Primate: A Review

PRIMATE

"Ben, the two of us need look no more. We both found what we were looking for". It seems also insane that a song about a murderous mouse could be now thought of as a tender love ballad. Yet Ben, from the film of the same name, became a Number One hit for Michael Jackson. It was even nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Song. It is odd that Primate did not take advantage of Ben given that our murderous simian has that name. To be fair, I think many Zoomers would not know of Ben. Primate is pretty much schlock and aware of it. It is poorly acted, sometimes groan-inducingly idiotic but fully committed to its premise.

We start with an attack on a veterinarian by a crazed chimpanzee. We then go back 36 hours earlier on an airplane bound for Hawaii. Here, Lucy (Johnny Sequoiah) is going back home to see her family. She's traveling with her BFF Kate (Victoria Wyant) and their other friend, Nick (Benjamin Cheng). Kate has brought Hannah (Jessica Alexander), whom Lucy is not fond of. The girls do have time aboard to flirt with fellow passengers Drew (Charlie Mann) and Brad (Tienne Simon).

Once in Hawaii, they all go to the remote home of Lucy's father Adam (Troy Kutsar), a famous writer. Adam is happy to have his daughter back. Less so is Lucy's sister Erin (Gia Hunter), who feels that Lucy has forgotten about them. One being who is happy to have Lucy back is their pet monkey, Ben. Hannah and Kate are alarmed at having a chimpanzee roaming about. However, the family assures them that Ben is completely domesticated, almost part of the family.

That is, until Adam finds a dead mongoose in Ben's enclosure. Could it have bitten Ben? Could it have given Ben rabies? Adam has to go to a book signing. He is positive that Ben is ultimately fine. Ben, however, is anything but fine. Ben has gone bananas (sorry, couldn't resist). Soon, he begins a murderous rampage on anyone he can lay his paws on. Who will live and who will die during this dark night on the mini planet of the apes?

No one ever turns the lights on. Not once. I do not know why this particular detail in Primate stuck out to me. There could not have been a power outage as the television, fans and pool lights continued working. I can grant a little leeway that the people trapped with the rampaging beast would want to hide in the dark. That, however, is not something that I can accept when Drew and Brad manage to enter the house. The same with Adam, who would not have known about the murderous monkeyshines going on. It is the most natural, instinctive thing to turn the lights on when entering a dark room, yet no one ever turns the lights on.

I get that this is an odd detail to fixate on. I get that the lights had to stay off in director/cowriter Johannes Roberts' film (written with Ernest Riera). I just had trouble accepting the logic of this detail even in a movie about a crazed chimpanzee. 

My mind wandered from time to time wondering through logic in Primate. I wondered why Ben decided to stalk the houseguests rather than escape into the jungles of Hawaii. I wondered why Nick, Lucy, Kate and Hannah were screaming for help when trapped in the pool when they knew that they were in an isolated area far from any other homes. I wondered why no one ever contemplated Ben turning psycho and keeping at the minimum a tranquilizer gun that would have solved the problem. I wondered why Hannah's suggestion of shooting Ben was summarily rejected when it was the perfectly sensible thing to do.

In this case, I wondered too much in giving Primate any chance of logic. Primate is not meant to be a logical film. It is meant to give you murderous monkeys and the vague suggestion that the psychotic chimpanzee may end up sexually assaulting Drew. We are spared that scene of jungle love but are given a surprisingly restrained tearing off of a jaw. I say "surprisingly restrained" because despite the R rating I thought Primate was not all that graphic. 

It was not as graphic as Final Destinations Bloodlines, which I found hilarious and enjoyed tremendously. I did not find Primate as hilarious and did not enjoy it as much. I found it surprisingly dark visually. It was as if the filmmakers wanted to be bloody but still wanted things just opaque enough figuratively and literally to not truly horrify. A particular case in point is when, in a rare moment of intelligence, one of the houseguests attempts to push Ben off a cliff. The end result is that it is the human that plunges to what could have been a hilarious or gruesome or gruesomely hilarious death. We do see the person land headfirst on a pile of rocks. We even get hints of brain and blood splatter. We, however, still get it mostly in shadows. 

Primate is not acted. It is performed. The only name in the film is Troy Kotsur, who is conveniently shunted off for most of the film. The former Oscar-winner now finds himself in films like Primate. It is nice to see a character's deafness not be anything out of the ordinary. I cannot say whether Kotsur is in on the joke or not. He was fine, serviceable, nothing to say that he was elevating Primate or sinking into parody. 

I want to say that the rest of the cast is there for their physical appeal. None of them showed that they could actually act. To be fair, Primate makes the characters say and do incredibly dumb things. In some ways, I found Primate to be surprisingly tame. The kills and attacks were almost always in shadows and low light. Again, I think that the film wanted to be graphic but could not fully commit. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about violence on film. However, in something like Primate, I could give it a little more leeway. It is perhaps an odd criticism that I thought Primate was not violent enough. 

That all being said, I noticed that the audience was fully into the film. To be fair, the men were laughing uproariously throughout Primate. The women were terrified and yelling at the screen. Make of that what you will.

Primate is surprisingly short at under 90 minutes. It is not intelligent. It is pretty silly. It is not as fun as Final Destinations Bloodlines, my go-to for cheerfully gruesome films. On the whole though, Primate is acceptable cinematic monkey business. 

DECISION: C+

The Housemaid (2025): A Review

THE HOUSEMAID

People say that good help is hard to find. However, have they considered the other expression of "bosses from Hell"? The Housemaid, based on a series of novels, takes twists and turns in our lurid story of sex and abuse. While I found some elements particularly distasteful, I appreciate how The Housemaid works to give people violent and erotic thrills.

Millie Calloway (Sydney Sweeney) is interviewing for the position of housemaid. Her potential employer, Nina Winchester (Amanda Seyfried) seems pleasant enough, almost cheerful. However, both women are not what they appear to be. The film reveals piece by piece Millie's story. She is homeless and struggling to live. She is also on parole. She faked her résumé. However, all that works in her favor, for Nina hires her.

To say that Nina is mercurial is to put it mildly. She gives Millie contradictory instructions on everything from housework to picking up her daughter Cece (Indiana Elle). Nina accuses Millie of losing a speech she had been working on. She tells her to pick Cece up from ballet only to not inform her that Nina had given Cece permission for a sleepover. We know why Millie stays on the job. Losing it would mean going back to prison.

