Hoppers

Last night, I watched the new Pixar movie, “Hoppers,” which was released theatrically in March but on Disney+ 11 days ago. I was wanting to watch this in theaters, but we didn’t get the chance, so I waited until it was released on Disney+. How is this new Pixar movie? Is it an original idea or something Pixar has already done before?

There is something quietly encouraging about a Pixar film that just works. Not in the way that it reinvents animation or redefines storytelling, yet the studio has done that more times than most. However, in the way it reminds you why Pixar became such a great force to begin with.

Doug Jamieson said in his review, “Strong characters, a clear emotional core, humour that lands for both kids and adults, and a story that wears its heart openly without tipping into saccharine excess. That particular balance has felt elusive at times in recent years, with the studio chasing ambition in different directions.”

Jamieson continued, “Yet their latest arrives as a confident, charming recalibration, a film that may not aim for the stars visually, but hits a deeply satisfying emotional sweet spot.” Directed by Daniel Chong and written by Jesse Andrews, “Hoppers” is, at the center, a story about connection.

Between humans and animals, between grief and purpose, between the version of ourselves made by anger and the one made by understanding. Jamieson notes, “It wraps those ideas in a zany, high-concept premise involving mind-linked animal robots, yet never loses sight of the grounded emotional truth at its centre.”

The film introduces Mabel Tanaka, voiced by Lila Liu, as a child whose love for animals is on the fence of rebellion. Whether she tries to free classroom pets or standing up against the way her town treats wildlife, Mabel’s feelings are driven by a strong, if unfocused, sense of justice.

Then her grandmother she gets really close with, voiced by Karen Huie, calmly redirects that anger, showing her toward a silent glade where she learns to listen rather than fight, to understand rather than react. That advice from her childhood becomes the film’s emotional basis.

Years later, as a university student, Mabel (Piper Curda) finds herself still attached to that place, now under threat from a planned beltway supervised by the shallow, self-centered Mayor Jerry Generazzo (Jon Hamm). The animals that once occupied the glide have started to leave, and the feeling of loss is deep, not just environmentally, but spiritually.

Jamieson points out, “This is no longer just a childhood refuge. It’s something that needs protecting. Enter the film’s delightfully absurd central device.”

Through the research of her biology professor, Dr. Sam, voiced by Kathy Najimy, Mabel gets access to experimental robotic animals that can be controlled via a neural link. The process, called “hopping,” allows humans to occupy animal bodies, experiencing the world from a completely different perspective. This is an idea that Pixar immediately supplies both comedy and meaning, combining physical humor with a deeper look at empathy.

Jamieson mentions, “From there, Hoppers opens up into its most playful and imaginative stretch, as Mabel, now disguised as a beaver within the animal world, attempts to solve a very practical problem, convincing a real beaver to rebuild the dam that once sustained the glade’s ecosystem.” What she finds instead is a completely realized animal society, that have their own rules, hierarchies, and personalities.

Breaking those rules almost immediately, by preventing the hungry bear Ellen (stand-up comedian and former SNL star, Melissa Villaseñor) from eating the forever exhausted beaver Loaf (Eduardo Franco), Mabel accidentally gets the attention of King George, the friendly and slightly confused leader of the beavers, brought to life with perfect comedic timing by Bobby Moynihan. We also have Aparna Nancherla and Sam Richardson voicing assistants of Dr. Sam.

It's here that the film really finds its rhythm. The friendship between Mabel and King George, along with the growing team of animal characters, gives a steady flow of genuinely funny, character-driven comedy.

The humor is not just situational, yet there is plenty of that, but based in personality, misunderstanding, and the essential silliness of a human trying to navigate animal life. Particularly, Moynihan is a standout, making a character who is equally ridiculous and charming, his leadership style as questionable as it is genuine.

However, underneath the comedy is a gradually developing emotional center. As Mabel spends more time with the animals, forming bonds and earning trust, the film deepens its look at identity and perspective.

The method of “hopping” becomes more than a narrative part. It becomes a metaphor, a way of understanding lives that exist along with our own but are so often ignored or dismissed. The film’s message about conversation arrives naturally from this, not as a lecture, but as a lived experience. That balance is where “Hoppers” succeeds.

