William & Kate: The Television Movie

WILLIAM & KATE

The romance of William and Catherine, the current Prince and Princess of Wales, can now be seen as a departure from that of William's younger brother, Prince Harry. While not without its ups and down, the courtship of Catherine Middleton by William Mountbatten-Windsor had less drama than that of Meghan Markle and Henry Mountbatten-Windsor (or Henry Sussex, if Meghan is to be believed). While Harry & Meghan have a trilogy of television films covering their courtship, marriage and flight from the Royal Family, poor Wills & Katie have a mere two films on the same subject: their courtship.  William & Kate is pleasant enough, not well acted but nothing as horrendous as anything in The Sussex Trilogy.

Young Prince William of Wales (Nico Evers-Swindell) is now off to university. His father, Prince Charles (Ben Cross) is today like any other father, worried that his son will find university life difficult. Charles is not the only one who notices the handsome young second in line to the British throne within their midst. Friends both male and female come to help Wills get his footing. Ian Musgrove (Jonathan Patrick Moore) offers to be his wingman. Posh student Margaret Hemmings-Wellington (Tribly Glover), who has run in royal circles, all but declares that she will be the next Mrs. William Wales.

One student who is not particularly impressed is Catherine Middleton (Camilla Luddington). William is not her type. She also has a boyfriend already, so why would she want any other man? As it turns out, William is assigned to Catherine's study group. She would prefer sending everyone emails rather than have individual telephone numbers. Wills wants to transfer universities, but Charles is adamant that he finishes what he started. It is Catherine who persuades William to merely change majors rather than universities. 

Inevitably, William starts developing feelings for Catherine. These feelings are both romantic and erotic, the latter after Catherine makes a splash at a fashion show. "SHE'S HOT!" Willis declares. Eventually, William and Kate move in together, with two other flat-mates. But what started out as friendship has grown stronger between William and Catherine, and they soon begin an affair. William also develops a bond with the middle-class Middletons, who are a solid family unit. What will it take for William and Kate to finally get together in marriage?

When William & Kate started, I saw that Charles Shaughnessy was in the cast. I became very alarmed. Mr. Sheffield had played Prince Charles in Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal. I was terrified that he would play Prince Charles in William & Kate too. I would have to endure some kind of crazed shared universe between the Waleses and the Sussexes. It did not help that Shaughnessy was absolutely abysmal as Prince Charles. To be fair, he was given absolutely lousy material, but he was still bad.

Fortunately, Mr. Sheffield was not Prince Charles. He had what was essentially a cameo as William's flight instructor. The now-King Charles III was played by Ben Cross. I think that he was slightly embarrassed to be there. Cross did his best to get some of Charles' mannerisms, particularly the pulling on the cuffs. He also tried to match Charles' speaking voice. However, I think Cross was cross as Prince Charles. It was a paycheck, and a chance to play royal to American audiences. It was not a convincing performance.

It was infinitely much better than Justin Hanlon as Prince Harry. Poor Hanlon does not look anywhere close to Harry in this or any other alternate universe. Hanlon also did not sound anything like Harry. In perhaps a curious criticism, Justin Hanlon looked far too young to play Prince Harry. He looked like he was an overgrown twelve-year-old versus a twenty-seven-year-old man. In Hanlon's defense, his "Harry going through puberty" performance towers over the simply godawful Lifetime movies of the current Duke of Sussex in the Sussex Trilogy. He at least had a personality.

Less so were our leads. Neither Camilla Luddington nor Nico Evers-Swindell look or sound like Catherine or William. Evers-Swindell is pleasant but nondescript as Wills. He is pretty but there is nothing extraordinary in his performance. I think, however, that he played the part as written by Nancey Silvers and directed by Mark Rosman. Evers-Swindell's William was a bit shy, pleasant, eager but there was nothing special about William. 

I think William & Kate attempted some moments to humanize him. Of particular note is when he attempts to win her back by singing karaoke to her. It does make him look slightly goofy. However, it is not a dealbreaker. At times, though, he was bad. His efforts to argue with Catherine looked almost funny. It did not help that Evers-Swindell is quite hirsute. For a moment, what I thought were burn marks on his neck turned out to be excessive chest hair. 

For better or worse, Camilla Luddington matched Nico Evers-Swindell in the "pleasant but nondescript" department as Catherine. She did not make Catherine into either strong woman or the much-abused "Waitie Katie". To be fair, Luddington did have a few good moments such as when the paparazzi are besieging her. She also worked better when she was with her Middleton family. Luddington looked more relaxed and informal, as if she was with people. Her struggle to come across as human were not due to being in close proximity with royalty. She was a bit awkward with her supposed friends too.

In what I think is either stunt casting or a wild coincidence, Serena Scott Thomas plays Catherine's mother Carole Middleton. Thomas had played Diana, Princess of Wales in the television movie Diana: Her True Story in 1993. It is a very interesting twist that Serena Scott Thomas played the mother of the future King and future Queen of the United Kingdom. She was actually quite good in the role, as was Christopher Cousins as Mike Middleton, Catherine's father. They were helped, I think, in that they did not try to be royal or dignified. Instead, Thomas and Cousins played the Middletons as pleasant, ordinary people who just happen to have the potential future monarch staying with them for breakfast. 

I do wonder if the music was at times too cutesy for its own good. Never was fornication so cute with the pretty music playing as William and Kate kept slipping in and out of each other's bedrooms. 