Yet, why does Nina's extremely hunky husband Andrew (Brandon Sklenar) stay with this psycho? He is very calm and measured. He is also built like a brick house and the object of desire among Nina's wealthy friends. They not only declare Andrew a saint but openly discuss Nina's stay at an asylum after she attempted to drown Cece. Any reasonable man would have divorced Nina. Andrew also has a good chance to get custody of Cece despite not being her biological father. Things come to a head when Nina first asks and then denies asking Millie to book a weekend getaway with Andrew. Circumstances get Andrew and Millie to take that trip.

It looks like Nina is finally going to be forced out and Millie take her place. However, not everything is as it appears. Andrew is not what he seems to be. Nina too is also much more grounded in reality than what the world may think. It becomes apparent that Millie is caught in a long game of sex games. However, will Millie be able to outwit her adversary? Will Nina become an unexpected secret ally? What of the mysterious Italian groundskeeper Enzo (Michele Morrone)? It will take a lot of torture, psychological and physical, before both women are free and Millie can take up another housemaid position in a new home.

Normally, the suggestion of a sequel, vague or otherwise, would irritate me. However, The Housemaid is the first of an as of this writing three book series. As such, the tease for another Housemaid story at least has a logic to it. I have, for full disclosure, never read the Freida McFadden novel. If the novel is close to how The Housemaid the movie is, it means that McFadden wrote a novel that followed my Number One Golden Rule of Filmmaking: Something will happen if the plot requires it to. Once Nina forces Millie to arrange that romantic getaway, one knows exactly what will happen. 

When you have such luscious bodies as those of Sydney Sweeney and Brandon Sklenar in your film, not giving them a sex scene would be a disservice to moviegoers. However, The Housemaid has to have them eventually fall into a liaison. It, like many of these types of stories, depends on everything, good and bad, going exactly right. No chance that Millie could be a lesbian. No chance that maybe she does not go to Andrew's room after being fired. No chance that Millie could document Nina's abusive behavior. Everything has to happen exactly as it needs to in order to make The Housemaid work.

I am able to suspend disbelief when watching. I was not fully able to do so here. I think it has to do with how Rebecca Sonnenshine's screenplay and director Paul Feig shaped Andrew. Nina is so openly loony in behavior, yet Andrew never said anything against her. It is Andrew's calm manner and soft speaking voice that immediately made me think something was off about Andrew and not Nina. No one can be that calm under such trying situations. Even the most patient and loving of spouses would have a breaking point. Andrew did not. That he never seemed remotely troubled by Nina's erratic behavior made me immediately suspect that he was the dangerous one. 

I suppose that credit should go to the three leads. They all played their parts correctly. Sydney Sweeney was strong as the put-upon Millie. The script also allowed a logic as to why she would endure such monstrous abuse by Nina. As a side note, both my late mother and I have endured violent employers until we reached a point of having to flee in rage or terror. Sweeney as our protagonist made Millie sympathetic. Amanda Seyfried too balanced being psychotic and liberated. Brandon Sklenar was probably the weakest part here. He was called to look hunky, which he did. The Housemaid if anything does enjoy letting the viewer fixate on his large frame. He was also spookily effective when his character reveals his soul as opposed to his body.

I think though that a major issue for me was in how The Housemaid is both sadistic and misandrist. Andrew fits into a stereotype of the evil man tormenting the woman. There is a vaguely Saw-like manner to Andrew. I watched with some unease how Andrew is shown as using his outward charm and appearance to hide a monster. Something about it simply did not sit right with me. I could not shake the idea that The Housemaid suggests that all or nearly all men are abusive by their nature. Granted, I am not saying that such an idea was the filmmakers' intention. I just say that that is how it struck me at the end. 

This was what I thought as I watched the reenactment of how Nina came to be here. It came to me when I saw what Millie was put through. It came to my mind when Andrew was put through his own devices. It did not end when we get the sequel tease of another woman needing Millie's special kind of work. 

I also disliked the lengthy midsection where we get Nina's story. I got the twist soon enough. I just thought that this section dragged on more than it should. The Housemaid is over two hours long. I think the film could have gotten to things faster. 

I get that The Housemaid is a revenge thriller. I get that many audience members loved it. I get that I probably am overthinking things. All that being said, I still have a great sense of unease about The Housemaid. I did not hate it. I just did not fall for it as much as others did.

DECISION: C-

31 Candles: A Review

31 CANDLES

Love is all sorts of things. Love is strange, love is a stranger, love is a battlefield. Love will keep us together and tear us apart. Love hurts and love makes the world go round. Love is what the world needs now and what one can't help falling into even if you'll never fall into it again. 31 Candles, a nice and charming romantic comedy from an up-and-coming filmmaker shows us that love is also kosher. 

Leo Kadner (writer/director/editor Jonah Feingold) may be Jewish, but he is the unofficial king of Christmas movie directors. Perhaps he has this Judeo-Christian connection because his birthday is December 26. December 26, 1993, to be exact. Why does this matter? Well, Leo is coming up on his 31st birthday and is still single. He is what he dubs a "situationship" with Molly (Djouliet Amara), but neither want marriage. 

If Leo were ever to marry, it would be to Eva Shapiro (Sarah Coffey), the girl of his dreams from that certain summer of 2006. Leo and Eva were in opposite summer camps. All these years later and Leo has not forgotten Shapiro. One of the few things that Leo's long-divorced parents agree on is that he should work on stabilizing his life. Things look to turn around for Leo when Eva returns to New York City. She is pursuing an acting career, no easy feat given how at 6'1" she towers over everyone. She especially towers over Leo. Eva supplements her income by tutoring Jewish kids for their bar/bat mitzvahs. 

As it so happens, Leo never had a bar mitzvah. Could this be a way to gain Shapiro's attention and affection (Leo almost always calls Eva by her last name)? His fellow Hebrew students James and Sallie (Derrick Delgado and Zoe Hoffmann) look on with puzzlement and amusement at their accelerated classmate whom they estimate to be between 41 and 52 years old. 

Leo tries to play it cool with Shapiro. He ventures into the dating and Jewish world with some oddball results. His sister and brother-in-law offer at times conflicting advice. His Italian friends and Asian bodega owner also chime in on Leo's various exploits, romantic or otherwise. Fortunately, he has his wise Grammy Lila (Caroline Aaron) to offer sensible words of wisdom to her bumbling grandson. Or does he? Eva has her own curveballs to throw at him. In the end, Leo finds the greatest love of all.

31 Candles is firmly rooted in its New York Jewish world yet should be appealing to people of all backgrounds. The film never attempts to be anything other than what it is: a pleasant, well-meaning romantic comedy. Like our lead character, 31 Candles wants to be loved and give love, even if he stumbles around in doing so.