The film’s message of environmentalism is one of its greatest strengths. There is something genuinely emotional about the way it encourages empathy toward the natural world, making environmental protection not as a mental concept but as a deeply personal responsibility.

Even with a relevant message at its center, “Hoppers” never loses its feel of fun, embracing its crazy premise with enthusiasm, yet it consistently keeps that energy in character and theme. The growing issue with Mayor Jerry, whose plans for development threaten not just the glade but the entire ecosystem, gives a clear villain.

Jamieson said, “Thankfully, the film wisely avoids turning him into a purely cartoonish villain.” Hamm plays him with just enough charm to make him believable, despite his actions becoming increasingly frustrating.

All around, the voice cast is terrific. Jamieson credits, “Curda carries the film with ease, giving Mabel a sincerity that anchors even the most outlandish moments. She brings a wonderfully naturalistic quality to the heroine, avoiding the overly heightened delivery that can sometimes creep into animated performances.”

There’s an established, almost modest sincerity in her voice work that makes Mabel’s emotional journey feel true, mainly in quieter moments where reflection and doubt take over. Curda allows the character to feel like a real young woman, figuring things out in real time, which gives the film an emotional fix that never feels forced.

Moynihan is perfectly cast as the instantly lovable King George. He goes fully into the weirdness of the possibly optimist leader with a performance that feels both spontaneous and carefully adjusted.

Jamieson credits, “He finds humour in the character’s contradictions, a leader who projects confidence while often flying by the seat of his pants, and imbues him with a surprising level of warmth beneath the chaos. It’s the kind of voice performance that keeps revealing new comedic details with each scene, making George one of the film’s most consistently delightful presences.”

Jamieson continues, “Supporting voices like Meryl Streep as the feared Insect Queen, Dave Franco as her tyrannical son, Titus, Ego Nwodim as the snooty Fish Queen, and Vanessa Bayer in a hilarious apex predator role that’s best left unspoiled flesh out the world with distinctive, memorable contributions. There is a sense of ensemble playfulness that carries through the film, each performance contributing to its lively tone.”

Visually, “Hoppers” is hands down beautiful, even if it does not target the same level of technical innovation as some of Pixar’s most recent works. Jamieson praised,

The glade itself is rendered with a soft, almost storybook quality, its lush greenery and reflective waters creating a sense of calm that contrasts with the encroaching threat of development.

The animal world is expressive and vibrant, with character designs that prioritise personality over hyper-realism, allowing for greater comedic flexibility. Each creature feels thoughtfully constructed with distinct silhouettes, expressive features, and small behavioural quirks that give them immediate personality.

There’s a tactile charm to their design, balancing stylisation with just enough realism to make them feel alive, which makes it all the easier to invest in them as fully formed characters rather than background whimsy.

If there is a limitation here, it would be the animation rarely feeling groundbreaking. In the past, Pixar has pushed the envelope forward with each release, redefining what animated storytelling can look like. “Hoppers” is more satisfied to work within established boundaries, delivering clear, lovable visuals without wanting that next leap.

This is a conscious decision, and one that works the film’s tone, but it does mean it lacks the visual amazement factor of the studio’s most determined work. Also, the narrative follows a familiar path.

From Mabel’s main frustration to her look in the animal world, the eventual revelation of her secret, and the rise toward a crazy, high-energy third act, the story is recognizable. Jamieson pointed out, “There’s even a self-deprecating gag about how this plot is similar to that of Avatar.”

The film’s final act, involving a larger confrontation and a gathering of the wildlife council, goes heavily into its insane sensibilities, occasionally feeling a little overdone in its attempt to bring everything together. However, even when it feels predictable, it remains completely engaging.

Chong and Andrews understand that familiarity is not a flaw if it is done with care. Jamieson said, “What ultimately elevates Hoppers is its boundless sincerity.”

It believes in its message, characters, and invites the audience to do the same, not through manipulation, but through real emotional connection. The relationship between Mabel and her grandmother lingers throughout the film, a quiet reminder of where her journey began, while her increasing understanding of the animal world gives a satisfying feel of growth.

