House by raising money when I didn’t have any money!” Carters says in the film.

It was the 39^th president’s relationship with Gregg Allman that helps demonstrate the character of Jimmy Carter. Hickman noted, “Following Allman’s famous mid-1970s drug bust, and his subsequent testimony against his personal road manager, it would have been easy, even understandable, for Carter, a good Christian, to abandon the troubled southern rocker. But true to form, and by relying on his lifelong Christian sense of forgiveness, Carter’s big heart and loyalty to his friend endured.”

Risking political backlash, Carter maintained relations with Allman, even continuing to have the struggling musician and his then-wife, Cher, to the White House. Hickman said, “If Carter only valued the benefit of celebrity connections, he would have stopped taking Allman’s calls. The humility and grace on display are palpable.”

The interviews with Carter, whose son, Chip, describes as only being able to “play the stereo,” are rich and insightful. Regardless of where you stand politically, it’s hard not to appreciate Carter’s calming approach to life.

Aside from a flashback through political history, “Jimmy Carter; Rock & Roll President” works as a musical time capsule. Including rarely seen performances by some of the industry’s famous people, it’s an enjoyable and rocking movie. Hickman said, “And Wharton, daughter of famous blues guitarist Bill Wharton aka “The Sauce Boss,” smartly populates her film with a seamless tapestry of overlapping tunes.”

At one part, the documentary has a soulful rendition of God Bless America by Aretha Franklin at the presidential inauguration. It’s impossible not to fell something by the performance, which was followed by a surprise appearance on stage by Western actor John Wayne, the antagonism’s loyal voice. Later, it’s mentioned that Wayne helped with the iconic Panama Canal Treaty.

Despite Wharton presenting a solidly positive view of the former one-term president, whose legacy was forever damaged by the Iran hostage crisis, this documentary is not afraid of his political failures. However, as history looks back on him, bad thoughts don’t come easily. Also, his contagious smile and kind manner are highly shown here.

A must for music fans, and an interesting, unique look of interest to politicos, “Jimmy Carter: Rock & Roll President” puts a tough time in our nation’s history in a musical contest. It also pleads with us not to turn our back on a friend even if that relationship is not good.

As I was looking for what to watch for today, I came across this documentary, which currently can be purchased on Apple TV. I think this is a good documentary to learn about our longest-lived former president, who we sadly lost at the end of last year. With all the life blessings, he lived to be a centenarian and his presidency was good, even though there were mistakes that were made. In the end, he was as human as the next man, but this shows us how he was against segregation, his friendship with other ethnicities, and just how his background really shaped him into being the great man he was. Check this out and see for yourself.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation on the “Black Trilogy” for “Black History Movie Month.”

Sleepless in Seattle

For this year’s “Valentine’s Day Movie Review,” I will be reviewing the 1993 classic, “Sleepless in Seattle.”

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “If love at first sight is a reality, then in this information age there should also be the possibility of love at first cybercontact.”

Ebert continued, “When people meet via computers or personal ads or phone-in radio shows – when their first sight of each other is through a communications medium – isn’t it still possible that some essential chemistry is communicated? That the light in an eye can somehow be implied even over thousands of miles?” That’s the hope seen in Nora Ephron’s unapologetically romantic movie about two people who fall in love from opposite parts of the country, through the way of a radio program. In Baltimore, Meg Ryan plays a woman who is already engaged to Bull Pullman whose only problem is that he seems to be allergic to almost everything. Then one night, driving in her car, she listens to a broadcast as a young boy is appealing to the host for help with his father.

Driving through the night, Ryan listens to the story. The man (Tom Hanks) is called to the phone and we hear that after his wife died, he fell into deep depression before finally packing up his son (Ross Malinger) and moving from Chicago to Seattle. He though a change of scenery might help, but apparently it hasn’t.

Ebert said, “Something in the man’s voice – or maybe something in his soul that is transmitted along with his voice – appeals to Ryan.” She can’t stop thinking about the man. Meanwhile, in Seattle, we get to know Hanks, who is a really nice man but very sad, and his son, who hopes his dad will meet the right woman.

Ebert said, “His dad has indeed met a woman (Barbara Garrick), but since she has a laugh that resembles a hyena’s mating call, the son doesn’t consider her a contender. Ephron develops this story with all of the heartfelt sincerity of a 1950s tearjerker (indeed, the movie’s characters spend a lot of time watching “An Affair to Remember” and using it as their romantic compass). There is no irony, no distance, no angle on the material. It is about two people who are destined for one another, and that’s that. And that was fine with me.”

Ephron’s earlier film for “When Harry Met Sally…” starred Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, and spent a lot of time showing Harry and Sally not meeting. Ebert said, “This film, too, keeps its lovers separate most of the time – although there is a fuzzy scene when Ryan stands in the middle of the street and Hanks gawks at her, and bells ring in his libido.”

Ebert continued, “The plot mechanics, in fact, reminded me of some of those contrived 1940s and 1950s romantic melodramas where events conspired to bring the lovers close but no closer, and then the writers toyed with us bymanufacturing devices to keep them apart. By the end of “Sleepless in Seattle,” we’re hoping the lovers will meet atop the Empire State Building (a steal from “An Affair to Remember”), and the movie is doing everything to keep that from happening short of assigning Donald Trump to tear it down.”

The actors are well-matched to this material. Tom Hanks keeps a type of separate edge to his character, which keeps him from being simply a fall guy. Ebert noted, “Meg Ryan, who is one of the most likable actresses around and has a certain ineffable Doris Day innocence, is able to convince us of the magical quality of her sudden love for a radio voice, without letting the device seem like the gimmick is assuredly is.”