Jonah Feingold wears many hats in 31 Candles. He is writer. He is director. He is editor. He is also the lead. Feingold pulls off each task effectively. Coming across as a Woody Allen's less neurotic nephew, Feingold has both clever lines and a good overall structure to the film. When getting together with Eva to discuss him having his long-delayed bar mitzvah, she tells him of a specific reading that he'll have to do. "It's from Genesis", she tells him. Looking pleased at this news, Leo replies, "Oh, I love Phil Collins". 

The line itself is amusing. However, it also reveals just how removed Leo is from the religious aspect of Judaism. "I'm Jew-ish", he remarks. 31 Candles does not end up with Leo opting to become a hazzan. It does show that he is more conscious of what being Jewish is both good and bad. The only real dark moment in the film is when a date takes askance at the thought of her possibly "looking Jewish". Fortunately, Feingold has a later scene with friendly but frank Chinese bodega owner Jaya (Lori Tann Chin) and a bagel to lighten the mood.

31 Candles has amusing moments and scenes. There is when Leo's brother-in-law Greg (Jared Freid) offers this suggestion. "He's short. She's tall. Climb her like a tree". There are the deliberate bad bris jokes Rabbi Zeldin (Judy Gold) offers. "What do you call a cheap circumcision? A rip-off!", Rabbi Zeldin quips. She then adds "I do take tips" in a deliberate pun that even Henny Youngman would roll his eyes at. 

31 Candles, though, also has heart behind the schtick. These come with Feingold's scenes with his beloved Grammy. Jonah Feingold and Caroline Aaron are surprisingly moving together; whether Grammy is comforting him or telling him what a yutz he is, these nice, short and simple scenes are highlights in the film. Their last scene together, which throws in a surprise, did affect me more than I thought.

Feingold also manages to get his actors, including himself, to be more than Borscht Belt level. There is still a bit of an exaggerated manner to some of the performances, including himself. However, on the whole the sincerity that is played on screen makes up for occasional stumbles. Feingold also has some surprisingly inventive moments in 31 Candles. There is a subtle switch from color to black-and-white in a fantasy moment that spoke of how Leo sees the world. Grant Fonda's score also keeps things light, adding nice Hebrew touches to our tale of love lost and potentially found.

31 Candles has a few stumbles apart from some of the perhaps slightly over-the-top acting moments. The relationship that Leo has with Eva's sister seems to not be addressed or downplayed. There is a running montage to get to temple on time that looked a bit amateurish. I think there was some kind of running gag about Leo's probable dyslexia that did not completely work (he keeps reversing numbers, leading him to believe for example that a $72 total is a remarkably inexpensive $27). One editing choice where he seems to kiss Eva but then asks to "reverse" things left me a bit confused. I was not sure if it was another fantasy moment or if it did happen.

As a side note, I have recently rewatched Moonstruck, which also has a curious case of romantic sibling rivalry. I do not know if Feingold drew inspiration from that for his film. However, his one-night stand seemed to just come and go. 

Overall, though, 31 Candles is a cute little film that follows the romcom conventions well. "Just because something is cheesy doesn't mean it isn't necessary", Leo comments. He might have been talking about the Christmas movies he directs. It could easily apply to 31 Candles. It might be frothy, but it is still charming.  

DECISION: B-

The Worst of 2025 So Far

2025 has been an interesting year for film. If I understand correctly, this year we have had not one, not two, but three of this generation's Citizen Kane. There were, if my fellow critics are to be believed, three unimpeachable masterpieces that will alter the course of cinematic if not human history.

Curiously though, only one of those films made my Ten Best List. One did, however, make my Ten Worst List. Go figure.

As I look back on 2025, I think of how film reviewing has gone a bit off the deep end. You had YouTube film reviewer Chris Stuckmann create his own film, Shelby Oaks. I saw it as part of a secret early screening. I opted not to review Shelby Oaks, keeping to his idea that one cannot give negative reviews no matter how bad a film is because filmmaking is hard or something. Apparently, reviewers have to consider a filmmaker's "good intentions" when judging a particular film's quality. 

I understand that many current film reviewers "grew up" watching Stuckmann. I grew up watching Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert. I also had never heard of Chris Stuckmann until the controversy over when he opted out of giving Madame Web a negative review because he understood how hard it was to make a film. This "giving negative reviews is bad" mindset has seeped into other reviewers' minds. I see many a X/Twitter post saying that we should not have Worst Movies of the Year Lists. It is unfair, so the argument goes, to all those who worked hard on the film no matter how atrocious said film turned out to be. 

I find such ideas patronizing and infantile. It is the cinematic version of awarding participation trophies. Reviewers share their views. They will not always be positive views. Siskel & Ebert were the deans of film reviewing. Every year, they had a Worst of The Year list with the express purpose of slamming films that "took two hours out of our lives". No one then ever bemoaned how awful that tradition was, or how disrespectful it was to those who work on the films. 

Siskel and Ebert knew how much work went into making a film. They also knew that it did not matter how hard someone tried. If the end result was more than bad but disastrous, they should be called out on it. Reviews should not grade on a curve. Noble intentions do not make up for a lousy product. They understood something that some current film reviewers do not understand or have forgotten. They understood that the filmmakers are adults and should be treated as such.

Moreover, these were their views. Why can't a film reviewer not say, "I hated this movie"? Are people seriously suggesting that we cannot call out a film that we ended up despising because we might hurt the filmmakers' feelings? 

Suggesting that people should compile only "Best Of" Lists suggests to me that film reviewers are expected to only praise movies. Some reviewers, I think, do just that. Almost everything that they see is "great" or "a masterpiece". I cannot take seriously a film reviewer who calls Across the Spider-Verse "one of the greatest films ever made in the history of cinema". Frankly, I think you've got to be either loony or an idiot to make such a wild assertion. Yes, it is that person's view. However, it is my view that it is nowhere near "one of the greatest films ever made in the history of cinema" and find such an assertion laughable. I trust that he was honest in his assertion. 

I also know that reviewers need to calls them as they sees them. Yet, I digress. 

At last, I have my list of my choices for the Ten Worst Films of 2025 So Far. I may update the list as I watch more 2025 films. 

