Hulu Archives – CULTURE MIX

Review: ‘Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini,’ starring Keith Papini, Sheila Koester, Kyle Wallace, Jenifer Harrison, Peter Jackson, Denise Farmer and Courtney Lantto

May 25, 2025

by Carla Hay

“Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini”

Directed by Michael Beach Nichols

Culture Representation: The three-episode documentary series “Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” features a predominantly white group of people (with one Latina) discussing the case of Sherri Papini, who claimed to be kidnapped from her home city of Redding, California, for 22 days in 2016, and was convicted in 2022 of faking the kidnapping.

Culture Clash: Sherri Papini’s ex-husband Keith Papini and others say that Sherri did this elaborate hoax to get attention and because she was unhappy in her marriage.

Culture Audience: “Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime documentaries about fraud and people who went missing.

“Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” delves into the high-profile case of Sherri Papini, who admitted to faking her own 2016 kidnapping. In 2022, she was convicted of crimes related to this hoax. This three-episode docuseries is notable for having an extensive interview with Sherri Papini’s ex-husband Keith Papini about her bizarre disappearance. The documentary is riveting but flawed for not fully investigating certain controversial accusations.

Directed by Michael Beach Nichols, “Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” has interviews from a fairly wide variety of people, but Keith Papini’s perspective is mainly driving the narrative. By now, most of the facts of the case are widely known to a lot of people who would have an interest in watching this documentary. Sherri Papini declined to be interviewed for this documentary because she had a deal with Investigation Discovery to do her own documentary.

Sherri and Keith got married in 2009. Their son Tyler was born in 2012. Their daughter Violet was born in 2014. Both of the children are seen briefly with Keith near the end of the documentary and in home videos and photos. The family seemed to have an idyllic middle-class life in Redding, California. Several people who knew homemaker Sherri described her as a “supermom.”

On November 2, 2016, Sherri (who was 34 at the time) disappeared from Redding. On that day, she had planned to go jogging while her two kids were at a daycare center, and her then-husband Keith (who was 32 at the time) was at work. When Keith arrived home, he couldn’t find Sherri, but he used the Find My Phone app to find her cell phone, which was abandoned in an area about a mile from where the couple lived. Keith immediately reported Sherri’s disappearance to authorities. His 911 call is included in the documentary.

Sherri’s disappearance made international news. Although investigators received many tips, none of them led to finding Sherri. When Sherri was missing, some people in the general public speculated that Keith could’ve been involved in abducting, even though Keith had an alibi (he was at work), and investigators ruled him out as a possible suspect.

On November 24, 2016 (which was Thanksgiving Day), Sherri was found partially bound in chains, outdoors in Yolo County, California, about 150 miles south of Redding. She claimed that two Spanish-speaking Latina strangers kidnapped her and held her captive for the past 22 days, but the two so-called kidnapper women decided to let her go. Sherri had several bruises and burns on her body, she was branded with letters on her right shoulder, and she was emaciated.

Sherri could not describe the vehicle that was used to transport her because she claimed that she could not remember anything about the vehicle. She described the Latina kidnappers as one who was young and one who was middle-aged. Sherri said she couldn’t see their entire faces because she claimed that she only saw the two women wearing bandanas covering the lower halves of their faces, which is also the description that she gave to a police sketch artist.

Police could not find the women whom Sherri described as her kidnappers. The FBI was also involved in the investigation. Four years later, in 2020, there was a major break in the case: DNA that was found in Sherri’s underwear that she wore during her so-called kidnapping was traced back to James Reyes, her ex-fiancé who lived in Costa Mesa, California, which is about 585 miles south of Redding.

When interrogated by investigators, Reyes at first denied anything do with Sherri’s disappearance. But then, he confessed that Sherri had asked him to pick her up in his car at a designated meeting place and hide her in his house for the period of time that Sherri went missing. Reyes said that he and Sherri used pre-paid “burner” phones to secretly communicate with each other before the disappearance, which is why Keith didn’t know that Sherri had been contacting Reyes.

Sherri and Reyes have reportedly said in separate law enforcement interviews that their relationship when Sherri and Keith were married was an emotional affair, not a sexual affair. Sherri has also denied speculation and gossip that she had sexual affairs with other men when she was married to Keith. She will only admit that during her marriage to Keith, she would flirt and get emotionally involved with other men, mostly through online communication.