By the time the film arrives at the end, it may not surprise you, but it will possibly win you over. This is hands down a happy, good-natured return to classic Pixar storytelling.

This is funny, genuine, occasionally messy, but always good-intentioned, and in a landscape where animated films often chase vision at the cost of substance, “Hopppers” feels happily grounded in what matters most.

This may not be Pixar at its best but it is Pixar at its most endearing with a genuinely likable story full of heart, humor, and lovable insanity. That’s something the animation company always does so wonderfully well.

At a time when this message hits really close to home, “Hoppers” is one that everyone must see. Sure, we have plenty of environmental movies out there that all have the same message, but “Hoppers” does it in a way that doesn’t feel stale and repetitive. This is a movie that families should watch together and learn something, as we need more people behind this cause. You’ll love the animation, characters, and especially the story. See it on Disney+ and have fun.

Thank you for joining in on this review today. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Bill Paxton Month.”

Jack Ryan: Ghost War

Today, while exercising, I finished watching “Jack Ryan: Ghost War,” which came out on Amazon Prime last month. I was surprised to see they came out with another Jack Ryan movie, since the last two films were not good. However, this apparently came out after a “Jack Ryan” show ended three years ago, which I never heard of. How is this latest sequel?

Mini Anthikad Chhibber started her review by saying, “At the end of the fourth and final season of the political thriller, Jack Ryan(2018- 2023), based on Tom Clancy’s characters, Ryan (John Krasinski) saved the world again, left the CIA and walked into the sunset with his girlfriend, Cathy.”

Sadly, that does not stop the lucrative studio heads that don’t want any franchise to stop, even if it ends on a bad note. That’s why we got “Jack Ryan: Ghost War,” a perfectly functional little thriller, but not an especially great one.

The film starts with the necessary action-packed scene, this time in Dubai. Orders are given, and good men are betrayed with flying bullets and stone. Ryan is now a civilian working on Wall Street, taking a nice job, when he is stopped by James Greer, played by Wendell Pierce, the Deputy Director of the CIA.

As Ryan states, he is a civilian and does not want to participate in anything Greet is suggesting, he agrees to meet someone in Dubai, since he is flying out there for work. Former Venezuela station chief and now CIA contractor, Mike November, played by Michael Kelly, is going along as backup.

As you predict, it starts to go wrong when Ryan ends up encountering the MI6 agent, Nigel Cooke, played by Douglas Hodge, whose mission was failed miserably in the beginning. Chhibber said, “This particular can of worms that Ryan uncovers involves rogue MI6 agents, black ops, Greer’s hand in a death by torture, old sins casting long shadows, and Madonna’s Blond Ambition.”

John Krasinski was involved in the story and screenplay, so you can’t blame him for not being involved. Chhibber said, “However, while the film is short, does some glitzy location work (Dubai, the UK), has the requisite action sequences with screeching tyres and shattering glass, it still remains only mildly engaging.”

The acting is right, with Krasinski continuing his serviceable interpretation of Ryan, Pierce providing the seriousness, Kelly the humor, and Max Beesley, as the rogue agent, bringing the danger.

Chhibber noted, “Dubai by night looks like a glittering oasis of light, while jolly England is cute, cosy and green except when bullets are flying or a fleet of black SUVs are thundering by (how they manage this in crowded London is an eternal mystery).”

Sienna Miller plays MI6 officer Emma Marlow, and a possible love interest for Ryan, as Cathy is not in the film. The film ends with Greet recommending Ryan for the role of Deputy Director of the CIA, which in Clancy’s “Jack Ryan” franchise is canon.

Chhibber said, “As a placeholder, or transition from series to movie format, Jack Ryan: Ghost War is serviceable.” You’re right in wanting more considering the original Jack Ryan movies starring Harrison Ford and directed by Phillip Noyce.

I don’t recommend this movie for those who have been fans of the “Jack Ryan” franchise. This isn’t better than the last couple we got. The reason why is because Krasinski looks like he doesn’t want to be the film, as does everyone else. No one really gives any other emotion than being expressionless for the majority of the film. I would just suggest you put on something else than streaming this film.