Number 10: The Wedding Banquet

As of this writing, I have yet to see the 1993 original The Wedding Banquet. That film was selected for inclusion in the National Film Registry in 2023. This remake I doubt will be remembered in six months. The Wedding Banquet was, per my understanding, supposed to be a comedy. However, so much of it played like a serious drama that it ended up being at times bizarre. The film essentially had two plots rammed together. One involved a lesbian couple struggling with IVF. The other involved a Korean attempting to both stay in America and stay in the closet. The Wedding Banquet treated both with a curiously somber tone. That, in turn, made the few attempts at broad comedy look embarrassing. The performances save for Joan Chen, Youn Yuh-jung and Lily Gladstone were pretty much horrendous. Perhaps I can be a little lenient with Han Gi-chan. He is Korean who is still working his way through English. The same cannot be said of Bowen Yang, who is American and still gave an awful performance. Expect to see Yang pop up again later on down.

Number 9: Song Sung Blue

Let me start by saying that I love Neil Diamond, well, except for The Jazz Singer. The soundtrack for that fiasco at least was its sole redeeming quality. I also found Kate Hudson charming and in good form in Song Sung Blue. My issue with Song Sung Blue was its tonal shift. For the first hour or so, Song Sung Blue plays almost like a wacky comedy in its story of two dreamers who join forces professionally and romantically to be a Neil Diamond tribute act. Out of the blue (no pun intended), we get a totally wild twist that shifts Song Sung Blue into a depressing drama. Even in the early stages of this shift, we get a scene with Hugh Jackman in a hospital that still plays like cartoonish farce. The film never recovered for me. 

Number 8: Eddington

Similarly to Song Sung Blue, Eddington started out well. Its skewering of the global meltdown of 2020 was strong and wryly amusing. The combined lunacies of COVID-19 and the George Floyd "reckoning" were shown as excessive overreactions despite the sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes misguided intentions of all concerned. However, once we got past the midpoint of this almost two-and-a-half-hour film, Eddington started sinking. The film ultimately collapsed when a character was literally assassinated. It did not help that I saw Eddington after Charlie Kirk was similarly assassinated. Granted, there was no way for writer/director Ari Aster to know that a political commentator would be murdered in front of hundreds. There was no way that he would know that many people would literally be dancing in celebration. However, it was so uncomfortable for me to watch that I felt almost dirty in keeping the DVD playing. 

Number 7: Love Hurts

Love Hurts came out in February of this year; even then, I had predicted that Love Hurts would be on many Ten Worst Films of 2025 lists. Surprisingly, I do not think that prediction came completely true. Then again, I think many people simply did not bother watching Love Hurts. The movie stars two Academy Award winners: Ke Huy Quan and Ariana DeBose. The latter in particular has had a simply terrible run of films post-Oscar. The plot is incoherent. The action at times maddingly confused. The comedy nonexistent. The romance ridiculous. Love Hurts runs under 90 minutes. However, it feels like an eternity to sit through. 

Number 6: After the Hunt

As with Eddington, After the Hunt started out interesting and then slowly, painfully devolved into incoherence and self-indulgence. The topics of cancel culture and weaponizing "Me Too" are ripe for exploration. Unfortunately, what could have been a strong, contemplative drama soon started going sideways into strange areas. You had Michael Stuhlbarg, whose character I was convinced was gay despite being married to Julia Roberts' character. His prissy, passive-aggressive manner when stomping in and out of their kitchen looked like some crazed spoof. Director Luca Guadagnino moved the camera in such bizarre ways that I literally thought that the cameraman was drunk. Almost all the acting save Roberts seemed to play all this as if it were a parody. The film literally ends with Guadagnino calling out, "AND CUT!". I literally thought that I was hallucinating. After the Hunt was a totally lost opportunity.

Number 5: Jurassic World Rebirth

There is a curious movement to proclaim Jonathan Bailey the first openly gay movie star and box office draw. This movement bases its belief on how Bailey was in two of this year's biggest films: Jurassic World Rebirth and Wicked: For Good. Let me drop a truth bomb on the Bailey Believers: Jonathan Bailey is not a movie star, gay or otherwise. People went to Jurassic World Rebirth and Wicked: For Good to see giant dinosaurs and singing witches. They did not go to these films because Jonathan Bailey was the male lead in both/either of them. Jurassic World Rebirth is the seventh film in the Jurassic Park/World franchise. This movie, this franchise should not exist. Dinosaurs are boring, as is Jurassic World Rebirth. The film is really two films spliced together like the freakish mad scientist-created dinosaurs are. You have two sets of characters that could be their own film. However, they are jammed together to where you end up not caring about either set. Loud and noisy, the film is pretty much an insult to viewers' intelligence. Finally, I would like to point out that Jonathan Bailey was literally five years old when Jurassic Park was released. Jonathan Bailey was 36 years and two months old when Jurassic World Rebirth was released. Make of that what you will.

Number 4: Wicked: For Good

Jonathan Bailey and Bowen Yang make a second appearance on my Worst Films of 2025 List with the follow-up to Wicked. I am not well-versed enough in Wicked lore to know what was added for the second part of the Broadway adaptation. However, I found all the songs pretty much sounding the same. The production and costume design are still good. Everything else though was not. I am at a loss to understand why so many single out Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande as Best Lead and Supporting Actress-worthy performances. I found them lacking, with the latter coming across as a bimbo. To be fair, they were better than Michelle Yeoh, one of the most wildly miscast performers in recent memory. Wicked: For Good attempts to tie itself into the 1939 The Wizard of Oz, but if so, then Wicked: For Good does not make any sense. At over two hours, Wicked: For Good is a chore to sit through. The music was not good. The performances are not good. There is nothing good in Wicked: For Good.  

Number 3: Mickey 17

At the Mickey 17 screening that I went to, a man got up, turned to his companions and shouted, "THIS MOVIE SUCKED!". I think that pretty much sums up the experience of sitting through this "We Hate Donald Trump!" snoozefest. I continue to reject the idea that Robert Pattinson is his generation's Peter O'Toole. I think that he tried way too hard to act, with his affected thin voice meant to show the title character as a nitwit. Mickey 17 is a punishing two hours and seventeen minutes long. In that time, Mickey 17 sometimes rambles incoherently with various subplots that do not add up. The worst element in Mickey 17 however is the blatant attempt at allegory. The film wants to be a takedown of Trump, with Mark Ruffalo's character so obvious as a de facto Trump. The end result is not clever or funny. It is not even particularly mean-spirited. Instead, it is idiotic on every level. I get that Ruffalo and Mickey 17 writer/director Bong Joon Ho hate Trump. I don't like Trump. It does not change the fact that Mickey 17 cannot do allegory or comedy. Even with that, Mickey 17 just isn't good. It is not funny. It is not intelligent. It is insulting to its audience.