As I look on William & Kate, I find it overall inoffensive and harmless. It is not good. The final scene where William gives Catherine the engagement ring is filmed in a very amusing green screen that we are supposed to believe is Africa. Most of the acting is not good, though I would not say it was terrible. It was decent enough. William & Kate does not give us any insight into these people. It does say much. However, it is short and doesn't embarrass itself. That is not something to dismiss.  

5/10

Truth & Treason: A Review

TRUTH & TREASON

On September 28, 2025, a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) worship center was attacked and later burned to the ground. Four congregants died as a result of the attack at Grand Blanc Township, Michigan. In the aftermath of the attack, a most curious trend developed online. Rather than express shock, or horror, or condemnation at the attack, many were condemning the LDS (also known as Mormon) victims and survivors. Of particular note were many in evangelical circles, who decided this was the perfect time to point out that Mormons were not Christians. I mention all this because Truth & Treason centers around a young LDS member during the Nazi era. Even though Truth & Treason is based on a true story, I suspect that many of those same evangelicals will call it "Mormon propaganda". Truth & Treason is a deeply moving film that tells its story with respect.

Hamburg, Germany, 1941. Helmut Hubener (Ewan Horrocks) is a Hitler Youth member, but he spends his time around his LDS friends than the bullies in the HY. His life is pretty much his friends and his LDS church. However, while his focus is primarily about finding work in the local government, Helmut observes some troubling signs. He is displeased with how his local bishop gives the Heil Hitler salute before the service. He is especially angered by how the bishop has installed a "Jews Forbidden to Enter: sign at the church. This clearly excludes LDS member Salomon Schwarz (Nye Occomore), who is a quarter-Jewish. 

Things come to a head when Salomon is taken by the authorities. Helmut, now working at City Hall despite being only 16, is upset to enraged. Helmut also has access to forbidden knowledge at work and home. Part of the archives involve holding the banned literature, such as All Quiet on the Western Front and the works of Shakespeare. Thanks to his brother who came home briefly from the front, Helmut also has a short-wave radio that lets him pick up BBC broadcasts. Filled with a youthful zeal and righteous anger, Helmut starts typing out anti-Nazi messages and surreptitiously posting them about town. He gets his fellow LDS members Rudolph "Rudi" Hobbe (Daf Thomas) and Karl-Heinz Schnibbe (Ferdinand McKay) to help him post them.

The messages soon attract the attention of Nazi official Erwin Mussener (Rupert Evans). He begins a methodical search for who this traitor is, initially thinking that the educated language makes him a college professor. Helmut for his part soon attracts the attention of Elli Kluge (Sylvie Varcoe), who also works at City Hall. They begin a romance, with Elli having only the vaguest of suspicions about Helmut's nighttime actions.

Mussener's thorough, logical investigation eventually yields results. He is shocked to find that the traitor is a 17-year-old boy. Arrested and put under torture, Helmut eventually breaks and names his two compatriots. Put on trial for treason, Helmut speaks truth to power one last time. While Rudi and Karl-Heinz receive prison, Helmut Hubener is sentenced to death by guillotine. 

I am not a man given to emotional displays. No, I did not cry at the end of Truth & Treason.  However, I noticed that others in the audience did. I also noticed that I felt a lump in my throat when we got to the closing credits. Helmut was a courageous young man, shaped by his convictions and his youthful belief that one person can make a difference. This is a credit to Ewan Horrocks' performance as Helmut Hubener.

Horrocks makes Helmut into a man who went from not being involved in things to one filled with fire and passion to do what he thought right, damn the consequences. Horrock does not make Hubener into an innocent or clueless. He shows Helmut's fears, but how Helmut let his beliefs overcome those fears. 

He also shows Helmut's lighter side. This is a young man who is a Felix Mendelsohn freak, totally passionate about the Jewish composer. He notes to Elli on their date that Mendelsohn wrote music specifically for a soprano, but that his music is forbidden now. The Helmut/Elli romance is both endearing on its own merits and a brief respite from the high drama.

Truth & Treason is a showcase for Ewan Horrocks. He gets what all actors love: a dramatic court scene. Here, Helmut's blend of youthful passion and firm conviction let Horrocks speak passionately about the wrongness of the Nazi regime without it coming across as theatrical or grandiose. Earlier in the film, Matt Whitaker and director Ethan Vincent's screenplay had given us an amusing scene of Helmut making up a pro-Nazi speech to win over his interview board which he pretended to have written out when he was actually making it up as he went along. At the trial scene, we see another paper, and instead of reading out the contrition in hopes of leniency, Helmut speaks from his heart.

"The Reich is not afraid of your little leaflets", the judge comments in a mix of fear and dismissiveness. Without missing a beat or batting an eye, Helmut forcefully replies, "Then why are you here?". 

Truth & Treason is well acted overall. McKay, Thomas and Occomore did well as Karl-Heinz, Rudi and Salomon respectively. Occomore and director Vincent did especially well in Salomon's last scene. As unseen Gestapo are pounding at his door demanding to get in, Salomon takes a chair and a book and sits, waiting for them. There is a mix of fear and quiet defiance in Occomore's face. Once the again unseen Gestapo force their way in, the screen fades to black, then returns to see Salomon's room in disarray. Truth & Treason understands a lesson mostly forgotten in Hollywood films: the less that something is shown, the more impactful it is.

