The Brothers Grimm

Terry Gilliam’s “The Brothers Grimm,” released in 2005, is a work of countless invention, but it is invention without pattern, chasing itself around the screen without finding a plot. Watching it is a little tiring. If the images in the movie had been put to the duty of a story we could get engaged to, he might have had something. However, the movie looks like a style searching for a purpose.

He starts with the Brothers Grimm, whose fairy tales impress those lucky children whose parents still read to them. There is a scary quality to the Grimm stories that’s lacking in their Hollywood versions. Roger Ebert said in his review, “no modern version of Little Red Riding Hood approaches the scariness of the original story, where the Big Bad Wolf was generated not by computers but by my quaking imagination.”

However, Gilliam’s purpose is not to tell the fairy tales, however some of them have cameos in his movie. He makes the Brothers Grimm into traveling con artists, around 1796, who travel from village to village in Germany, making insincere magic and claiming it is real. Wilhelm Grimm, played by Matt Damon, is the operator of the duo, a greedy pessimist. His brother, Jacob, played by the late Heath Ledger, somewhat believes in magic. This is how it has been since “Jake” and “Will” were children, and Jacob sold the family cow for a handful of magic beans.

The con artists are revealed by Delatombe, played by Jonathan Pryce, Napoleon’s man in Germany. However, instead of punishing them, he releases the duo to the village of Marbaden, where children are missing and it appears that in the haunted forest “the trees themselves set upon them. Delatombe’s strange harasser Cavaldi, played by Peter Stormare, is sent along to be sure the Grimms deliver what they’re supposed to. Ebert noted, “they are apparently supposed to be 18th century ghostbusters, or maybe the equivalents of the Amazing Randi, unmasking fraud.”

The problem is, the forest really is magical. A local huntswoman named Angelika, played by Lena Headey, knows it is and tries to convince the brothers, who become convinced only that they love her. There is another romantic trouble when the evil 500-year-old Mirror Queen, played by Monica Bellucci, casts a spell over events. When the Grimms try to enter her castle and break the spell, they’re going against the real deal: A kiss from her can murder. Jacob is tempted. Ebert admitted, “Jacob is tempted. Considering that she is 500 years old, I am reminded of Mark Twain’s first words after being shown an ancient Egyptian mummy: “Is he, ah — is he dead?””

Ebert continued, “A great deal more happens in “The Brothers Grimm,” and none of it is as easy to follow as I have made it sound.” The film is built of traits that may look like a great idea in themselves but have not been made into a narrative we can follow and care about. There is also the problem of who, exactly, Gilliam thinks the Brothers Grimm are. Sometimes they look like romantic heroes, sometimes like clowns, sometimes like fraud magicians, sometimes like real ones. Ebert said, “Their own fairy tales had the virtue of being tightly focused and implacable in their sense of justice: Misbehavior was cruelly punished as often as virtue was rewarded. Their strict code is lacking in the movie, which is based on shifting moral sands. At times the Grimms are liars and charlatans, at times brave and true.” Those times appear selected at the convenience of the movie.

Gilliam has always been a director who fills the screen with vast visual delight. Ebert noted, “In “Brazil” and “12 Monkeys” and “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen,” in the past and in the future, his world is always hallucinatory in its richness of detail.” Here the haunted forest is actually very impressive, but to what end? In a movie like Tim Burton’s “Sleepy Hollow,” the night and shadows hold real danger. Here the trees look more like an idea than a danger. Also, the movie, for all of its fantastic endeavoring, stays on the screen and fails to occupy our imagination.

I knew of this movie from the trailers when it was being released in theaters, but I never saw it. I was always thinking about seeing this, so a few months back, I saw this on Paramount+. I have to admit, this isn’t anything that really makes it memorable. If you watch it, you might forget about it easily since it doesn’t sit with you for very long. If you want to see it, it is currently streaming on Pluto TV, but I don’t know if I should recommend it.

Next week, we’ll be ending “Terry Gilliam Month” with the last film Heath Ledger starred in before he passed.