Ebert ended his review by saying, ““Sleepless in Seattle” is as ephemeral as a talk show, as contrived as the late show, and yet so warm and gentle I smiled the whole way through.”

You can currently watch this movie on either Pluto TV or Prime. If you haven’t seen this yet, you’re missing out. You should see this movie because this is a must for everyone, even if you’re not a fan of romances. This is one of the most classic movies out there and I think everyone will love this. You might compare this to the later collaboration that Hanks and Ryan did, “You’ve Got Mail.” Yes, they both have similar premises, but they’re both good in their own way. See this and enjoy yourselves.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned on Monday for my yearly “President’s Day Movie Review.”

Blade

At a time when too many movies are made from boring, TV-style visuals of people standing around talking, moves based on comic books represent of the last best hopes for visionary filmmaking. It’s strange that the comics, which borrowed their early visual style from movies, should now be returning the favor.

Roger Ebert said in his review, ““Blade,” starring Wesley Snipes as a killer of vampires who is engaged in an armageddon for possession of the Earth, is a movie that relishes high visual style. It uses the extreme camera angles, the bizarre costumes and sets, the exaggerated shadows, the confident cutting between long shots and extreme closeups. It slams ahead in pure visceral imagery.”

Obviously, anyone patiently watching the film hoping for an engaging story line is going to be disappointed. Ebert suggested, “Better to see it in comic book terms, as an episode in a master-myth, in which even the most cataclysmic confrontation is not quite the end of things, because there has to be another issue next month. The story, like so many comic myths, involves ordinary people who are connected through a superhero to an occult universe that lurks beneath reality–or, as Blade tells a young human doctor, “The world you live in is just a sugar-coated topping. There is another world beneath it–the real world!”” Blade, based on a Marvel Comics character, is played by Snipes as a man in between human and vampire. Blade’s origin story: his mother (Sanaa Lathan) was bitten by a vampire while pregnant, poisoning her son, who lived in the streets until being adopted by a man named Whistler (the great Kris Kristofferson), who plans a lonely war against vampires. Ebert said, “Now Blade, raised to manhood, is the spearhead of that battle, as vampires spread their influence through the major cities. One of their chief gathering grounds: secret after-hours dance clubs where victims are lured by the promise of forbidden thrills, only to be bitten and converted.”

Ebert continued by noting, “The movie is built around a series of major action scenes; the first one features an update of an old friend from 1970s Hong Kong movies, the flying guillotine. This is a knife-edged boomerang that spins, slices and returns to its owner. Very neat.”

Blade meets Dr. Karen Jensen, played by N’Bushe Wright, a blood specialist who has been bitten by a severely burned vampire brought in for emergency treatment. Can she be saved? He returns her to Whistler’s secret lab for an injection of liquid garlic, which will give her a good chance. Ebert noted, “Blade himself lives under a daily reprieve; Whistler’s serum keeps him on the human side, although he may be building up a resistance to it.”

Displayed against Blade are the armies of vampirism, lead by his arch-enemy Deacon Frost, played by Stephen Dorff, who’s also half-human, half-vampire, who dreams of a final vampire rebellion against humans, and world conquest. Ebert noted, “His rival within the vampire world is Dragonetti (Udo Keir), a pure vampire who prefers the current arrangement under which vampires secretly control key organizations to safeguard their interests.”

There is a lot of background inspiring Frost’s plans, including the recreation of an ancient vampire god who may return to lead the vampires in their final mission. Ebert noted, “The setting for the climactic scene is a phantasmagoric vampire temple where Blade must risk everything in a titanic showdown.”

Ebert continued, “The movie, directed by Stephen Norrington, is another in a recent group of New Line Cinema movies that combine comic book imagery, noir universes, and the visual heritage of German Expressionism; I’d rank it third after “Dark City” and “Spawn.”” This material is obviously moving in the direction of complete animation, which is the look it often tries to suggest, and there are some shots here that use special effects to suggest animation’s freedom from gravity and other physical laws. Ebert pointed out, “Notice, for example, an unbroken shot where Blade takes Dr. Jensen in his arms and makes an improbable leap from a high window to a far rooftop. Can’t be done–especially not with them seemingly floating down in midair to a safe landing–but the dreamlike feel of escape is effective.”

Wesley Snipes understands the material all the way around and makes a believable Blade because he knows that the main ingredient in any interesting superhero is not power, but vulnerability. There is always a kind of sadness motivating the personalities of the great superheroes, who have been given great knowledge and gifts but few reliefs in their battle against evil. The fun seems to be entirely on the villain’s side. By symbolizing those feelings, Snipes as Blade gives the movie that edge of emotion that without it would simply be special effects. Ebert mentioned, “Of course you have to bring something to it yourself, preferably a sympathy for the whole comic superhero ethos.” This is the kind of movie that gets better the more you know about the genre.

At a time when comic book adaptations where getting critically thrashed and bombing at the box office, “Blade” came along in 1998 and helped the resurrection of the genre. We have to thank this great film into getting people back into liking comic book adaptations. A majority of comic book adaptations in the 90s were terrible and it looked like they were going to tank, but then this film was released. It helped get comic book adaptations get back up and running. This is simply a film that everyone must see, regardless of whether they like comic book adaptations or not. Snipes is the best part of the film because he plays Blade as if he was meant for the role. The action is phenomenal, the story is engaging, the characters are great, and the writing is just right. See this if you haven’t because “Blade” is a comic book film that no one should miss. I would say this is one of my favorite comic book films.

No surprise, they made sequels to “Blade.” Check in next week to see how the first sequel turned out in “Black History Movie Month.”