Another powerful moment is when Mussenner is ripping Helmut's nails off. We see just the beginning of the torture, then have to rely on Horrocks and Evans' performances to show the horror of what Helmut is enduring. It is a powerful scene, but one where we do not see the brutality. Instead, it is off-screen. That in turn is what I think makes it more frightening.

Rupert Evans does not play a crazed, evil Nazi. His Edwin Mussenner is more a dogged detective, determined to find the culprit. We also get a scene where there is a suggestion that he too doubts, but unlike Helmut won't speak out. He recounts to his wife how when he started at university, he found out from a friend that his first girlfriend was sleeping with his professor and mentor. With apparent regret, he tells his wife that he punched his friend for telling him. His wife, I believe, asks him if he regrets punching the man who told him the truth.

Truth & Treason is subtle enough about the implications of what is being said without saying it out loud. The same can be said when Helmut accidentally drops some government papers, including the distinctive red sheets Helmut has been typing his anti-Nazi leaflets on. Elli runs after him, giving him one that he did not pick up. "Better know which way you're going," she tells him. Again, this statement has a clear double meaning. The characters may or may not know what is being said. The audience, I think, does.

Anyone going into Truth & Treason thinking that this is Mormon propaganda will probably leave disappointed. You do see scenes of Hubener and his friends attending Mormon service. A couple of police officers harassing Salomon and the judge comment on how they are Mormons. The latter even asks what that is, if memory serves correct. We do see Helmut praying near the end and of them singing from their hymnals. However, Mormonism is mostly in the background. No one ever says that they were motivated by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young to take a stand against the Nazi regime.

I do not know if Truth & Treason being released this year was due to 2025 being Helmut Hubener's centenary or if that is a mere coincidence. More surprising is that the film was released on October 17, 2025. That is ten days from the anniversary of Hubener's execution, which took place on October 27, 1942, as we are told in the closing credits. They feature the actors and their real-life counterparts, along with text on their ultimate fates. It is standard, but a reminder that these were real people. 

Truth & Treason is perhaps a bit long, though I did not notice it until late into the film. I also think the title is a bit clunky. Those, I think, is probably some of the film's few faults. 

It is eighty years since the end of the Second World War. It is eighty-three years since a seventeen-year-old Mormon boy was beheaded for defying Hitler not with guns but with words. Even now, these hereto-unknown stories are now getting their due. Truth & Treason is a strong dramatic film. It is a deeply moving portrait of a true profile in courage, a young man executed for speaking up and speaking out against tyranny. Would that God grant each of us such courage and moral clarity.

1925-1942

DECISION: B+

With Love, Meghan Episode Five: Surprise and Delight

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: SURPRISE AND DELIGHT

Original Airdate: March 4, 2025

Special Guests: Abigail Spencer and Kelly Zajfen

Mentions of Joy: 0

Passive-Aggressive Moment: 3

Gushing Praise for Markle: "I felt like you were Head of Morale on the show".

There was no joy to be found among friends in Surprise and Delight, our fifth With Love, Meghan episode. This is the first time that "joy" is not mentioned by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. However, the lack of joy is more than made up for with more edible flower sprinkles and even some shade thrown at the Duchess' BFFs by the Duchess herself. 

The Duchess Hostess with the Mostest is going to have a girls' brunch with her nearest and dearest gal pals. They are the advocate Kelly Zajfen and the actress Abigail Spencer. She wants everything to be perfect (and presumably joyful, even if "joy" never crossed her lips). As such, she needs to have a beautiful flower arrangement set up for them. She also needs to get the fish ready for their lunch, which they will join Mrs. Sussex in preparing. 

Oh, what joy! 

Mrs. Sussex goes to a nearby flower shop where she buys many bouquets from Juan. She arranges the flowers but avoids any vases. Once Kelly and Abigail arrive, it is now time to learn how to cook a fish and How to Style Crudités. Meghan and her ladies-in-waiting then can go to the backyard, where they reminisce about their friendship, friendship, just the perfect blendship. 

I have no way of knowing if Kelly Zajfen and Abigail Spencer really did find all the fish gutting to be the highlight of their day. Technically, they did not actually gut any fish. They just peeled off the bone and face. I do question whether this triple threat is as close as they say that they are. 

The reason for my question is that at the brunch, Meghan Markle, Queen of Domestic Doyennes, had one of the most cringeworthy moments in With Love, Meghan. As Kelly and Abigail were gushing about their bond, Meghan's auto-animatronic figure seemed to malfunction.

"You know, I have that on a t-shirt: The Best Ships are Friend Ships", the Duchess of Sussex informs the world. That revelation probably would have gone unnoticed. I figure that quip would have made people at most roll their eyes. 

Yet, for reasons that no one will ever uncover, Mrs. Sussex added to that moment. She did what I consider something thoroughly irrational and cringey. After telling us "The best ships are friend ships", she does some kind of seaside shanty jerky movement and calls out, "AHOY!".   

I do not think that The Office's Michael Scott, in his most clueless and directionless manner, would have done some kind of Popeye the Sailor Man impersonation to cap off this silly little quip. Again, this little "AHOY!" and jig bit reenforce what I am beginning to think about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. 

Every time she attempts to come across as appealing, helpful, cheerful and friendly, she somehow ends up looking psychotic and dangerous. "If it makes you feel happy, then it's perfect," Mrs. Sussex opines. All I could picture is a John Wayne Gacy or Ed Gein talking about what made them feel happy.