Thank you for joining in on today’s review. Stay tuned next Friday for the continuation of “Bill Paxton Month.”

True Lies

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “There is a sequence near the end of “True Lies” in which Arnold Schwarzenegger is piloting a Harrier vertical-takeoff fighter plane, which hovers near a Miami high-rise while his teenage daughter (the attractive Eliza Dushku( clings precariously to the cockpit cover and a villain (Art Malik) dangles by his gunbelt from one of the wingmounted missiles. Arnold arms the missile and fires it, terrorist attached, straight through the high-rise, and it shoots down a helicopter carrying other terrorists. This takes place, I might add, shortly after a nuclear bomb has vaporized one of the Florida keys.”

These are the types of things we go to Arnold Schwarzenegger movies for, and “True Lies,” released in 1994, has a lot of it: Laugh-out-loud moments when the violence is so cartoonish, we don’t take it seriously, and yet are surprised at its creativity and bravery. Schwarzenegger has found himself in a lot of unlikely situations in his action-filled career, and “True Lies” seems determined to raise the stakes – to go over the top with unusual and excessive special effects scenes.

For example, look at a change scene near the beginning of the movie, where a villain on a motorcycle is chased by Arnold, on a horse, through a hotel lobby. Most movies would be satisfied with that. Not “True Lies,” which continues the chase on multistory elevators and ends up on the hotel roof, with Arnold telling the horse to try a free fall into a swimming pool.

Ebert said, “The plot is, of course, little more than a clothesline upon which to hang such set pieces.” Schwarzenegger plays Harry Tasker, a top U.S. spy, who has been married for 15 years to a sweet-tempered wife named Helen, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, who thinks he is a computer salesman. (He works for something called the Omega Force, which describes itself in its seal as “The Last Line of Defense.”) How he successfully attempts this dishonesty is one of the many questions the film does not stop to answer.

As the film starts, Harry and his partner Gib, played by Tom Arnold, are tasked in a James Bond-like attempt to intrude a rich arms dealer’s black-tie party in a Swiss winery. Ebert said, “To say security is tight would be an understatement; the guards have machine guns and attack dogs.” At the party, Harry meets the beautiful Juno Skinner, played by Tia Carrere, and tangos with her before accomplishing his mission and surviving a violent escape. (Ebert notes, “Schwarzenegger’s tangoing ability is reflected by the decision to film most of the dance as head-and-shoulders shots.”) Back at Washington, D.C., and Harry’s life of ordinary domestic calmness (his wife thinks he was out of town at a sales convention). However, then, when it looks like the dealer has sold four atomic weapons to a terrorist gang, it’s up to Harry and the surprisingly charming Gib to stop them.

However, in between the action filled first and third acts is a curious second act where Harry becomes convinced that his wife is cheating on him with a car salesman, played by Bill Paxton.

This leads to an elaborate simulation in a hotel room, where, for reasons that are too complicated to explain, Helen impersonates a prostitute and Harry impersonates her client. (We are supposed to believe she doesn’t recognize her husband because he has a light behind him.) Jamie Lee Curtis earns some laughs here, doing a scantily-clad dance. The physical humor is real, and she’s delightfully attractive and clumsy. (Note: the fall in the middle of the dance was considered and didn’t happen spontaneously during rehearsal or the actual shooting, as often claimed. That part drew some criticism for its supposed misogynistic content. James Cameron later said that Jamie Lee Curtis had heavy input in how the scene was made. Originally, Helen was to go completely nude, but in the dark so that only her silhouette would be seen. Curtis suggested to do it in full light while keeping her unmentionables on. Cameron noted that most of the criticism of the scene came from men, while most of the female reviewers praised it as an empowering and liberating scene for Helen.)

However, the whole scene doesn’t look right. If you step back from the movie and really think about what Harry is doing to Helen, it’s cruel and not funny. Also, it sidetracks the plot. The movie is 135 minutes long, and at 120, without some of the hotel room incident, it would be a lot better.

The director, James Cameron, is skilled in the action genre (he worked with Schwarzenegger on “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”), and when he’s doing his work, no one does it better. That includes the third act of the movie, where a breathless Miami newscaster, played by Tom Isbell, reports on a multistory terrorist drama, and barely has time to give the information that an A-bomb has just blown up one of the Keys.