The Fisher King

The story of the Holy Grail goes back to the twelfth century, yet it clearly speaks to the current generation. In “The Fisher King,” released in 1991, screenplay writer Richard LaGravenese reworks this medieval legend by setting it in modern day New York City. Director Terry Gilliam originally goes into the handful of moods and settings of the city.

Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat said in their review, “Jack Lucas (Jeff Bridges) is a cold, calculating shock radio disc jockey in New York City whose greed and egotism have cut him off from the rest of humanity. When a deranged man murders seven people in a bar after hearing one of his on-air tirades against yuppies, the seemingly unperturbable celebrity plunges into a dark pit of alcoholism and depression.”

Jack is calm with Anne, played by Mercedes Ruehl, a strong woman who runs a video store. However, his guilt is always with him until he meets Parry, played by the late Robin Williams. He is a former medieval history professor who became delusional after his wife was murdered in the bar shooting.

Brussat said, “At first, Jack doesn't know what to think of this half madman/half fool who claims he is a knight on a quest and is being pursued by a Red Knight only he can see. Then Jack realizes that if he can restore Parry to his former life, he might be able to assuage his own guilt.”

Part of this restoration mission involves setting Parry up with Lydia, played by Amanda Plummer, a shy accountant he becomes enamored with from a distance. The stake is raised when another disaster happens to Parry and Jack when they must recover what his friend claims to be the Holy Grail from a millionaire’s mansion on Fifth Avenue.

Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams are convincing as two rebellious men who meet when they are both sunken deep in their depression. Like the Fisher Kind, they are damaged and suffering. Then through caring and a few good works, they change each other.

Brussat noted, “The performances by Bridges and Williams are high-wire triumphs where each actor contributes to the other's dazzling leaps and somersaults.” In supporting roles, Mercedes Ruehl is lovable as Jack’s girlfriend Anne and Amanda Plummer is extraordinary as someone Parry is infatuated with: the oddball Lydia.

Brussat claims, “The Fisher King bears witness to the universal search for wholeness. It also speaks forcefully to the longing for spirituality afoot in our land. We all carry wounds as deep and unyielding as Jack's guilt and Parry's grief.” Through the good deeds done, we too can be recovered from our own suffering.

This is a good movie that everyone to see. I think a lot of people can relate to the issues Bridges and Williams’ characters are going through since so many people have fallen deep after the passing of a loved one. However, this film gives you hope that even though you are at this point in your health, there is always a guiding light to help you out of any issue you are dealing with. There’s one funny scene where at the climax of the movie, Williams’ character gets nude in Central Park. Williams admitted it was a cold night when he made the nude scene. However, the effects of this movie still look good and they are scary, especially when you see what is going on in Parry’s mind. This is one of those films that have to been seen in order to be believed. I recommend it.

Next week, I will look at another movie that is based on scary story writers in “Terry Gilliam Month.”

Tetris

Today, while exercising, I finished watching “Tetris,” released in 2025, on Apple TV. Tonight, I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

Richard Roeper started his review by saying, “You’ve probably heard something about a movie that goes back to the 1980s to tell the incredible but true story of a smart, scrappy, energetic wheeler-dealer who went to great lengths to woo a genius and secure the rights to a phenomenon that to this day is a globally famous and wildly successful brand name.”

That’s right, we’re talking about “Tetris,” the movie!

Roeper said, “This Apple TV+ original film, directed by Jon S. Baird, doesn’t attempt to replicate the entertainingly addictive block-stacking puzzle game because I don’t know how you’d make a movie out of that; it’s a fictionalized and creatively stylized origins story that plays like a Cold War thriller version of “The Social Network.””

Coming off of the famous Apple TV+ limited series “Black Bird,” the Welsh actor Taron Egerton sets his standing as one of our most useful talents as he once again disappears into a role, as he did with “Rocketman” a few years prior. Wearing a classic 80s mustache and filling the screen with energy and charisma, Egerton is great as Henk Rogers, a Dutch-Indonesian video game designer, entrepreneur and dealmaker who lives in Japan with his wife (Ayane Nagabuchi) and child (Kanon Narumi) but is almost constantly going, flying around the world to sell video games to everyone from skeptical bankers to the late and shamed billionaire media tycoon Robert Maxwell (Roger Allam) to different Soviet Union officials and KGB types to the inventor of Tetris himself.