Number 2: Sinners

Every year, without fail, one particular film receives such lofty praise that one expects film reviewers to call it "this generation's Citizen Kane". This year, there were three claimants to that title. I thought One Battle After Another was fine. It was not among my Best or Worst Lists. I'll hold back on the second one, which is on my Ten Best Films List. However, the first film to be held as this unimpeachable masterpiece finds itself here as one of the Worst Films of 2025. Another film that was over two hours and fifteen minutes, Sinners is a silly, pretentious film. Perhaps that is why so many have convinced themselves that Sinners is this brilliant piece of filmmaking. Vampires meet bootleggers in a film that thinks it is far smarter than it actually is. One reviewer said that Jack O'Connell was "terrifying" as Remmick, the Irish vampire. I found that comment as laughable as O'Connell's performance. How exactly am I supposed to react to seeing O'Connell lead a vampire hoedown? People, too besotted by Sinners, do not seem to notice or care that our protagonists are called "Smokestack". One brother is nicknamed "Smoke", the other nicknamed "Stack". Am I the only one to find that idiotic? The I Lied to You segment, where ghosts of the past and future were summoned by Preacherboy's music, is equally laughable and self-indulgent. This, I figure, will bring major pushback from those who will insist that Sinners is this great piece of art. Well, I'll be nice and give Sinners a compliment: the music was nice.

Number 1: Him

Him is more than just misguided. It is bad, just bad on every conceivable level. Its attempts at horror are both too on-the-nose and too broad. Him is dominated by reds and blacks, attempting to create a sinister, demonic world that ends up looking self-indulgent and embarrassing to watch. Him veers between the wild overacting of Marlon Wayans and the comatose acting of Tyriq Withers. Him's only interest in the latter is in showing us Withers' beautiful body. Him also has a very strange suggestion. We are supposed to believe that Wayans' football quarterback is still able to play while he puts Withers' hotshot through a week of hellish training. Marlon Wayans is 53 years old. Tyriq Withers is 27. There is a twenty-six-year age gap between them. There is no conceivable way that Wayans, who is old enough to be Withers' father, could still be playing top-notch football. Him tries to be atmospheric and spooky. It ends up being hilarious and stupid. 

Him is the worst film of 2025. While this may be my initial list, I do not see any other film overtaking Him for this distinction.  

With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: HOLIDAY CELEBRATION

Original Airdate: December 3, 2025

Special Guests: Will Guidara, Lindsay Jill Roth, Kelly Zajfen, Naomi Osaka and Tom Colicchio, with special appearance by Ruth Lane and His Royal Highness Harry, Duke of Sussex

Mentions of "Joy": 1

Mentions of Edible Flower Sprinkles: No

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 2

Gushing Praise for Markle: "Today is the first time I've felt the Christmas spirit this year".

Christmas for people means one of at least two things. Some see it as the commemoration and celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Others, more secular minded, still see it as a time of family gatherings and feasting. For Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Christmas is a time for crafting. It is a time to invite strangers into her rented home/studio to cosplay as happy families. It is a time to make a dish comprised of ingredients that your spouse hates. Christmas was never as deadly dull as it is under Mrs. Sussex's watchful eyes in With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration.

The Yuletide season is not safe from the clutches of Meghan Sussex as she gifts us with a seemingly endless parade of activities. One almost imagines that it is nearly impossible to catalog everything that Mrs. Saxe-Coburg & Gotha has her myriads of guests do. I will, however, do my best to catalog all the fun and I presume joyful activities. Some activities are with others while other activities are by her lonesome. 

Meghan visits Lane Farms where owner Ruth Lane shows her around until Meghan finds the perfect Christmas tree. Next, we are guided to making an Advent calendar, where she can "just embrace the special touches that bring you joy". 

From there, we await her first guest, restauranteur and author Will Guidara. He wrote the book Unreasonable Hospitality, which oddly is not the title of Meghan Markle's autobiography. Guidara is the husband of Christina Tosi, whom we've encountered in A Sweet and Savory Adventure. Mrs. Guidara will pop in via video call a little later. 

Mrs. Sussex will prepare gougères and what she calls "reindeer chow" for him to take home to the missus. She does warn us, however, of the importance of food. "If you don't like pepper, this is not your dish. If you don't like cheese, this is not your dish. If you don't like goodness, this is not your dish", the Duchess Hostess with the Mostess opines. "If you're a fan of all those things, this is probably your dish".

Once Guidara arrives, we can go on to learn how to make Christmas crackers. Lest there be any confusion, these crackers are not for eating. They are for decorating, as this is a British tradition of a paper-wrapped tube with confetti and various treats. Guidara checks in with Tosi who is excited for these gifts. He makes some for his kids. Meghan makes four: one for Guidara to pop open and one each for per her inscriptions "Archie", "Lili" and "My Love".

Next, we welcome "author and friend" Lindsay Jill Roth and welcome back "founder and friend" Kelly Zajfen for a pajama party. Why is the King's daughter-in-law dressed in her pjs? Well, Lindsay's family has a Christmas tradition of dressing up in matching pajamas. Therefore, our three gal-pals have to do likewise.

We are not even halfway done, folks. 

Meghan has already made a festive cinnamon star and quiche cups for their brunch. She even made some baked pears for them before we get to the big stuff. They will make holiday wreaths. Meghan tells them that this is not a competition. To be fair, they did not behave as though it was. 

Wreaths done, we can move on to Tips and Tricks for Festive Wrapping. We learn that stuffed bears do not require a gift bag. After throttling a poor teddy bear who deserved better, the Duchess of Sussex showed us how to wrap it without a bag. "Another anomaly for people at the holidays is how on earth you wrap a wine bottle", the Duchess helpfully and joyfully tells us. 

Anomaly, per the Cambridge dictionary, is "a person or thing that is different from what is usual, or not in agreement with something else and therefore not satisfactory". Granted, I don't drink, so I would not think of giving nor receiving wine for Christmas. However, is not knowing how to wrap a wine bottle truly "a thing that is different from what is usual"?  

While we ponder on the anomaly of giftwrapping a wine bottle, we can rest assured that Meghan has got you covered, so to speak. We have the Japanese art of furoshiki to help us keep the wine bottle a surprise for your guest. 

One person who might have a furoshiki wine bottle gifted to her is professional tennis player Nancy Osaka. Meghan has been thoughtful and loving enough to make a crudité platter wreath for Osaka, whom she has never met before. Osaka, pleasant if a bit puzzled by all this, will join the joyful Sparkle of Markle for plate decorating. "LET'S GO CRAFT!", Meghan says, making it sound less like a joyful activity and more like a threat. Osaka makes a plate for her new daughter Shai. Meghan does plates and mugs for her children. 