Ebert said, “Cameron is credited with the screenplay (which is “based on” a French screenplay by three others), and keeps a nice undertone of humor going. When we’re learning about one of the evil terrorists, for example, here’s the exchange: “They call him the Sand Spider.” “Why?” “Probably because it sounds scary.” One nice surprise is Tom Arnold, who has a major role – the equal of Curtis’ – and fills it nicely. He has an everyman quality about him, and an ability to deliver an irreverent aside, which make him a good foil for Schwarzenegger. And when he gives advice on divorce and marriage, which he does frequently, he sounds as if he speaks from experience.”

“True Lies” is as good as “Terminator 2” and “Total Recall” among Schwarzenegger’s action classics for a couple of reasons: The unconvincing break where Harry thinks Helen is cheating on him, and the obligatory feeling of the plot. Ebert ended his review by saying, “Both earlier titles had tighter, more absorbing stories. But on the basis of stunts, special effects and pure action, it delivers sensationally.”

We also have Charlton Heston playing Harry’s boss, who wears an eye patch, and you wouldn’t be able to recognize him. I have to admit, this movie is so enjoyable. With all the action, the one-liners, and even with the supposed affair scenario, everything in this film keeps you engaged as what will happen next. If you remember I had mentioned the other scantily clad scenes from the “National Lampoon” movies, I had previously known of that infamous Jamie Lee Curtis’ scene from a website that listed all of those scenes before I saw this. I don’t recommend the movie for that, but I do recommend it for those who love Schwarzenegger movies and the usual stuff people watch his movies for. This film will deliver on all of those traits that we see and enjoy watching his films. Check this one out and have an enjoyable time.

Next week, I will be looking at one of the final films Paxton starred in when we continue “Bill Paxton Month.”

Commando

For this month, I will be reviewing films that include the late Bill Paxton. Let’s get started with 1985 action classic, “Commando.”

When we look at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s long-acting career, after he had established himself in two “Conan” movies and impressed everyone in “The Terminator,” he released “Commando.” It was his first starring role (not including the documentary “Pumping Iron) that wasn’t science fiction or sword-and-sorcery. However, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one bit of modern-day fantasy to it. Keith Garlington said in his review, “It was pure over-the-top 1980s popcorn action that audiences flocked to and that I still adore today.”

“Commando” was the biggest his for director Mark L. Lester. It was one of several for screenwriter Steven Edward de Souza whose famous action filmography also includes the first two “Die Hard” films, “The Running Man,” “Hudson Hawk,” and “48 Hrs.” Garlington said, “Together they took a story idea conceived by Jeph Loeb for Kiss bassist Gene Simmons (!!) and retailored it for Schwarzenegger’s obvious strengths.”

In 1985, Schwarzenegger was at his best physically, and Lester uses it to a near comical effect. From the beginning shots of Schwarzenegger quite literally carrying a tree, to him running onto the beach in a tiny Speedo. Schwarzenegger was the best man at the time for this role. Yet what really drew him to the role was the chance to play a father. Garlington noted, “Sure, he’s also a one-man killing machine who can fling an occupied phone booth and roll over sports cars with his bare hands.” However, the role let him to show a human side which he appreciated.

Schwarzenegger plays John Matrix, a retired Army colonel who has left his life in the Special Forces to raise his daughter Jenny, played by Alyssa Milano. Together they live a quiet and happy life in their remote country home in the mountains of upstate California. However, their peaceful and a little cheap existence is interrupted when Matrix is visited by his former commander, General Franklin Kirby, played by James Olson, who warns him that members of his former unit have been steadily murdered.

With Kirby barely gone, Matrix’s home is attacked by mercenaries who kidnap him and his daughter. The man behind everything is General Arius, played by Dan Hedaya, a former South American dictator who wants Matrix to kill his small country’s president so he can retake authority. With the help of Matrix’s crazy former squad-partner Bennett, played by Vernon Wells, Arius transports Jenny to his solitary island complex, using her as influence to keep Matrix in control.