According to Reyes, he agreed to this plan to help Sherri go into hiding because Sherri told him that Keith was abusing her and she wanted to get away from Keith for a while. Reyes also said that Sherri asked him to use a brand on her and cause many of the injuries that were found on her body. Reyes also claimed that some of Sherri’s injuries were deliberately self-inflicted, which is an allegation that Sherri continues to deny. Reyes was not charged with any crimes in this case and so far has not given any media interviews. There has been no evidence that Keith physically abused Sherri. Keith has also not been charged with any crimes in this case.

In 2022, Sherri was arrested for lying to federal agents and committing mail fraud because she collected Social Security disability benefits as a result of reporting that she was an injured kidnapping victim. The case never went to trial because in 2022, Sherri eventually entered a plea deal. She pled guilty to one count of making false statements and one count of mail fraud. As part of the deal, she confessed to masterminding the kidnapping hoax.

Keith filed for divorce after Sherri’s guilty plea. Their divorce became final in May 2023. He got full custody of their two children. Sherri was sentenced to 18 months in prison and served 10 months before getting an early release in August 2023. She was also ordered to pay more than $300,000 in restitution for the costs of the investigation and for the money that she got from disability benefits and the therapy she got that was funded by the California Victim Compensation Board.

All of this has been widely reported already, but the documentary series tells the story in a way so that the mystery and how it was solved is chronicled for people who might not know the story before seeing this documentary. The first episode, titled “It’s a Wonderful Life With You,” describes the Papini marriage and people’s reactions to Sherri’s disappearance. The second episode, titled “Smegma Was Relentless,” details how cracks in Sherri’s story started to show and how the DNA evidence eventually led to discovering Reyes’ involvement in Sherri’s disappearance. The third episode, titled “You Never Found Me,” is about Sherri getting into legal trouble for the faked kidnapping and how the Papini marriage collapsed.

In the documentary, Keith describes his roller coaster of emotions and trauma during the ordeal of thinking of Sherri had been kidnapped, her surprising return, and then finding out the even more shocking truth that the kidnapping was a hoax that she concocted. Before Sherri was arrested, Keith said he and Sherri had temporarily separated, but he ultimately chose to believe Sherri for as long as he could because of the injuries she had when she was found.

Keith admits that he and Sherri had problems in their relationship, long before the kidnapping. Keith says on their first date, Sherri told him that she was married but separated from her husband. Sherri said her first husband was in the U.S. military, and she married him because she needed his medical benefits to get surgery for a heart problem. Keith says that this revelation was surprising to him, but he said that he accepted it, and it didn’t bother him at the time.

According to news reports, Sherri and her first husband David Dreyfus (who was a platoon sergeant) got married in 2006, and they got divorced in 2007. It’s unknown if she ever really had surgery for a heart problem, which would be harder to confirm because medical records are usually considered private under the U.S. law known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Dreyfus has given very few media interviews about Sherri. In the interviews, Dreyfus has only said nice things about her and said that their divorce was amicable. He is not interviewed in this documentary.

According to what Keith says in this documentary, another big problem in their marriage was Sherri would send flirty text messages to men whom Keith didn’t know. And so, in 2011, Keith decided that he and Sherri should have a post-nuptial agreement where if they divorced, he would get to keep everything that was in his name, including their house and cars. Without this post-nuptial agreement, California’s no-fault divorce laws would ensure that Sherri could conceivably get half of Keith’s assets if they divorced without a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement.

Before Sherri became a homemaker, she worked for AT&T but got laid off. She spent some of her severance package money on getting a breast augmentation, which Keith said was her idea, not his. Keith also objected to Sherri wanting to spend money for daycare for their children when she was a homemaker and had the time to take care of the kids at home.

Even though Keith admits to these marital problems, he comes across as someone who downplays how disturbing their arguments were. The documentary has police audio recordings of interviews with a few unidentified neighbors who reported that they heard Keith and Sherri arguing loudly with each other. Keith was allegedly heard threatening to kill Sherri in at least one of these arguments.

Also interviewed in the documentary are Sheila Koester (Sherri’s sister) and Jenifer Harrison (Sherri’s former best friend since childhood), who both say that Sherri has had a long history of being a chronic liar. Koester says that she and Sherri grew up in an abusive household. Koester doesn’t go into details but she says that abuse of alcohol and drugs by her parents had a lot to do with the trauma that she and Sherri experienced as kids.