We journey briefly into Easy and Elegant Hand-Painted Cookies, which can be both a fun family activity and a nice quiet-time craft for adults. Finally, we go to our last guest, chef and restaurateur Tom Colicchio. His book, Think Like a Chef, was life-altering for her generation's Wallis Simpson. He will make beet salad and cod, while Meghan will make some gumbo. There is also some gin cocktail that Meghan has prepared earlier.

Reminiscences of their Italian and black backgrounds will pepper the conversation (no pun intended). It is 51 minutes into this 58-minute With Love, Meghan special that at long last, "Aitch" appears. Meghan introduces Colicchio to "my husband" (which is how she introduces him in Holiday Celebration). Everyone can have a laugh about how the beet salad (which Mr. Sussex would call "beetroot") has every ingredient that he hates: beets, black olives, fennel, pickled vegetables. Aitch calls it the "anti-salad". However, he at least has Mother Doria's gumbo, which is better than the gumbo that Meghan made. "Thank you for coming", Mrs. Sussex tells the man known as "my husband". However, Harry does pop up at the end, where Meghan hosts a holiday get-together with the With Love, Meghan crew. She serves champagne and everyone can love it. 

I have to endure a tradition at Christmas with the extended family of one of my relative's spouses. This tradition is where all the guests have to do a "year in review" to perfect strangers and people I see at the most twice a year (Christmas and Thanksgiving). You are expected to share all the good and bad of that year, all the things you did, all the places you went to, along with your impressions of all that and anything else that you can recall about everything and everyone of the year. Every speaker, even a guest that you bring, has to participate. Every reflection concludes with a toast after every single speaker ends their oration. I spent many years getting annual updates about one family's dog. One year, I had to listen to someone talk about their dead son for ten and a half minutes. Another year, I endured three young women go on for over an hour and a half about the One Direction concert that they went to. I confess that despite going almost every year for more than ten to fifteen years, I have yet to learn most of these people's names. 

Somehow, in some awful way, those annual struggle sessions are more enjoyable than With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration. 

I always ask at least one question whenever I see a film or television show: who is the target audience? Who do the creators have in mind when they create a movie or television show? Something like Netflix's Elway is geared towards sports fans who do not even have to be Denver Broncos fans. Selena: The Series is targeted at a Hispanic, specifically Mexican American audience that still adores the late Queen of Tejano music. The Crown has in mind people who love soap operas and/or historical pieces on the Royal Family.

Therefore, who is the target audience for both With Love, Meghan and With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration? Who does Mrs. Sussex want to appeal to into watching segments on Easy and Elegant Hand-Painted Cookies and Tips & Tricks for Festive Wrapping? As she went on about the gougères, which she called "gorgeous little puffed delights", I had one question.

What the hell are gougères? 

I had never heard of such things. The esoteric nature of Markle's holiday treats is already a difficult thing to endure. It is her diseased, deranged, delusional concepts of elegant entertaining and "joy" that is almost gobsmacking when one sits through Holiday Celebration. She does not entertain her guests. She has them performing her ideas of fun. Making crafts is fun to her. Cooking rather grandiose meals is fun to her. As I watched the Guidara segment on Christmas crackers, I pictured that this is something that an elementary school teacher would have the students do. Will Guidara is approximately 47 years old. Is this sort of thing genuinely fun for him? 

Making Christmas crackers might be something that he and Christina Tosi could find enjoyable if doing it with their children. Seeing people in their forties doing child-like crafts seems more than off-putting. It seems insane. 

Come to think of it, her diseased, deranged, delusional concepts of elegant entertaining and "joy" plague the entirety of With Love, Meghan, but that is for another time.

So much of Holiday Celebration seems anything but celebratory or joyful. It seems more like work, a chore, an endless to-do checklist rather than enjoy any time with family or friends. As much as Markle may think that it is more personal to wrap a teddy bear in wrapping paper than it is putting it in a gift bag, I think most people would prefer the ease and simplicity of a gift bag than to spend time forcing the teddy bear into nice paper. 

I figure that yes, I am not the target audience for With Love, Meghan. However, I cannot conceive of what I presume is this show's target audience (wealthy women) wanting to decorate plates. No matter how personal those plates may be, it still sounds like something from the mind of a psychotic summer camp counselor. I almost expected Markle to have Osaka glue macaroni on the plates.

Going through the guest list, Holiday Celebration has a very curious assortment. Will Guidara seemed to be the most willing to do something other than what he is good at. Why have a chef cook something when you can have him make Christmas crackers? He seemed one of the more sensible people to interact with Markle. He also, intentionally or not, threw some shade her way. 

"One thing that is super-important to me about hosting at home. This is where I think people get it wrong. I think that sometimes people are working so hard to impress the people that they're inviting over that they forget about the actual reason that people are there, which is to connect and spend time with the people that have invited them". William Guidara may believe that. He expresses a rational sentiment. However, that actually undercuts Holiday Celebration's raison d'etre. The whole point of Holiday Celebration is to impress your guests. I cannot imagine inviting people over to make wreaths. I cannot imagine that they would find such things "joyful". 

One thing that I cannot and will not do is appear in public in my pajamas. Unless I was fleeing a fire or an earthquake, the idea of appearing in public while in my nightclothes is tawdry. I do not care if it is someone else's annual tradition. Meghan, I think, wanted to show how casual, relaxed and friendly she is by dressing in her pj's because her friend does. Nothing doing. It looks silly. Kelly Zajfen might as well be the Kato Kaelin of Montecito given how much time she appears to spend with Markle. This is I think Zajfen's third appearance on With Love, Meghan. That would make her the all-time record holder for guest appearances. Meghan's makeup artist Daniel Martin comes in at two, though he has a case of being tied with Zajfen as the most featured guest. Zajfen's second appearance in Feels Like Home was pretty much a "blink and you miss it" moment. Martin's two appearances in Hello, Honey! and A Sweet and Savory Adventure at least featured him for more than a walk-on appearance. Lindsay Jill Roth was just there.

Nancy Osaka looked as if she wished she were anywhere else but there. She was pleasant but looked almost puzzled by this woman. Osaka also gave perhaps the most revealing answer when it came to what Christmas meant to her. Osaka talked about how Christmas gave her a chance to be with family, which she does not see often due to her career as a tennis pro. 

This, more than likely unintentionally, drew attention to how Markle had no family in Holiday Celebration. We certainly were not about to see the-now Princess Lilibet and Prince Archie. We did not see Meghan Markle's mother, Doria Ragland, make even a cursory appearance. There was absolutely no chance that her father, Thomas Markle, was going to pop down the chimney like Santa Claus. "My husband" popped in almost at the very end. Meghan, still unable to speak the Montecito curse, introduced him to a pleasant Colicchio as "my husband". When she said, "Thank you for coming" at the end of the Colicchio segment, I did laugh. It sounded as if he did her a favor by popping in. For all her "my husband" talk, she did not seem to think of him as her life partner. He seemed more like another guest star come to adore her. 

