Far from Heaven: A Review

FAR FROM HEAVEN

The 1950s were for some a golden age of charm and elegance. For others, the Eisenhower Era was one of deep repression. Far from Heaven plays into both ideas, though leaning towards the latter. It evokes the filmmaking style to tell its tale with all its complexities beneath the graceful veneer. 

1957, Hartford, Connecticut. Elegant housewife Cathleen "Cathy" Whitaker (Julianne Moore) seems to have it all. Her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) is a successful ad executive. They are even the literal faces of the company Magnatech, appearing in the print ads. Cathy is the proud mother of a boy, David (Ryan Ward) and a daughter, Janice (Lindsay Andretta). 

However, all is not as pristine as it seems. Frank harbors a deep secret. He is a closeted gay man, something that threatens to emerge when he is arrested. Cathy is inadvertently caught up in her own gossip after encountering Raymond Deagans (Dennis Haysbert). He is the black gardener who is taking over his late father's accounts. Their interaction, witnessed by a local reporter profiling "Mrs. Magnatech" is misconstrued. 

Initially, things stay hush-hush. However, one night Cathy goes to Frank's office with a surprise dinner. It is Cathy who is surprised when she finds Frank in passionate lip-lock with another man. He admits his struggles and they decide Frank will enter conversion therapy. It ends up leading to Frank's growing drinking problem. It also leads to an accidental slap. 

Raymond finds Cathy sobbing and offers to take her to town to look at some trees and flowers for his work. She agrees, seeing nothing off about taking time to do some errands while in town. They are again spotted by Mona (Celia Weston), Hartford's gossip queen. Now it is Frank who is enraged at the lurid suggestions of miscegenation. Cathy fires Raymond to quell the rumors, and she and Frank go to Miami for a long-delayed second honeymoon on New Year's. However, Frank cannot be "cured" of his same-sex desires. With him finally finding fulfillment, he asks for a divorce. Will Cathy find a kindred spirit with Raymond? Will society let our three figures live?

If one knows the filmography of Douglas Sirk, one appreciates Far from Heaven. The Todd Haynes written and directed film borrows heavily from at least three of Sirk's melodramas. Race relations make up a major element in Imitation of Life. Frank's alcoholism as coping for his struggle to be aroused are reminiscent of Written on the Wind. The hunky gardener who brings culture, life and love into our hausfrau echoes All that Heaven Allows. The very title Far from Heaven mirrors the very titles and style of a Sirk film. 

Far from Heaven is like a Douglas Sirk film if Sirk had been allowed to be more open and touch on other topics like homosexuality. Haynes has Sirk's visual and thematic style down perfectly. In terms of look, Far from Heaven is filled with lush colors dominated by green and blue. The autumn leaves are also in keeping to the lush palate. The soft look in the film deliberately evokes the era, making Far from Heaven familiar while still being original. Even the title card showing "Far from Heaven" captures the style and look of what one might expect from a 1950's melodrama. I will argue that the font might be a bit bigger than what Sirk would have used, but that might be nitpicky. 

Far from Heaven made a wise choice in having Elmer Bernstein write the score, which along with the cinematography was one of the film's four Oscar nominations. Though Bernstein never worked with Sirk, he was familiar with the era and musical style. Bernstein had been working in film since Sirk's time, so he knew how to make Far from Heaven's score lush or menacing when needed.

Haynes also revealed much through his use of the camera. The Dutch angles used when Frank wanders slowly into the underground gay bar or when Raymond's daughter Sarah (Jordan Puryear) is attacked by white boys reveals subconsciously the growing chaos internal or external we see. There are other subtleties revealed, such as when Cathy and Raymond discuss modern art at a local exhibition. Amidst the conformity of the era, you have a white woman and a black man discussing Miró. Both of them would have fewer rights in the era, and here, we see them as equals and as embracing nonconformity. As I think of it, the same can be said for Frank, who is a sexual minority despite his male white privilege. 

It is curious that modern art in the Nifty Fifties is also touched on in another 1950's-set film: Pleasantville. That film couched its firm dislike to downright antagonism of the era in the veneer of a faux-nostalgic look. Far from Heaven, conversely, was oddly more respectful of both the times and the people who lived them. Pleasantville hammered its view that the 1950's were bad compared to the 1990's. Far from Heaven was more sympathetic in its portrayal of present-day looking back to the past. I think it is because Pleasantville presents the era as simplistic to almost intellectually vapid, while Far from Heaven presents it as more complex and questioning of itself. Yet I digress. 