I figure that edible flower sprinkles make Meghan Markle happy. They have returned in Surprise and Delight. However, there is a new twist to the Duchess' favorite condiment. She has frozen them in ice cubes. Now the Silver Girls can suck on edible flower sprinkles while drinking their mint juleps. 

They did not actually have mint juleps. I think it was tea. However, the lot of them might just as well have been drinking mint juleps and talked about how they were all getting the vapors. 

I am perfectly serious: what IS it with her and edible flower sprinkles? What is her obsession with something that I had never even imagined? Here she is, a former Her Royal Highness, going on about the joy of frozen edible flower sprinkles.

Surprise and Delight has praise and shade in equal measure. As Meghan goes to the flower market, she comments to presumably the viewer, "Kelly's a great cook. Abby has...other strengths". I guess that amongst friends, such joshing is fine. I figure that was meant as a humorous tease from one friend to another. Still, her delivery of this barb and the laughter it provokes from her made me raise an eyebrow. Later on, Abigail wonders which one of the bowls is hers. "We know (the bowl) has your name on it," Meghan calls out. 

Again, I think this comment was meant to be friendly joshing. It somehow ended up sounding more irritated than endearing.

To be fair, Abigail Spencer probably knows that between the two of them, Meghan is the Culinary Empress. "None of us, none of us are chefs", Meghan protests too much. "No, you really are," Abby responds. I believe that Abby later said when looking upon either the fish or the edible flower sprinkle ice cubes, "You did this? It's incredible". 

Kelly might be a great cook, but she did not get this amount of ebullient praise from Abby. Now to think of it, Meghan wasn't gushing with praise for either of her besties. Most curious.

I will say that Suprise and Delight is the least guarded that the Duchess has been. She mentioned her daughter, the now-Princess Lilibet. "Lili would love that," Mrs. Sussex says when looking at pink flowers. To be fair, this is the second time that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has mentioned her daughter by name on With Love, Meghan. She name-drops the now-Prince Archie and his fishing exploits. There is also a vague reference to her spouse when she comments that "H is a great cook", at least when it comes to his scrambled eggs.

Make your own "scrambled eggs" quip here.

Given how she early on didn't even want to say "Harry", "Archie" or "Lilibet", the usage of first names by Meghan is almost loosening up for her.

As a side note, Meghan tells Abby and Kelly that she insisted that the family cook the fish that Prince Archie had caught. Something about that made me wince. I wouldn't find forced cooking a surprise and delight. 

Surprise and Delight, to be fair, does have an interesting section on flower arrangements. She seems competent in putting a flower display together. She learned this, from my understanding, at the baby shower her friends threw her for the now-Prince Archie. If so, I cannot imagine a less joyful activity than learning flower arranging at a baby shower. 

Some things, however, are as permanent as those edible flower sprinkles. We see both Abigail and Kelly walking around the rented kitchen barefoot. For myself, I simply cannot fathom why Meghan or With Love, Meghan requires those in the kitchen to walk around barefoot. I think of my late mother, who would have approved of them dressing well to be on television yet puzzled over the lack of footwear. 

I perhaps should not have been surprised and delighted that Meghan could not bother mentioning much of what Kelly or Abigail were up to. Billed as "advocate and friend", we get no mention of what Kelly Zajfin actually advocates for. A little online digging finds that she has a nonprofit for pregnant and parenting teens in foster care: Alliance for Moms. I find it interesting that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, is more concerned about her crudités than asking Kelly anything about what sounds like a very positive endeavor. 

Mrs. Sussex does enjoy hearing from Abigail though about how Meghan was her flower consultant for Abby's own flower company. Mrs. Sussex recalls fondly attending Kelly's wedding. Whatever Kelly Zajfin feels over her not attending Mrs. Sussex's wedding (the who, what, when, where, why and how) we do not learn. Perhaps Kelly could ask Abigail, who did go to Harry & Meghan's wedding.

"It's the little things that matter,", the Duchess of Sussex tells us in Surprise and Delight. Little things, like edible flower sprinkle ice cubes (tip: don't use tap water as they could make the ice cubes cloudy). Little things, like having yacht rock or French dinner music play while arranging flowers sans vase. Little things, like knowing that the Best Ships are Friend Ships.

AHOY!

3/10

Erin Brockovich: A Review (Review #2055)

ERIN BROCKOVICH

Being a single mother is not easy, especially when you are taking on a major corporation. Erin Brockovich tells its story of one person making a positive change through her combination of guts, common sense and boobs. 

Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts) is having a terrible run in her life. Broke, with three kids from two failed marriages to support, she ends up getting hit by a speeding car. What should have been an open-and-shut case was demolished by Brockovich herself. Baited into cursing out the doctor whose speeding caused the accident, the jury rules against her. Erin is infuriated with the whole legal process. Ed Masry (Albert Finney), her unfortunate attorney, endures much abuse even though the whole fiasco was her fault.

He now has to endure Erin at the office. She essentially bullied her way into working there, though she tells him that if it doesn't work out, he can fire her. Erin, for her part, is reluctant to start up anything with George (Aaron Eckhart), the biker who is her new neighbor. Soon, Erin starts acclimating to the law office and starts a tentative relationship with George, who is good with her kids. 