No mention of Aitch's family was made. Not even Princess Eugenie could be manifested into popping in for gougères or gumbo. 

Markle ends Holiday Celebration by having her With Love, Meghan crew for champagne. Perhaps that is the type of family bonds that Meghan Markle can have: people who are there because they need to be there, not necessarily because they want to be there.

I think of all that Meghan Markle, or Mountbatten-Windsor, or Sussex, or Saxe-Coburg & Gotha gave up when she opted to forgo opening hospitals in Tower Hamlets to trapse about on television in her pajamas. Rather than cut ribbons and unveil plaques, Meghan decided that it would be better and more enriching (in every way possible) to spread "JOY" and edible flower sprinkles on all that she surveys. 

With Love, Meghan: Holiday Celebration is the television coal in your stocking. You do not learn anything. There is no joy to be found. There is no center, except to the center of attention for Meghan Markle. It is tedious watching. It is boring. It is sometimes embarrassing for all concerned. It is sometimes genuinely sad to watch. 

When it comes to the House of Windsor, I think we can say that Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is an anomaly. 

Do They Know It's Christmas if there are no
edible flower sprinkles?

0/10

The Elephant Man: A Review

THE ELEPHANT MAN    

The story of Joseph Merrick*, better known as The Elephant Man, is strange and tragic. Perhaps that is why David Lynch would be the ideal director for this story. The Elephant Man is a deeply moving, sympathetic portrait of a man disfigured in body but magnificent in soul. 

Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) visits a Victorian sideshow featuring all sorts of human exhibits. There is one, however, so shocking that the police close the whole thing down. Nevertheless, he persisted. Treves bribes Mr. Bytes (Freddie Jones), who owns this particular human exhibit to have a private showing. Dr. Treves has seen the figure dubbed by Bytes as "the Elephant Man".

This unfortunate soul, however, is not seen by the viewing audience for some time. Treves takes the Elephant Man to London Hospital. Despite the misgivings of head nurse Mrs. Mothershead (Wendy Hiller) and hospital director Mr. Carr Gomm (John Gielgud), the Elephant Man now has a home. Treves at first thinks that the patient is as mentally crippled as he is physically. In reality, we find that the patient is kind and a man of faith. 

He is also John Merrick (John Hurt). To everyone's shock, Merrick quotes the whole of the 23rd Psalm and not just what Treves has taught him. News of the Elephant Man intrigues two distinct people. The first is noted British stage actress Mrs. Kendal (Anne Bancroft), who sees the gentle, elegant soul beneath the horrifying exterior. The other is corrupt hospital porter (Michael Elphick), who sells access to Merrick without the London Hospital's knowledge.

Things look to be improving when none other than Her Royal Highness Alexandra, Princess of Wales (Helen Ryan) uses soft power to keep Merrick at London Hospital on a permanent basis. However, Bytes has managed to use the hospital porter to spirit Merrick away to Europe to return to the freak show. Will John be able to find his way back to the safety and security of London Hospital? Will the Elephant Man find peace?

David Lynch is on his second film with The Elephant Man. Yet, his directing has such confidence coupled with Lynchian eccentricities that it feels like the work of a mature filmmaker. The Elephant Man opens with a strange scene of a woman screaming in panic as elephants go by. The film holds back on revealing what John Merrick actually looks like until almost a half hour into its runtime. We get hints of his appearance, but The Elephant Man continues to keep things mysterious. This builds up both suspense and anticipation. Lynch is teasing us, almost as if he is doing what Bytes did.

The film blends a certain theatricality that matches its Victorian setting. We see this in the various moments of theater ranging from the freak shows that Merrick performs in down to the elaborate, dreamlike royal command performance that Mrs. Kendal presents. Mr. Merick is the guest of honor. 

The Elephant Man adds to that sense of vague otherworldliness with Freddie Francis' black-and-white cinematography. Francis keeps to that shadowy, dreamlike quality of the film while also still keeping to a more realistic tone when in a boardroom or the clinic. Surprisingly, the film's cinematography was not singled out for recognition among The Elephant Man's eight Academy Award nominations. 

Other aspects of The Elephant Man were curiously overlooked for recognition. The most infamous of these oversights was for its makeup work. The Academy did not have a separate Makeup category at the time. However, the lack of even an Honorary Oscar for The Elephant Man's makeup work when it had done so for both The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao and Planet of the Apes caused such an uproar that the Academy created Best Makeup (now Best Makeup and Hairstyling) the next year. The exceptional element in The Elephant Man's makeup work is that it soon becomes if not unnoticeable at least not jarring. It, in that sense, reflects how the hospital staff and caring individuals like Mrs. Kendal looked passed the appearance and into the heart.

The elements that did receive nominations were more than warranted. John Hurt, in an Oscar-nominated performance, makes John Merrick into a fully formed person. He is not a freakish creature nor an object of pity. Most people, even those who have never seen The Elephant Man, will probably know the "I AM NOT AN ANIMAL! I AM A HUMAN BEING! I AM A MAN!" line. I think, though, that a better, stronger scene is when Merrick and Kendal first meet. 

Mrs. Kendal presents Merrick a gift. It is the works of William Shakespeare. He begins reading from Romeo & Juliet. Kendal soon begins an impromptu scene with Merrick. Excellently played by Ann Bancroft, complete with British accent, this is a beautiful and moving scene. Both Bancroft and Hurt play the scene with elegance and grace. 

David Lynch with The Elephant Man made probably his least eccentric film. Perhaps The Straight Story is the only other Lynch film that would not be a bit opaque to bizarre to an average filmgoer. He treats the scenario with dignity and restraint. Lynch, who cowrote the screenplay with Eric Bergren and Christopher De Vore, had excellent counterpoints that told the viewers much about how people saw Merrick. In one scene, Mrs. Kendal reads an article about Merrick and thinks that she would like to meet him. Right after, the hospital porter reads the exact same article to his fellow bar patrons. He too expresses a desire to see Merrick, but we know that it is for sinister reasons versus Mrs. Kendal's sincere ones.

Anthony Hopkins, who was not nominated, was very quiet as Dr. Treves. His one true moment of anger, as such, has greater power. We see Dr. Treves genuine kindness and concern. The film does allow him a moment of doubt, whether he too is exploiting Merrick despite Treves' good intentions. Freddie Jones is appropriately theatrical as Merrick's brutal "owner". Their roles may be small. However, both Wendy Hiller and John Gielgud were excellent as the hospital head nurse and administrator who shift from hostile to caring.