The stylistic manner in Far from Heaven extends to the acting. Julianne Moore was also one of the film's four nominations (the screenplay also receiving recognition). She has a soft speaking manner, not quite breathy but genteel. Even in the moments of struggle and tragedy, Moore never explodes. This, I think, keeps to how some Sirk women were (Lana Turner being a notable exception). Moore gives Cathy a quiet grace and dignity while also keeping to the manner of our ideas of a housewife. Cathy is not dim or weak. She keeps to a soft manner but also has a sense of conviction and moral courage. Dennis Quaid was moving as the conflicted Frank (which in retrospect is an ironic name). Some of his best scenes are with James Rebhorn as the psychiatrist who will attempt to change Frank's sexual orientation. We see Frank's growing unease to hostility at having to undergo this treatment. One of Quaid's final scenes, where he tearfully breaks down in front of his family, is deeply moving and unsettling.

Dennis Haysbert too does well as Raymond, the intellectual gardener. He makes Raymond into a strong and elegant man, protective of his daughter, gentle and intelligent. In her small role, Patricia Clarkson does wonderful work as Eleanor Fine, Cathy's BFF who is supportive, but who also does not understand Cathy. Ward and Andretta also give good performances as David and Janice. One does feel for David, forever longing for "Pop's" attention. Janice for her part does not understand why her friends and their mothers shun her at the ballet recital. 

One can wonder how Cathy and Raymond must be dumb AF as the kids say to not realize that a black man and a white woman going around town together would not set tongues wagging. That, on the whole, is a curious but not major point of criticism. 

Far from Heaven is both a pastiche and homage to the films of Douglas Sirk. The film is appropriately lush and romantic, but with a great deal of love and affection for the subject and characters. Had he lived to see it, I think Douglas Sirk would have been more than proud to have inspired Far from Heaven. It is a perfect Imitation of Sirk.

DECISION: A-

Girl You Know It's True: A Review

GIRL YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE

Milli Vanilli is now a byword for fraud and deception. The rise and fall of the European dance duo became one of the greatest scandals in music history. Girl You Know It's True does not reinvent the wheel on disgraced people's biopics. It does, however, give us a very sympathetic view of the disgraced duo. It even is sympathetic towards the mastermind of this great deception.

Using a conversational style where our protagonists tell us their story, we begin with Robert Pilatus (Tijan Njie) and Fabrice Morvan (Elan Ben Ali) talk directly to us. Rob was the biracial German adopted by the Pilatus family. As the son of an unknown black American father, Rob finds life hard in Munich. Rob loves music and breakdancing, proving himself adept at least in the latter. Striking out on his own, Rob meets French choreographer and dancer Fab. They soon strike an immediate friendship owing to their shared dreams of stardom, dancing skills and how they are the only black people around.

After adopting long hair to stand out more, their exuberant dancing attracts the attention of German music journalist Ingrid "Milli" Segieth (Bella Dayne). She has been working with maverick German music producer Frank Farian (Matthias Schweighofer). Farian has had major success with the band Boney M. and now is looking for two attractive figures to front his new single, Girl You Know It's True. Rob and Fab believe that they are doing a cover version of the Numarx song and are puzzled over why the German music press is so hostile. Rob is eager to sign a long and to them, incomprehensible contract. Fab is more reluctant but agrees to anyway.

Girl You Know It's True starts getting major airplay in Europe. Fabian now imagines that he can rule the American market, which he has struggled to get into. Now as the musical act Milli Vanilli, Rob and Fab get a taste of la dolce vita in Los Angeles. While they do make an effort to sing, down to taking lessons, there are other issues to consider. Everyone, including Arista Records, has been led to think that Rob and Fab are the voices behind Milli Vanilli. Arista Records executives are surprised by Rob and Fab's strong German and French accents respectively. Moreover, Farian does not want to the actual session artist to appear, finding them less appealing. The actual voices behind Milli Vanilli are getting more irritated by Rob and Fab's fame. 

Things come to a head when Milli Vanilli receives a Best New Artist Grammy nomination, which they end up winning. There is an embarrassing technical glitch during the Club MTV tour when Girl You Know It's True starts repeating while they are "singing" the song. Rob and Fab refuse to return to Germany. They also demand to sing on the second album. Fabian attempts to prevent a Milli Vanilli world tour. The legal wrangling eventually causes the truth to explode onto the front pages. With everything out in the open, Rob and Fab's careers and lives take different turns. There is tragedy, but the film ends on a joyful and authentic note.