She is handed a relatively simple case involving a real estate deal. The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is offering the Jansen family in Hinkley, California a good deal to purchase their property. They are so generous that they also have been paying their medical bills. Erin learns this when looking over the real estate offer, as Donna Jansen (Marg Helgenberger) has kept all the paperwork together. Erin is suspicious both of PG&E's generosity and how Donna and her husband have various illness. Erin learns that PG&E have been telling the Jansens that the chromium in the water is affecting them. It is, but it is not the safe chromium that PG&E has been misleading them into thinking is the cause.

Erin's dogged research through water department records shows that the Hinkley groundwater is highly contaminated with hexavalent chromium. That explains why so many in Hinkley have had in some cases generations of major illnesses. No one in Hinkley made the connections between the water, their illnesses and PG&E. Erin has.

Now, through ups and downs with Masry and the various law office staff, Erin becomes single-minded in seeing justice done. Her plain and simple manner earns her the trust of Hinkley residents. Soon, what had been a simple pro bono real estate offer has ballooned into a major lawsuit. Over Erin's objections, Masry brings in Kurt Potter (Peter Coyote), who has years of experience in these types of lawsuits. Again, over Erin's objections, Masry and Potter push for binding arbitration versus the myriads of jury trials Erin favors. Will Erin be able to persuade the over 600 clients to go along with this risky strategy? What of the mysterious Charles Embry (Tracey Walter), who may be the key to tie in the PG&E corporate office to Hinkley? What will be the outcome of the case and of Erin Brockovich?

This is where one is told that Erin Brockovich is a movie, not a documentary. The opening credits do say, "This film is based on a true story", but I figure that there were changes. Fortunately for the viewer, we can enjoy this well-told story. As portrayed by Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovich is a human bulldozer, pushing everyone and everything out of her way. This has its pluses and minuses. When it comes to helping the people of Hinkley, Erin will not be moved. However, at times her single-mindedness blinds her to certain realities. She may think that the hundreds of people deserve a jury trial. However, she seems unwilling to see that PG&E can, as Ed Masry points out, tie their clients up in court for years if not decades.

I like that Erin Brockovich took the time to show that she can at times be unpleasant and if not blind at least myopic to how her zeal affects others. This film is a clear showcase for Julia Roberts, one of America's Sweethearts. She certainly gets many opportunities to make speeches important and trivial. She could be verbally taunting a female PG&E lawyer that the water she is about to drink is from Hinkley. She could also berate George on their first meeting. 

Roberts has a rapid-fire delivery that manages to sound natural. She starts Erin Brockovich by showing off that million-watt smile as she attempts to charm the potential employer. Once she realizes that he will not hire her, that smile is dropped to reveal the firm woman. Roberts also manages to have some light moments. Of particular note is when she plops her ample bosom in front of Scott (Jamie Harrold), the water department records office employee. He is clearly bedazzled by Erin's buxom beauty.

What I think Susannah Grant, in her screenplay, gives Erin Brockovich is a combination of humor and heart. In Erin's at times belligerent manner, we can chuckle at how brazen she can be. However, we also appreciate that Erin is at heart a good person, once she finds a good cause. I would not go so far as to call Erin "feisty". She is more determined.

However, we also get great moments of drama and self-reflection. Roberts has a wonderful scene where she talks about her disappointments after having once been Miss Wichita. Here she was, a literal former beauty queen, now barely surviving. She does have some humor in this scene, commenting that after almost a year of opening grocery stores, she had little time for world peace. However, we got some solid acting from Roberts. 

The film also gives Albert Finney some great material. He is at times beleaguered by Erin, making for some humorous moments. However, he too is able to push back and show that Ed Masry is not someone whom Erin can push or belittle. Finney as Masry points out that he has survived much himself and that he is putting himself on the line financially with this case. As such, Erin's sense of moral outrage whenever he does something she does not approve of is without merit.

Aaron Eckhart had, I think, his breakout role as George, the loveable biker. He does not make George into a dimwit or a sleazy figure. Instead, George is intelligent and genuinely caring for both Erin and her children. 

It is a credit to director Steven Soderbergh that while Erin Brockovich is over two hours long the film moves fast. 

Erin Brockovich is a feel-good film. We end up liking Erin as a woman who has compassion, sometimes excessive zeal, but who wants to do the right thing. It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing. It can be if Erin Brockovich learns that there is some shady business going on.

Born 1960

DECISION: B+

Roofman: A Review

ROOFMAN

There is nothing more endearing than a cuddly criminal. Roofman, the story of a pleasant criminal, is played for mostly laughs while throwing in a few heart-tugging moments. Roofman is a crowd-pleaser. It did not please me that much, but I respect its efforts to try and do so.

Jeffrey Manchester (Channing Tatum) robs McDonald's franchises by literally going through the roof before they are open. His modus operandi is simple: greet the employees, put them in the storage locker and take the money. He does call the police to inform them of the robbery so that they can rescue the employees and not let them freeze to death. These robberies are to fund a better life for his daughter.

They also involve a weapon. He is finally caught after fleeing his daughter's birthday party. Ending up with a charge of kidnapping due to having locked up the McDonald's staff, he is sentenced to 45 years in prison. Some years later, Manchester engineers a daring escape and finds himself in Charlotte, North Carolina. Manchester wants to get out of the country. His fellow former 82nd Airbourne Division veteran Steve (LaKeith Stanfield) can hook him up with a fake passport and identity but he's out of the country himself right now.