Joined by one of Arius’ henchmen, played by Charles Meshack, Matrix is put on a commercial plane heading to South America and his presidential target. However, he gives the villain the slip (cracking his neck) and hops off the plane just as it’s taking off. That leaves him with eleven hours until the plane lands and Arius is alerted that he isn’t onboard. Also, he will need every minute of those eleven hours to locate Arius’ complex and to make his way there to save his daughter.

Garlington said, “After its fast and violent setup, “Commando” settles into an interesting rhythm as Matrix begins piecing together a trail of clues that he hopes will lead him to Jenny.” It’s here that the supporting cast gets even better. Matrix finds a friend in a hesitant flight attendant named Cindy, played by Rae Dawn Chong, who adds some humor while still getting in way over her head. Garlington said, “We also get a couple of terrific heavies including the delightfully slimy Sully (David Patrick Kelly) and the intense and menacing Cooke (the great Bill Duke).” Bill Paxton has a minor role playing an Intercept Officer.

“Commando” is an action movie all over. However, Lester and de Souza leave so much room for laughs. Admittedly some are accidental and have even gotten appealing over the years. However, others can be naturally funny – none better than the handful one-liners. “He’s dead tired,” “I lied,” “I let him go.” Just some of the purposefully silly parts that remain memorable after all these years.

Garlington said, “But it all does come back to the action which we get in spades during the film’s final twenty minutes.” That’s when matrix and his backpack of machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, shotguns, sawblades, pitchforks, and claymores rips through Arius’ army of feed to the audience’s enjoyment. It’s non-stop murder with a body count going up by the hundreds, yet it’s an amazingly satisfying finale for a movie that dos a good job building up to its eventual end.

“Commando” is certainly a movie of its time. Garlington said, “But is says something that it’s still revered by so many today. As I said, it’s pure popcorn entertainment that fans love for its artery-clogging cheese just as much as its wild over-the-top action.” Also, it was the perfect film for the relatively new Arnold Schwarzenegger who would immediately follow the film with hits like “Predator,” “The Running Man,” “Total Recall,” and so many others.

If you haven’t seen this film, why are you reading this review? You need to go out and see it. This is one of those enjoyable Schwarzenegger action films that everyone has to see. You will enjoy the film, even though it may be silly. I may think of this as a guilty pleasure, but I really enjoyed it when I saw it. The action scenes were engaging and Schwarzenegger’s one-liners were some of the best a memorable. I listed a few, but there are others that I won’t say because I make this blog swear free. I know that there were a few reviews that had swears from the quotes I picked out, but I went back and edited them. Check this film out and have an enjoyable time.

Next week, I will be looking at another classic Schwarzenegger film that has Bill Paxton in it in “Bill Paxton Month.” I think I was going to review these films a few months back, but I’m doing them now.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “The motto of Second City is “Something Wonderful Right Away,” and maybe Terry Gilliam has the words displayed on his mirror when he shaves every morning. He has never faltered. “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” could be seen as a sideshow version of his own life, with him playing the role of the pitchman who lures you into his fantasies. That they may seem extravagant and overheated, all smoke and mirrors, is, after all, in their very nature.”

The story in Gilliam’s excited 2009 film is all over the place, as usual, but this time there’s a reason. His crazy inventions in character, costumes, and CGI effects are described for by a plot that requires revolving worlds. Ebert noted, “Elements of this plot were made necessary by the death of Heath Ledger halfway into the filming, but the plot itself I think was in place from the first.”

It involves a strange, ragged traveling show that comes out of a broken old wagon in dilapidated areas of London consisted mostly of alcoholics and uglies. The show includes the ancient Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) sitting worryingly on a stool while his barker, Anton (Andrew Garfield), his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), and his angry little person, Percy (Mini Me from the “Austin Powers” trilogy, Verne Troyer), perform for a rowdy crowd of lager ruffians.

