Monty Python's Life of Brian

After watching this movie again, it struck me how funny it is that Monty Python's Life of Brian is not heretical. When you hear the premise, you naturally assume it is going to be offensive; it tells the story of Brian, who --- while born on the same day as Jesus (so remember his birthday this year!) --- is mistaken for the messiah, but wants nothing to do with it.  The film is actually very nice to Jesus, instead making fun of Biblical movies and organized religion.  Still, the subject matter was controversial enough for the original production company to back out only days before production began.  Luckily, George Harrison opted to nearly bankrupt himself to produce the film, just because it sounded like the only way he would get to see the movie.  Just further proof that the Beatles were awesome.

Normally, I would write a brief plot synopsis and note who played who in the movie, but it's not terribly useful with Monty Python movies.  Even assuming that the plot needs explaining (Brian, the not-messiah, follows a similar story arc to Jesus), what am I going to tell you?  That I found Graham Chapman convincing as Brian, but not as Biggus Dickus?  Or that I liked the proto-feminism of Eric Idle in his Stan/Loretta role?  No, I think I'll pass on all that.  Let me just say that this is the most linear plot of any Python movie, and the one that has the least amount of where-the-hell-did-that-come-from randomness.  That might sound odd, considering that this is a Biblical parody that has an alien UFO, but it is the truth.  Also, this movie had their best production values, thanks largely to their recycling of sets from Jesus of Nazareth.

This movie is notable for the best Python acting to date.  Graham Chapman, an alcoholic, actually stopped drinking for his role as the title character, which helped his comedic timing immeasurably.  While Chapman certainly was not a great actor, he was the most honest actor in the group and (in my humble opinion) also the group's best straight man.  That is not to say that John Cleese is anything but brilliant here (I suspect he handled a lot of the writing), but those two seemed to have the biggest personalities in Monty Python and I think the movie was better served with Chapman playing the relatively straight role and Cleese doing whatever madness popped into his head.  This is one of Eric Idle's better movies, too, with several memorable characters, not the least of whom is the one that sings "Always Look On the Bright Side of Life" while crucified at the end of the film.  Michael Palin is also good, as usual, and both Terry Gilliam (who had shockingly little to animate in this movie) and Terry Jones have their moments, too.  As usual, with the Pythons playing multiple roles of either gender, there are precious few non-Python actors, with only Sue Jones-Davies deserving recognition for her unexpected (and a bit uncomfortable) full frontal nudity scene.

Beyond that, the only important question is whether this movie is funny or not.  Simply put, the answer is "yes, very."  This movie appeals to the traditional Python fanatic, the casual dabbler in English wit, and even clueless fans of broad American humor.  After all, just because the movie is pretty smart doesn't mean that the jokes aren't really stupid.  If you have never seen this movie, I would categorize the humor as such:

• Funnier than most Mel Brooks movies (particularly History of the World, Part 1)
• Less random than Family Guy
• Better than a Lisa or Marge episode of The Simpsons
• Less depressing than Judd Apataw movies
• Smarter than Adam Sandler movies, but not as smart as his producers
• Slightly less funny than National Treasure

Comedies don't usually age well, but there is something timeless about Monty Python's silliness that shows us just how funny movies can be.  And, when thinking about this film, please bear in mind that Brian is not the messiah; he is a very naughty boy.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

This could have been an awful movie, you know.  It requires several child actors to carry the dramatic load at an age when only prodigies are good actors.  Not everyone is a Culkin, you know.  It's based on a successful book series, but it deals heavily in imagination; the proverbial magic could have been lost in translation (see: Dungeons and Dragons).  The adult actors could have been miscast, or even incompetent.  Not all adults share the screen well with children, like Michael Madsen in the Free Willy movies.  The studio could scrimp on the budget and get laughable special effects, ruining an otherwise plausible film idea.  X-Men Origins: Wolverine springs to mind as an example, although the effects weren't the only problems there. 

This film manages to sidestep these issues and successfully launch the most successful film franchise ever.  This is even more impressive when you consider a) there are more Star Wars movies than Harry Potters (so far) and b) the cast has remained almost unchanged throughout.

Do we really need to recap the origin story for Harry Potter?  In England, apparently there are a lot of wizards and witches, living fairly normal lives (if more magical than ours), working and going to school and the like.  Now, if that seems unlikely to you, consider this: there must be a reason people live on an island that isn't tropical, right?  Alright, then.  Just as there are normal, pleasant wizards, there are criminal wizards.  The biggest baddie of the all (think Adolf Stalin with a Merlin cap) was Lord Voldemort.  In his ongoing attempt to subdue all opposition to his terror, Voldemort attacked and killed the parents of the infant Harry Potter.  However, when Voldemort tried to kill the baby --- what's the emoticon for magical post-birth baby murder?  Oh, yeah... : ( --- something strange happened; Voldemort was mortally wounded and Harry survived with only a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead to show for it.  Harry was raised by non-magical relatives until his eleventh birthday, when the world of magic was revealed to him for the first time and he enrolled in Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

This, the first in the Harry Potter series, focuses on (appropriately enough) his first year at Hogwart's wizarding school.  Since it takes place over a whole school year, there is a main plot and then a lot of time spent with Harry encountering magical stuff for the first time.  The main plot deals with Harry and his friends, Ron and Hermoine, trying to figure out what mysterious item is being protected within Hogwarts and who is after it.  Well, it turns out that the item is the Philosopher's Stone, which can create an elixir that prolongs life.  Who would want a thing like that?  If you guessed Mr. Frowny Emoticon Face, you'd be right.  Once they figure that out, Harry and his friends try to prevent Voldemort from taking the Philosopher's Stone.

A lot of this movie is spent showing the viewer how different and wondrous the wizarding world is.  There are hundreds of minor examples of magical use throughout, from paintings with animate subjects to broom riding.  Overall, they did a good job.  The special effects take charge here and, while they pale in comparison to the effects in later sequels, they generally look pretty nice.  There are a few poorly designed moments here and there, but nothing major.  Sure, the Quidditch field looks like it is at least sixty miles away from the nearest building, but nitpicking the realism of a movie starring wizards is silly.

The casting in this film is fantastic.  The supporting cast of Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, John Hurt, John Cleese, Alan Rickman, and David Bradley could not be much better.  The actors suit the characters from the book and, while this isn't Superman-level supporting star power, it's pretty close.  The established actors all perform well and the children...well, they're kids.  Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint (Harry and Ron Weasley, respectively) did a good job of looking surprised, I guess.  They're kids and they weren't Jake Lloyd-terrible, so there's no harm done.  However, Emma Watson, as Hermione Granger, actually had flashes of good acting sprinkled throughout her performance.  Regardless, all three are visual matches to the book's characters, and that's usually good enough to recommend a child actor.

While the casting was fantastic, the writing and directing was only okay.  Yes, they stuck to the book's script almost verbatim, but that's a problem in and of itself.  Instead of taking liberties with some of the small details and focusing on more interesting visual magics, the movie misses some potentially awesome moments.  As far as the acting goes, Chris Columbus did a good job with the supporting cast and a very respectable one with the main kids.  He skimped a little when it came to the minor child characters.  I find it odd that commonplace things like magically appearing food, or paintings with animated subjects would hold much fascination for students that grew up around magic.  They should not have gasped, ooh-ed or ahh-ed.  Admittedly, those are minor complaints for minor problems in an otherwise fun family movie.