Manchester has managed to avoid the police, but he has to find a hideout until Steve returns. Fortunately for him, there is a Toys R Us that he manages to hide in undetected. He soon starts making the place his home. He taps into the store security system to hide his presence. He eats and bathes at whatever is available. He also hooks up his own surveillance system and ends up looking into the lives of the employees.

Among those employees is Leigh (Kirsten Dunst), a churchgoing divorcee with two daughters. Seeing how her jerk of a manager Mitch (Peter Dinklage) won't accommodate her schedule or provide toys for a church drive, Manchester will do both himself. Circumstances cause Manchester to be invited into Leigh's church, headed by Pastor Ron (Ben Mendelsohn) and his wife Eileen (Uzo Aduba). Now calling himself John Zorn, he and Leigh eventually begin a romance. "John" integrates himself into both the church and Leigh's bed. He also starts becoming part of Leigh's family.

All good things, though, have to end, when Mitch walks in on a nude Jeffrey (him still unfinished with his bathing). As Christmas comes closer, Jeffrey/John finds himself in a curious set of circumstances. Will he find the $50,000 to buy his fake passport and identity papers? Will he abandon Leigh? Will he get caught?

After finishing Roofman (which for full disclosure I saw at a secret screening) I was reminded of another true-life story of a criminal who busts out of prison, hoodwinks others and eventually is caught. I do not think that people remember I Love You, Phillip Morris today. I also doubt that director Derek Cianfrance (who cowrote the screenplay with Kirt Gunn) was attempting to draw inspiration from that movie. However, my mind kept going to how both I Love You, Phillip Morris and Roofman play on similar themes.

Both films are based on true stories that are outlandish but built on fact. Both have a score that emphasizes the comedy. Both involve criminals who are motivated, in part, to provide a more luxurious life for those they love. Both have protagonists that we are meant to empathize with a habitual criminal. Here is where I have a minor issue with Roofman.

The film focuses on how well-mannered he is when stealing. It seems pretty blasé about how Manchester is a habitual criminal. Put aside the deception he perpetrates on Leigh, her children and the congregation. He stole from 45+ businesses. He hocked various games to pay for an unwitting Leigh, down to buying her older daughter Lindsey (Lily Collias) a car. He both threatened the Toys R Us staff and punched the man picking up the store's deposit, who he would have left on the floor bleeding profusely. He damaged property. He blew up a dentist office to try and cover his tracks.

Somehow, I cannot find it in my heart to see Jeffrey Manchester/John Zorn to be a good guy. He may have been a very nice criminal. He was still a criminal. Some may have chuckled at his bungling when breaking into a spa instead of the pawn shop that he was aiming for. I kept wondering what the spa owners or poor dentist did to deserve such treatment from this nice guy.

I had hoped that Roofman would have been when I could finally say that I did not have to see Channing Tatum naked. For a while, it looked like the most that I would see would be his torso. Alas, I had to see his backside once again. I will give Channing Tatum this much: he did try. I will not be convinced that he can actually act. He did, however, do his best to make Jeffrey/John into this almost endearing goofball, sweet and loving. The fact is that he couldn't fully shift into making Jeffrey into a complex person with a dark side versus just this nice guy who robbed people. 

I think Durst was better as Leigh, but not by much. At times, especially with Dinklage, Durst felt almost robotic, playing at a put-upon employee but not convincing me that she was a put-upon employee. 

I can give grudging credit that Roofman had a somewhat more positive portrayal of Christians than most films. I do not know if pastors encourage their congregants to jump into bed with people whom they are not married to. It does feel a bit of a lost opportunity that Leigh's faith was not more explored, nor was Jeffery/John's reaction to it. This church apparently consisted of nothing but singing and eating.  Yet I digress.

I was disappointed that Dinklage's Mitch was nothing more than a cliched jerk boss. I would have thought better if he had been allowed to be a bit more nuance rather than just be someone that belittles everyone around him. It was nice to see Ben Mendelsohn play something other than a villain as the pastor, though he and Uzo Aduba seemed to be playing more caricatures than people. Same goes for LaKeith Stanfield. Other elements, such as Emory Cohen's bullied Toys R Us employee Otis, were underused. 

I think that is a reason why I was not as enthused about Roofman as others. I did not see people. I saw caricatures. Still, I figure that Roofman the movie had its heart in the right place. I cannot fully embrace a film that wants me to like a criminal no matter how outwardly charming and pleasant he appears. Nonetheless, Roofman did please the audience, so while crime does not pay, it does appear enjoyable.

DECISION: C+

With Love, Meghan Episode Four: Love is in the Details

 

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: LOVE IS IN THE DETAILS

Original Airdate: March 4, 2025

Special Guest: Delfina Figueras

Mentions of Joy: 3

Passive-Aggressive Moment: 0

Gushing Praise for Markle: "I enjoyed this morning's hike because I saw you being you, and I love that. I love when you are doing your thing, and yeah. I absolutely, I'm obsessed with that face of M". 

Here's to the ladies who lunch or rather hike and picnic. Love is in the Details, our fourth With Love, Meghan episode, is the first one to literally put me to sleep. If you thought that one wealthy woman cosplaying tradwife was bad, try having two.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is looking forward to having her dear friend Delfina Figueras drop by her rented home/studio. She has a wonderful day all planned out for her gal pal. She will make sun tea for them. She will make dog biscuits for Delfie to take back home to Argentina, where Meghan interned at the U.S. Embassy. They will go on a hike. She will teach Delfie to make focaccia, which Delfina loves. It'll be the bestest time ever.