When a former friend saw Milli Vanilli interviewed on Good Morning America, I remember him commenting that he thought that their accents were very strong. It is, in retrospect, astonishing that no one else picked up on how Pilatus and Morvan spoke with heavy German and French accents but sang with perfectly solid American voices. It makes me wonder whether, as Farian tells our naive young men, "The people, they listen with their eyes". Perhaps people were dazzled by Pilatus and Morvan's admittedly good looks to wonder about such things. 

Girl You Know It's True does touch on this question. However, writer/director Simon Verhoeven does some wonderful things in the film. First, he allows Rob and Fab, and even on occasion Farian, a chance to tell their story and defend themselves. The film gives our trio at times fully aware moments. Early in Girl You Know It's True, we are given Rob's troubled background in a flashback. Eventually, we have Rob jump in, asking if he could at least move the story up. Later, we see Farian at the studio. He looks at us as he introduces the actual voices behind Milli Vanilli. As we see them, Farian makes quips about them. On vocalist Brad Howell, Farian comments that he is a star in the studio, but one with asthma and fondness for cake. Farian later pretty much mocks the viewer (and by extension the allegedly gullible audience) by asking that if we had known what the real Milli Vanilli looked like, would we have bought the music.

Girl You Know It's True gives us very solid performances. Tijan Njie brings a great pathos to Rob Pilatus. We can see why he was more willing to go along with the deception because the film built up his story. This was a man who was abandoned. He was loved by his adoptive family, but whose individual dreams were also not embraced by them. Njie gave us a character who found validation in the attention and fame. He was also shown as in some ways shockingly naive, almost innocent. At the soiree to welcome Milli Vanilli to America, Rob cannot get enough of a particular treat he has never encountered. We learn that it is sushi. Later on, when he is in his diva phase, we see him go in a tirade about not having sushi at the ready backstage.

Elan Ben Ali is Njie's equal as the more grounded Fab. While his background is not as well explored as Pilatus', we do get hints of it. There are many scenes of him on the telephone with his mother. This shows that Fab had a more stable childhood than Pilatus. He also was shown as the more reluctant of the two. He, for example, pushed to have lawyers read the complicated record contract dangled before them. He also was the one who finally left Rob after the scandal wrecked both their lives. Rob, clinging desperately to fame and hopes of a comeback, has sunk into lethargy and drug addiction. Fab, the more realistic of the two, begins looking for actual work.

Ali and Njie work well together as well as separately. We see the brotherly bond between Rob and Fab. Their ability to reveal the people behind the charade allows us to feel for them, knowing that they are bound for a spectacular failure. There are several moving moments in Girl You Know It's True. The joyful optimism that Rob has when he thinks that his long-lost father has found him soon becomes shattered when we see that it is an attempted ripoff. That is already sad in and of itself. Verhoeven films it in a brilliant manner, having "Dad" fade into darkness to reveal the fraudster on the other end of the line. 

We do also see moments of humor even in the worst of moments. Rob and Fab are at an elegant restaurant when Farian holds his press conference. The bartender cooly informs them, "The cat is out of the bag". As Rob keeps swallowing his beloved sushi, both of them look confused. "What cat?", they wonder, clearly not understanding the idiom.

Girl You Know It's True does not let us end on a sad note. Instead, despite how Robert Pilatus is no longer with us, the film gives us a joyful end. The film goes through Milli Vanilli's spectacular ascendence and collapse. It hits many standard musical biopic moments: the sex, drugs and rock & roll lifestyle. We see the diva moments. We see the great fall from grace. However, the film handles this story well. 

I was reminded of other musical biopics while watching Girl You Know It's True. It made me think back to the Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody and the Ian Curtis biopic Control. "Just give them what they want", Morvan tells Pilatus when they start their careers as backup dancers in a music video. Girl You Know It's True did just that and so much more. 

There are many moving moments in Girl You Know It's True. If you find yourself shedding a tear while watching, whatever you do, don't put the blame on you. Blame It on the Rain...

Robert Pilatus: 1964 or 1965-1998
Fabrice Morvan: Born 1966

DECICION: B+

Raging Bull: A Review (Review #2110)

RAGING BULL

Boxing is known as "the sweet science". Neither sweet nor scientific would be used to describe Jake LaMotta, the subject of Raging Bull. This portrait of a brawler in and outside of the ring is a brilliant piece of filmmaking, with standout performances all around.