With director Baird and his production team occasionally using 1980s-sytle video game graphics and 8-bit retro-style visuals to showcase Henk’s flights and a car chase, “Tetris” has a great look, but sometimes gets stuck in the middle. Even Henk expresses his frustration at how often meetings are interrupted and rescheduled. Roeper said, “ On balance, though, this is a nifty, breezy gem filled with wonderful performances from a stellar cast that includes the great Toby Jones as Henk’s chief competitor for the various rights to Tetris (PC, handheld, arcade); Roger Allam, doing a wonderfully booming and suitably pompous take on Maxwell; Anthony Boyle as Maxwell’s son, Kevin, who insists that everyone call him “Mr. Maxwell” even as almost no one truly respects the little bleep, and Togo Igawa as Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi.”

“Tetris” is as much about the moods of Cold War politics in the declining years of the Soviet Union as it is about the fight for Tetris rights. Henk goes in and out of Russia trying to secure the licensing to the game, which had been invented in 1984 by Soviet government employee Alexey Pajitnov, played by Nikita Efremov) and distributed underground through floppy disks. With a local named Sasha (Sofia Lebedeva) acting as his interpreter and his tour guide through the streets and the politics of the Soviet Union, Henk runs into all types of problems (so to speak) as he learns the rights may have already been secured by Andromeda Software’s Robert Stein (Toby Jones), who has made a licensing deal with the Maxwells – or has he? Roeper said, “It’s beyond complicated, and there are times when we get lost in the weeds, but that’s OK, because Henk is nearly as lost as we are from time to time.”

There’s also a nice little buddy movie inside “Tetris,” as Henk wins over the at first skeptical Alexey, eventually working his way into Alexey’s good graces, mainly because they’re both devoted family men who would do anything to protect their closed ones. As it becomes more apparent that the licensing rights to Tetris will not only be just a few million, but tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, the fight for ownership rights becomes even more difficult, with Alexey’s boss (Oleg Stefan) and an evil and corrupt KGB officer (Igor Grabuzov) trying to get their hands on those rights. As you’d guess, “Tetris” ends with one of the credit scenes that tells us what happened to all the main real-life people in this story – set perfectly to Opportunities (Let’s Make Lots of Money) by the Pet Shop Boys – and it’s pretty great that just about everybody got what they deserved.

While I was scrolling through Apple TV+, I saw this and was curious about what was it about. When I read the description, I was curious to know about Tetris, since I’m not familiar with video game history, but I know about this game, so I thought of seeing it. After I saw it, I can safely say that if anyone knows about video game history or not and are just fans of Tetris, like everyone should be, you should see this if you have Apple TV+. You will be at the edge of your seat to know who will get their hands on the licensing rights of the game. Check it out and see how we got one of the most famous games in history.

Thank you for joining in on this review. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Terry Gilliam Month.”

Mortal Kombat II

Today, I went to see “Mortal Kombat II,” which came out yesterday, with some friends and I will let you know what I thought of the sequel to this video game adaptation.

“Mortal Kombat II” does exactly what a film based on a popular video game franchise should do – focus on pleasing the diehard fans.

Jeffrey Lyles said in his review, “Thanks to that approach, Mortal Kombat II is an anomaly for live action video games.” It delivers exactly what those who would be excited about a Mortal Kombat game would expect. It may not be flawless, but it’s an incredibly satisfying experience making for one of the more crowd-pleasing action films of the year.

Lyles noted, “Director Simon McQuoid returns for Mortal Kombat II seemingly emboldened with getting another crack at staging dramatically brutal action scenes and focusing more on franchise fan-favorite characters making for an improvement over the surprisingly solid first film.”