Percy and Anton save the life of a man hanging from a bridge. They never explain why they can only perform this duty. The man on the rope is Tony, played by the late Heath Ledger in his final role. He joins the show, is shocked by its outdated form and suggests changes. The reason it’s stiff is because Parnassus has been around for centuries, having made a deal with Satan, played by Tom Waits, to live forever only if Satan can have Valentina when she turns 16. Ebert noted, “You have to admit Parnassus didn’t rush into reproduction. Of course he wants out of the deal. Satan frequently runs into credit payment risks.”

What is done is Tony can enter/suggest/control/create strange worlds on the other side of a looking glass on the rundown stage. In these worlds, anything goes, which is always what Gilliam does. CGI allows the director and his designers to go crazy, what they do so quickly, and some incredible visions are made.

Ebert mentioned, “I believe Ledger was intended to be the guide through all of these realms. But Gilliam apparently completed filming all the outer-world London scenes, Ledger returned to New York for R&R, and the rest is sad history.” Gilliam replaced him by casting Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell as the Tonys of Imaginariums Nos. 1 through 3 and giving no other explanation, as you can see with Imaginariums, he isn’t required to do. Depp looks the most like Ledger, but it’s a sad fact that Farrell steals the role.

Ebert admitted, “My problem with Gilliam’s films is that they lack a discernible storyline. I don’t require A-B-C, Act 1-2-3, but I do rather appreciate having some notion of a film’s own rules. Gilliam indeed practices “Something Wonderful Right Away,” and you get the notion that if an idea pops into his head, he feels free to write it into his script under the Cole Porter Rule (“Anything Goes”). Knowing my history with Gilliam, who I always want to like more than I do, I attended the Cannes screening of “Doctor Parnassus” to be baffled, which I was, and then the Chicago press screening, where I had an idea what was coming and tried to reopen my mind. Gilliam is, you understand, a nice man, and has never committed the sin of failing to amaze.”

Ebert continued, “Now what I see are a group of experienced actors gamely trying to keep their heads while all about are losing theirs. Can it be easy to play one-third of a guide to one-third of an arbitrary world? You just have to plunge in.” Ledger himself, who makes Tony fairly grounded in the “real” world, must have been prepared to do the same and would have given the story more continuity. Still, this is an Imaginarium indeed. The best way is to sit back and let it happen to you. See it in the moment and not with remembering it for long, which is what Parnassus does. It keeps his mind off Satan’s plans for his daughter.

I saw this on Tubi and I enjoyed it. As the last film Ledger was in before he passed, I thought this was well done. See it if you haven’t. You can still see it on Tubi and I think you should see it to know what I mean. This isn’t a film to take seriously. You just need to sit back and let everything happen. Don’t bring logic into this film.

Alright, we have come to the end of “Terry Gilliam Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it. Stay tuned next month to see what other excitement I have for everyone.

The Mandalorian and Grogu

Today, I went to the theaters to watch, “The Mandalorian and Grogu,” which came out four days ago. Being a diehard “Star Wars” fan, I couldn’t pass this one over, seeing how I have seen every “Star Wars” movie in the theaters, starting with the prequels, since I wasn’t around when the Original Trilogy was released. Especially since I loved “The Mandalorian” when I watched it on Disney+ and was surprised that they decided to make a movie instead of a fourth season. How is this new “Star Wars” film?

It has been seven years since a new “Star Wars” film was theatrically released. For fans of the franchise, it has been one long wait. However, there has been no shortage of new “Star Wars” content for fans to watch through streaming. Since the franchise’s last feature film was theatrically released, there has been ten live-action seasons and just as about as many animated shows on Disney+. Still, there’s nothing really like “Star Wars” on the big screen.

As a lifelong “Star Wars” fan, Jon Favreau’s “The Mandalorian” is still among the best of the live-action streaming series. Keith Garlington said in his review, “Spanning 24 episodes over three seasons, the show plays like a space western set during a turbulent time on the Star Wars timeline. The first season was a terrific table-setter and the second season was an equally impressive follow-up. And while the third season dove more into Mandalorian lore than some wanted, it was still a worthwhile continuation.”

The show’s story began five years after “Return of the Jedi” and followed a solo Mandalorian bounty hunter named Din Djarin, reprised by Pedro Pascal, who becomes the protector and father-figure to a Force-learning being named Grogu (Baby Yoda). The series was rightly placed in the “Star Wars” galaxy, yet it’s the relationship that Din and Grogu made that created the heart of its story. Now their adventure continues on the big screen with “The Mandalorian and Grogu.”