In 1964, Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro) is a heavyset master of ceremonies pumping himself up for a performance. We then go back to 1941. Here, LaMotta is a muscular figure, the Bronx Bull knocking down all middleweight opponents. 

One person who knocks him out though is young Vickie (Cathy Moriarty). With a sultry voice to match her sultry body, Vickie drives Jake wild with desire. His loyal brother and manager Joey (Joe Pesci) reminds Jake that he is married. Jake, however, will not be denied and he eventually wins Vickie over, first as his mistress then as his second wife.

Jake is a pugilist par excellence. Despite this, he keeps failing to become middleweight champion even though he clearly defeated such figures as Sugar Ray Robinson (Johnny Barnes). Jake fights brilliantly inside the ring. The problem is that he fights stupidly outside the ring. Perpetually jealous, he is wildly suspicious of any man whom Vickie so much as bumps into, let alone talks to. Jake also does not want help from the Mob to get him a shot at the title despite Joey's awareness of the need to. 

Jake eventually goes against his own interests again and again. He agrees to take a dive for mob boss Tommy Como (Nicholas Colasanto) but does such a poor job of it that he's booed out of the ring and suspended by the boxing commission. He becomes unhinged at Vickie talking to any man, going so far as to accuse Joey of having sex with her. He does make it to the championship (the price of throwing the match) but this is a hollow win. Jake loses Joey. He gains massive weight post-retirement. He runs his nightclub poorly to where he ends up in jail for allowing underage girls in. He loses Vickie and his kids. Finally, he finds a second act as an MC, making quips while introducing strippers and later reciting Shakespeare.

Jake LaMotta is not a good man. In particular, his rage and abusive nature should put people off. However, Raging Bull shows us that as he says of himself near the end, "I'm not an animal". LaMotta is driven, intense, hard. These are all qualities that made him an excellent fighter. They also were the qualities that wrecked him when he was not boxing.

As a side note, him saying, "I'm not an animal" coincidentally echoes another 1980 black-and-white biopic. This exact sentiment was expressed in The Elephant Man. That film featured a physically disfigured man with a noble soul. Raging Bull featured a physically powerful athlete with a disfigured soul. Yet, I digress.

Raging Bull is one of Robert De Niro's finest hours as an actor. He makes Jake LaMotta into this fierce force of nature. He is able to show a surprisingly tender side when with Vickie. De Niro also shows us the shattered man after he takes a dive. Crying uncontrollably, he keeps asking himself and those around him the same question: why did he do it. We marvel at the bouts that LaMotta goes through. We also feel a mix of disbelief and sadness seeing this brawler turn into a de facto lounge act.

Cathy Moriarty had a stellar turn as Vickie, Jake's obscure object of desire. She has a sultry, low voice and beautiful figure. Moriarty also shows Vickie to be loving and surprisingly tolerant of her man until even she got fed up. Like Moriarty, Joe Pesci received an acting Oscar nomination for his turn as the loyal but put-upon Joey. His work with De Niro is absolutely fantastic, each playing off each other so well. They are similar in their volcanic tempers, yet different in Joey staying loyal both in his marriage and his relationship. Unlike Jake, Joey understands that talent alone can't get Jake to the top. 

Martin Scorsese films Raging Bull so beautifully. He does make boxing poetic. He has clever moments, such as how Vickie kicking her feet in the pool matches the drumming we hear. This is indicative of how brilliant Thelma Schoonmaker's Oscar-winning editing is. The various fights also range in style and appearance, no small feat given how many we saw. 

For me, the best example revealing the kind of man Jake LaMotta was captured near the end of Raging Bull. Desperate for money to try and buy himself out of a criminal charge, he storms into his now-estranged wife's home, grabs his championship belt and forces the various diamonds out of it. Going to a pawn shop, he is told that the diamonds are not as much as LaMotta was asking for. Had he brought the entire belt in undamaged, he is told, Jake could have had more than enough cash for it. 

Paul Schrader and Mardick Martin's adaptation of LaMotta's autobiography may not have intended it so. However, to me it shows that Jake LaMotta did not see the true worth of things. He saw the small parts and not the big picture. He saw Vickie talking to men, not her love for Jake. He saw Joey "selling him out" to the Mob, not his brother doing all he could to get Jake a shot at the title. He saw the diamonds. He did not see the belt.

Raging Bull stands tall not just in sports films or biopics. It stands tall among some of cinema's finest achievements. 

1922-2017

DECISION: A+

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.