Lord Raiden (Asano Tadanobu) brings together Liu Kang (Ludi Lin), Jax (Mechad Brooks), Sonya Blade (Jessica McNamee), and Cole (Lewis Tan) for the latest tournament, which once again puts Earthrealm in danger of being controlled by the evil warlord Shao Khan (Martyn Ford, who looks every bit the role). With the death of Kung Lao, reprised by Max Huang, Raiden needs another fighter.

“Mortal Kombat II” does the post credit tease from the first game with the arrival of fan favorite Johnny Cage, played by Karl Urban. Lyles noted, “The wait was worth it as screenwriter Jeremy Slater (Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire) gets exactly how to best utilize the character right from his intro scene in a cheesy 90s movie before showing his present fading glory as a regular on the pop culture con circuit.”

Cage doesn’t want anything to do with Raiden’s reason to recruit him and has no interest in fighting in a tournament to the death. Lyles said, “Urban’s line delivery and overall bravado is superb as he brings a Jack Burton swagger to the role.” Slater takes advantage of the handful of characters in the Warner Bros. movie with references to “Harry Potter” and meta-references to “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, which Urban also joined in the second film.

Lyles said, “Slater benefits from not having to explain the entire concept of the fight to the death tournament making use of the video game lore to tell this story.” This allows him to introduce another new addition to “Mortal Kombat II” – Kitana, played by Adeline Rudolph. Kitana’s father (Desmond Chiam) was killed by Shao Khan, who decided to take her and her mother, Sindel (Ana Thu Nguyen) as his own family. While training with Khan’s appointed bodyguard Jade (Tati Gabrielle), Kitana wants to end his rule once and for all.

For now, she’s got to go along as a loyal daughter while secretly passing information to Raiden. If Raiden’s five champions die in the tournament, Earth will fall under Shao Khan’s rule. To save Earth, they have to defeat Shao Khan and his minions. Barely in favor of a fair fight, Shao Khan plots to roll the odds in his favor with the help of his sorcerers Shang Tsung (Chin Han) and Quan Chi (Damon Herriman).

Series veterans Sub-Zero (Joe Taslim), Hanzo Hasashi aka Scorpion (Hiroyuki Sanada), and Kano (Josh Lawson) return as well. Lyles said, “Kano fits in more naturally to the story as he can bring crass humor without coming off as a Cage stand-in this time.” One of the film’s best scenes is with Cage meeting Baraka, played by CJ Bloomfield, with its perfect combination of action and humor.

Slater does a great job of adding in some story in between the fights. Lyles is right when he said, “Mortal Kombat II isn’t the kind of film that needs extended dialogue-heavy scenes, but it’s nice that the film can still be engaging when the blood isn’t sprayed all over. When it’s time for the blood spraying, dismemberments and any other creative ways to kill characters, the film definitely provides some appropriately over the top carnage.”

McQuoid takes the fight scenes to another level depending on more to the game approach with wider angles and physics. Weapon shots don’t immediately end a fight, and the large blood-spilling moments don’t lead to characters bleeding out. The battleground settings also seem targeted towards the game aesthetics.

Lyles pointed out, “Costumer Cappi Ireland does a sensational job translating the Mortal Kombat II game designs to live action, but the lighting particularly during the Sub-Zero and Scorpion clash would benefit from brighter hues.”

Lyles continued, “The film is peppered with fun nods to the source material that feel less like Easter Eggs and more like staples of the game brought to live action in a mostly organic manner.”

“Mortal Kombat II” proves this sequel of the live-action series has real franchise potential. With the hint of a third film, it’s hardly time to think about finishing it anytime soon.

This is the best live-action Mortal Kombat film we got. I enjoyed the action scenes, a lot of the times it looked like the actual game, the moves were all there, the characters were great, and I spazzed out at a couple of the references to the game. There are no end credit scenes, but stay till the end credits to hear that amazing theme song. You must go to the theaters to see this, especially if you’re a fan of the game, because you will love this one, I promise. I call this a “Flawless Victory” since I think this is better than the two 90s adaptations and the first movie from five years ago.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned next Friday for the next review in “Terry Gilliam Month.”

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.