Meghan shows us Making Take-Home Treats, mostly for the dogs. Eleven minutes into Love is in the Details, Delfina shows up. She is a very tall woman, and the two are delighted to reminisce about their polo husbands. They hike and even do what I presume was an impromptu dance along the trail. Exhausted, Meghan supplies Delfie with a premade lavender towel. Now, it is time for Meghan to show Delfina how to make focaccia. In turn, Delfina provides a little mate, an Argentine tea that Meghan fell in love with back in the day.

I have no idea who Delfina Figueras (or Blaquier, as she uses her maiden name too) is. She is listed as a "landscape architect and friend". I want to say that Mrs. Figueras is a dilletante, who goes into the kitchen setting with more curiosity than need. She is someone who was born wealthy, married wealthy and has remained wealthy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  However, her background may explain why she at times looked amazed at what was required to cook. 

In this sense, I see why Delfina and Meghan have such a mutual appreciation society. Both have servants who do the work. They themselves do not need to cook or clean or bake. They may know how to. They just do not need to do so in order to live. They can flatter themselves and each other on how much fun they are having making focaccia and cooling down with lavender towels. I just wonder if the average viewer would do likewise.

Love is in the Details (a phrase that the Duchess uses during the show) showcases the way Meghan Markle wants the world to see her. Here, she is not just instructor but mistress of the kitchen. It does not help to see how Figueras looks on with a curious fascination on learning how to make focaccia. Seeing these two wealthy women essentially cosplay as housefraus makes for dull viewing. I did not realize how close I was to literally nodding off until my phone fell onto my lap. In some ways, it was almost amusing seeing Delfina, forever gushing about Meghan as a person and a domestic doyenne. 

It is more amusing when you think that Love is in the Details keeps to Markle's view that her guests should essentially be put to work. I get that the premise of With Love, Meghan is to have the Duchess' friends over for a lesson that will be joyful. As with previous guests, however, Delfina did not look like she was enjoying herself. Rather, she looked to be there to praise Rachel Meghan Markle. I noticed that while Delfina Figueras gave perhaps the most outlandish praise to the Duchess that With Love, Meghan probably will ever have, the Duchess did not reciprocate. 

Everything surrounding both Love is in the Details and With Love, Meghan has a very odd sense of forced frivolity. The music is trying too hard to reflect some kind of relaxed atmosphere when it feels anything but. The conversation is either Meghan imparting instructions or her guest telling Meghan how great she and the activities are. Seeing these two women do a dance is a bit cringe inducing. However, more than that, it does not feel spontaneous or joyful. It feels performative.

We did get what is becoming a curious trend: the vaguely threatening comment. "It doesn't have to be perfect, but it can be a little bit more presentable", the Duchess says. I cannot remember what it was about: the sun tea, the focaccia, the lavender towels. Whatever it was meant for, it just stood out for how curious it sounded to me. 

Here, on the fourth episode, I thought to myself that With Love, Meghan would be what Meghan Markle would have done if she had not married Prince Harry. I can see her doing this show had her run in Suits ended with her not being married to a British prince. This is basically a television version of her online lifestyle The Tig website. Never having read The Tig, I can only hope that it was not as boring as Love is in the Details. 

I cannot imagine how people outside the Sussex Squad would enjoy seeing two wealthy women chatter on about nothing while gushing over one of them. Love is in the Details, but no number of lavender towels can liven up the dullness of With Love, Meghan. 

2/10

Kiss of the Spider Woman (2025): A Review

KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN (2025)

I have not seen a stage version of the Kander & Ebb musical Kiss of the Spider Woman. I have seen clips of the musical numbers starring Chita Rivera, and she was wonderful. I also took the opportunity to see the original 1985 version of the story before going to see the film adaptation of the musical adaptation of the original 1985 film. Kiss of the Spider Woman is not a bad film. It is actually rather restrained when it comes to musicals. It is also too long and slightly disjointed.

Argentina, May 1983. Prisoner Luis Molina (Tonatiuh) is transferred to the prison block reserved for political opponents. He is apolitical, with his crime being one of public indecency (or rather, for being openly gay). Now, he has to share a cell with Valentin Arregui (Diego Luna), a fiery and cranky revolutionary. Valentin wants nothing but quiet to read his Lenin biography and think. Molina, however, wants to talk about his favorite film: Kiss of the Spider Woman.

Valentin initially has no interest in this glossy, Technicolor musical from Hollywood's Golden Age. However, he soon starts to pay more attention to Molina's recitation of the story. In this faux film, the central character is played by the beautiful actress Ingrid Luna (Jennifer Lopez). She plays the role of Aurora, editor of Charm Magazine. She, despite herself, has finally found love with photographer Armando (Luna in a dual role). Displeased by this romance is Aurora's right-hand man, Kendall Nesbitt (Tonatiuh in a dual role). The Aurora/Armando love affair, however, has a curious threat. It is the Spider Woman (Lopez in a third role). She protects Aurora's hometown which is on the jungle's edge. However, she requires a sacrifice of a local villager's lover. It is time for the sacrifice, and Armando is the intended target.

It is not just Armando who is the intended target. Molina is tasked by the Warden (Bruno Bichir) to pump Valentin for information about his fellow revolutionaries. In exchange, the Warden will ease the path for Molina to get an early release. Molina goes along with this if it gives him a chance to see his ill mother again. However, Molina is conflicted by both his actions and his feelings for Valentin. Inevitably, Molina does get to pump Valentin for more than information. 