John Morris' score, which did receive an Oscar nomination, fits into the various scenes brilliantly. It shifts from a carnival-like score to an almost lush and romantic one when needed. The film does end with music not written for the film. The use of Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings lends the final scene an added element of tragedy. It should be noted that using the Adagio for Strings came long before Oliver Stone used it as a motif for Platoon.

The Elephant Man does not sensationalize or treat the subject with ridicule or shock value. Instead, it gives Joseph Merrick's life story a grace and dignity befitting how he was in real life. It is a Gothic tale in its look and atmosphere. However, I think that The Elephant Man does show us the very human and graceful figure behind the shocking facade. The film is quiet and contemplative, with excellent performances from the cast and strong work from the crew. It is a beautiful film of the man behind the deformity.

1862-1890

*The Elephant Man changed Mr. Merrick's name to John. His real first name was Joseph.

DECISION: A+

Behind the Movement: The Television Movie

BEHIND THE MOVEMENT

Living history. It is one thing to be living history. It is another, quite another to be living as though you are consciously aware that you are living history. Behind the Movement covers a tumultuous few days between Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give up her seat to the one-day boycott to protest segregation. I figure that everyone involved was aware of the story's importance. Pity that such importance blocked out any sense that the people were involved were human.

Montgomery, Alabama's black community is already on edge after the murder of Emmett Till. Among those upset to quietly enraged is seamstress Rosa Parks (Meta Golding). Mrs. Parks calls her husband Raymond (Roger Guenveur Smith) and asks him to buy milk before she leaves work. She boards the city bus and will not give up her seat when told to.

Her refusal gets her arrested, where she talks to a woman in the next cell. The other woman may have been in jail for defending herself against an abusive man, but that was nothing compared to what Mrs. Parks did. The demure, proper Mrs. Parks may be the perfect test case to fight the segregation laws. NAACP lawyer E.D. Nixon (Isaiah Washington) gets the importance of the situation. So does local community activist, Professor Jo Ann Robinson (Loretta Devine). Everyone, save perhaps the Parks couple, understands how important this is.

Eventually, Mrs. Parks agrees to be the test case. Now, it is time to rapidly organize what is intended as a one-day boycott to coincide with Mrs. Parks' trial. The organizers will need all the help that they can get. That means turning to A. Philip Randolph (Al Mitchell), head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters labor union. It also means turning to the various church ministers, including a young up-and-coming preacher named Martin Luther King, Jr. (Lashaun Clay). Mr. and Mrs. Parks may have misgivings and fears, but history will not be denied. 

Behind the Movement is in the tradition of "important stories told in very serious tones" telefilms. Everyone, cast and crew, knows that this is oh so serious and oh so important. They are not exactly wrong in that idea. The Montgomery bus boycott and the slow but steady push to change is still a vital story to know. However, Behind the Movement is one where everyone is so noble, so serious, that no one is allowed to be human. Almost every statement is historic. Almost everyone presented is important. Almost every action is loaded with significance. 

This is where Behind the Movement went wrong, oh so very wrong. By behaving as though everyone and everything is of such lofty weight, Behind the Movement forgot that there were actual people involved. When, for example, Randolph and Reverend Ralph Abernathy (Keith Arthur Bolden) go to the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, everyone there realizes the importance, the significance, the epoch changing appearance of Reverend King.

King would leave a long-lasting legacy on American history. However, when Behind the Movement takes place, King was still a new figure in Montgomery. At the time of the boycott, Dr. King was a month shy of twenty-seven years old. To have Randolph, Abernathy and Nixon behave as though they were now in the presence of greatness is already bad. To suggest, as Behind the Movement does, that they were all aware of it, ironically diminishes Dr. King. It does not help that director Aric Avelino bathes Dr. King in an almost divine light when Randolph, Abernathy and Nixon are in King's office to discuss the boycott.

I do not think that Behind the Movement should have painted King as some bumbling kid. However, over and over throughout the film, everyone behaved as though they knew that the boycott was of worldwide importance right from the get-go. There is an air of profundity in Behind the Movement that does what a lot of historic pieces do. They rob the individuals of their humanity, trading in lofty images to replace flawed, even frightened people. 

People are reduced to almost walking audio-animatronic figures, always noble and aware. The closest that Behind the Movement has in terms of levity is when Alfonso Campbell (Sir Brodie) is, to use modern terms, voluntold to coordinate carpool groups. Even that was in a blink-and-you-miss-it manner. To be fair, there is a slightly comic moment when the bold Professor Robinson hoodwinks a campus security guard to let them exit the campus by claiming to be doing end-of-term grading when they had actually been using campus equipment to make flyers.

Apart from that though, Behind the Movement never failed to make everyone very grand, noble, aware of how important this particular case, this particular boycott, was to world history. Ironically, treating everything that everyone in Behind the Movement did as this lofty moment robbed us of a potentially good story. Stories that transform people into monuments tend to be bad. Stories that transform monuments into people tend to be good. Behind the Movement is squarely in the former category. 

This grand manner extends to almost all the performances. The standout for me is Loretta Devine as Professor Robinson. She is always a welcome sight, and here she brought what little humor there was. I do not think that one needs to go into the other performances. This is not to say that they were bad. They were just all the same, playing everyone as these noble figures. They differentiate only in degrees of seriousness. 

Meta Golding does her best to make Rosa Parks into a less secure figure, but she still carries such a sense of history that it diminishes Mrs. Parks. Roger Guenveur Smith seems wasted as the eternally supportive Raymond, though to be fair he looks enough like Harry Belafonte that I think Smith should play him in a Belafonte biopic. 

Perhaps the worst of the "EVERYTHING I DO AND SAY IS IMPORTANT TO HISTORY" performance was that of Isaiah Washington as E.D. Nixon. Washington's Nixon was so loaded with the weight of history one half-expected him to literally walk on water. 

I think that much of the blame for Behind the Movement being so self-serious is on Katrina O'Gilvie's screenplay. The telefilm is loaded with some almost cringe bits of dialogue. Having a scene where a woman who survived abuse by attacking her attacker comments that Rosa Parks was the brave one is already a curious parallel to draw. Having Parks comment, "I just figure some things are worth standing up for" makes it almost cross into the pompous. 

Behind the Movement might be a good way to start learning about Rosa Parks' story. It is not a good way, though, to find the woman behind the movement.

1913-2005

4/10