Favreau directs from a script he co-wrote with Dave Filoni and Noah Kloor. Garlington said, “Together they have created a pulpy throwback space adventure that entertains with its bigger, grander spectacle yet flows naturally from the intimacy of its small screen predecessor. Even more, while it’s nicely rooted in Star Wars canon, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” doesn’t require a degree in Star Wars-ology to know what’s going on.” Obviously, it will be more to veteran fans, but anyone can watch, catch up, and enjoy.

Garlington said, “Predictably, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” has already faced negativity from many of the usual naysayers. But for those able to toss aside unreasonable expectations and trendy disillusionment, Favreau and company have delivered a rip-roaring Star Wars adventure reminiscent of the old space serials that inspired George Lucas nearly 50 years ago. It tells an incredibly fun and mostly self-contained story that really gets to the heart of what so many of us love about the eponymous duo.”

After the fall of the Galactic Empire, a leftover of supporters threaten the stability of the galaxy. Garlington said, “A shadow council made up of ex-Imperial warlords operate in the lawless Outer Rim, secretly plotting to rebuild the Empire. To quell their efforts, the fledgling New Republic enlist Din (a returning Pascal) and his young apprentice Grogu to hunt them down one by one.” It’s dangerous work, but it’s something Din knows and does right.

After taking out a victim in an exciting action-packed opening, Din returns to base where he meets with Colonel Ward, played by Sigourney Weaver, a top pilot during the Rebellion now serving as a commanding officer for the New Republic. She assigns him to a new mission – detain Imperial warlord Janu Coin, played by Jonny Coyne. However, to find his location, Din will have to do a job for the Hutt twins, the leaders of the crime organization once ran by their late sibling, Jabba the Hutt.

The twins want Din to rescue Rotta the Hutt, voiced by Jeremy Allen White, the only surviving heir of Jabba who is being held prisoner on the planet Shakari. However, Din and Grogu learn the hard way that there is more to their mission than they can see. Garlington said, “And when things get “messy”, our heroes find themselves at odds with the Hutt twins who have their own shady self-interests and ulterior movies in play.”

From the beginning, “The Mandalorian and Grogu” makes everything very clear. This is every bit of a “Star Wars” movie, with its dangerous worlds, its variety of cool creatures, and so much details that fans will recognize through the runtime. Garlington said, “At the same time, the story is more about the personal stakes rather than galaxy-wide peril. Much like the show, it keeps Din and Grogu’s relationship front and center which adds plenty of heart to the pulse-pounding action.”

With the visuals, Favreau puts together so many eye-pleasing practical sets, digital effects, and amazing puppetry in bringing his story on screen. Garlington said, “It’s especially impressive on the big screen, whether it’s massive Imperial walkers, ferocious arena fights, or the scene-stealing Anzellan droidsmiths. And it’s all accompanied by the lavishly scored music of Oscar-winning composer Ludwig Göransson.” He turns out to be one of the film’s largest standouts.

Garlington said, “Again, throw aside the absurd expectations, the exaggerated doomsdaying, and the ‘hate for clicks’ online noise and you’ll find a movie that’s not as far removed from George Lucas’ original vision as you may think. Some have harshly judged the film as “inconsequential”. But Favreau is clearly aiming for something more intimate, with situations that are never “inconsequential” for the characters. And Star Wars has already shown that not every story needs to be on a galactic scale. It’s true that your mileage may vary depending on your affection for the two lead characters.” However, anyone can join in, watch, and enjoy this equally exciting and loving old-school space adventure.

I didn’t feel the runtime, although people might have complained about this film being too long. There was not a moment that I felt bored or antsy and wanted to leave. I think this went by fast enough, but that might have been because I got into this and didn’t feel any slow moment. This is better than the third season, and it was good. While watching this, I could see where this could have been broken up into a fourth season, but as a film, I’m glad I saw it. Check it out in the theaters and see for yourself. I’m sure a lot of people will love this film.

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

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, there 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.”