While ultimately failing to get the information that the Warden wants, Molina's early parole is granted. Valentin does give Molina information and a parting love session. Molina, it is hoped, will make contact with the revolutionaries, and none too soon. Argentina is on the cusp of having its military junta overthrown. Will Molina have his Hollywood ending or will he end up being kissed by the spider woman?

In perhaps the oddest critique of Kiss of the Spider Woman, I could not help wondering about the name that the fictional version of Molina has in the faux film. Kendall Nesbitt. Again, I have not seen a stage production of Kiss of the Spider Woman. However, I am going to take it on faith that writer/director Bill Condon adapted Terrence McNally's book faithfully. As such, it was McNally who wrote "Kendall Nesbitt" for the alternate version of Molina.

Why such a curious name? I have no way of knowing outside of a seance. However, the name "Kendall Nesbitt" was used before in of all things, a Golden Girls episode. "Kendall Nesbitt" is the museum director that the character of Blanche Devereaux was bizarrely accused of murdering in the Season Seven episode The Case of the Libertine Bell. Every time Tonatiuh appeared as "Kendall Nesbitt", all I could think was that McNally was literally watching The Golden Girls and just pinched the name for the John Kander & Fred Ebb musical. Forgive my dubiousness, but it seems a wild coincidence that "Kendall Nesbitt" can appear on both The Golden Girls in 1991 and Kiss of the Spider Woman two years later.

Again, I get that this is a very bizarre tangent to go on. However, why "Kendall Nesbitt"?

Putting aside the "Kendall Nesbitt" bit, let us look at the film itself. Bill Condon clearly drew from classic Hollywood musicals. I could see elements of Singin' in the Rain and The Band Wagon in some of the musical numbers. The Gimme Love number seemed to echo parts of the former's Gotta Dance and the latter's Girl Hunt Ballet numbers. Oddly, that would make J-Lo the Cyd Charisse of Kiss of the Spider Woman.

Jennifer Lopez is not Cyd Charisse or Chita Rivera, who originated the role of Aurora/The Spider Woman on Broadway. She is not terrible in Kiss of the Spider Woman. However, she is not particularly thrilling or innovative as our glamorous movie queen. 

To be fair, part of this is not J-Lo's fault. I found some of the staging to be clunky. Of particular note is the Where You Are number. This takes place in the faux film where Molina transitions from his story to his visualizing of it. I was rather disappointed that we did not get the full body in some of the dancing. The end result is a pretty unimaginative number that I do not think would work in the fake film and does not work in our film. 

Even worse is the title number. One would think that a film version would be more glamorous and visual than the original stage adaptation. However, Kiss of the Spider Woman looked cheap. Again, I get that I figure Condon was going for a 1940's-1950's style where the budgets might not have been so big. However, it felt like a wasted opportunity. Lopez does not really act in the film. She is there mostly for the musical numbers. I know that Ingrid Luna's acting was intended to be a bit broader than what we would see. It does not mean that I accepted it.

Much better were Tonatiuh and Diego Luna. I did wonder exactly why Diego Luna is singing and dancing. He was not terrible in either. After all, he had danced in Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights. Luna to his credit did not embarrass himself. He carried the musical numbers and acting well, if not great. However, when Molina describes Luna's Armando as "tall, dark and handsome", the first two are not terms that I would use to describe Diego Luna. He is hardly dark. Also, while he is officially 5'10", somehow, he still looks shorter than that on screen.

Tonatiuh is a better fit for "tall, dark and handsome", though his height is currently unknown. He plays Molina in a surprisingly restrained manner. Molina is not flamboyant or exaggerated in his behavior. Tonatiuh also manages to rattle off some great zingers. Bemoaning the dearth of glamorous female stars in 1983, he mentions what he calls The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. They are Miss Meryl Streep, Miss Sissy Spacek, Miss Glenn Close...and Mr. Glenda Jackson. I have to admit that I laughed out loud in my empty theater at that dig at the late Jackson. When talking about the character of Kendall Nesbitt, Molina quips that the character was gayer than this side of Danny Kaye. 

Curiously, whenever he was Kendall Nesbitt, Tonatiuh looked better than either when he was playing Molina or compared to Luna in any version. He looks worse at his closing number, Only in the Movies, where he is in drag.  Make of that what you will. 

Kiss of the Spider Woman also did not fully make the connection between the fake film and the real-life goings-on. It tried, but it did not fully succeed. Oddly, it was the characters commenting on the similarities between the fake Kiss of the Spider Woman and their lives that made it look less real. 

The songs were pretty good. It is hard to go wrong when the musical is from John Kander and Fred Ebb. I do not know if any new songs were written or could have been, given that Fred Ebb died in 2004. Only in the Movies is a solid number, if perhaps a bit overstaged. Both I'll Dance Alone, one of the early numbers, and Molina's solo number She's a Woman are also good. It is unfortunate that this adaptation opted to drop any songs that took place outside the fantasy numbers. I get why that decision was made. This has been the trend of film adaptations of musicals, curiously enough, since another Kander & Ebb musical: Chicago. 

I, however, have no trouble accepting the illogic of people breaking out into song. I do hope to see musicals unafraid to embrace its old school conventions.

Kiss of the Spider Woman is not a bad film. It just could have been more. 

DECISION: C+