Harrison says that when she and Sherri were children, Harrison once saw Sherri’s mother hit Sherri hard and drag Sherri on the ground. Sherri’s parents (Loretta Graeff and Richard Graeff) are not interviewed in the documentary, but there are some short archival clips of Sherri’s parents doing a TV news interview about Sherri’s disappearance. Harrison says that Sherri has a pattern of accusing men in Sherri’s life (including Keith) of being abusive to her. “She does tend to be a little dramatic, a little exaggerative,” Harrison comments on Sherri’s credibility.

Other people interviewed in the documentary are Kyle Wallace of California’s Shasta County Sheriff’s Office; Courtney Lantto, Denise Farmer and Peter Jackson, three of the FBI special agents who worked on the case; Keith’s aunt Pam (whose last name is not shown in the documentary), who let Sherri live with her the first time that Sherri and Keith separated; and Tim Scarbrough, a blogger who openly said that Sherri’s disappearance was a hoax when most media outlets were reporting her disappearance as a probable kidnapping.

Scarbrough says that an early indication that the disappearance was a hoax was there was no sign of a struggle on the street where Sherri supposedly had been kidnapped. On the day that Sherri was found, there was video surveillance of Sherri running without chains to the area where she was found partially chained. Scarbrough also admits that for a time, he was suspicious of Keith being involved in Sherri’s disappearance, but Scarbrough changed his mind about Keith after Sherri was found.

“Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” is fairly thorough when it comes to presenting the facts of the case. There is a traditional mix of archival footage (such as TV news reports and audio/video police interviews) with original footage that was filmed specifically for the documentary. However, there are two main areas where the documentary falls short. More independent investigation was needed in these areas.

The first area that needed improvement has to do with addressing the racial fallout of Sherri’s admitted lie that two Latinas kidnapped her. Angela Gutierrez, who is identified in the documentary as a “local radio host,” comments in the documentary on Sherri’s deliberately false description: “It affected those around me. Women in the Hispanic/Latino community, they didn’t want to drive together, hang out together, walk the streets together.”

There’s an element of racism when someone deliberately tells a lie that someone of another race committed a crime. Sherri was arrested six years after her faked disappearance. Hispanic/Latina women were under a cloud of suspicion in the community during the period of time that Sherri lied about being abducted by two Hispanic/Latina women. The documentary could have had more insight into how this false accusation affected the Hispanic/Latina women in the community, beyond just having one Latina comment about it in the documentary.

The documentary briefly mentions an online editorial attributed to Sherri Graeff (Sherri Papini’s maiden name) that was made on a white supremacist forum, years before she was married to Keith. In the editorial, titled “Being aware and having pride,” someone using Sherri Graeff’s name and photo makes racist comments about Hispanic/Latin people. According to Keith, Sherri told him that she never made those comments and doesn’t know how those comments got on that online forum.

The other area that needed more investigation is regarding a bombshell dropped at the end of the documentary. Keith claims that his daughter Violet told him that when Keith and Sherri were still married, Sherri would soak rags of alcohol, put the rags in Ziploc bags, and make Violet and Tyler wear the bags around their necks. Keith implies that this was done to keep the kids passive and to make the children sick.

This disturbing allegation hangs over the conclusion of the documentary and just brings up more questions that the documentary doesn’t answer. Were these alleged druggings reported to any authorities? If so, to whom? And was there an investigation? Violet and Tyler are not interviewed in the documentary. And that’s understandable because these kids have been through more than enough trauma. But there’s no indication that anyone who worked on the documentary tried to find out if this allegation is true or not.

Keith making this serious public accusation that Sherri was drugging their children just opens up more scrutiny on what kind of parenting these kids have been getting. At the time the documentary was released in 2024, Keith and Sherri were still battling in court over custody of Tyler and Violet because Sherri wants to have joint custody. “Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” certainly presents plenty of facts regarding the solved case of Sherri’s disappearance, but it’s questionable whether or not this documentary is an appropriate forum to bring up child abuse accusations that the documentary doesn’t investigate.

Hulu premiered “Perfect Wife: The Mysterious Disappearance of Sherri Papini” on June 20, 2024. ABC premiered the series on January 30, 2025.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hot1ECXMe0A

Review: ‘Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam,’ starring Brian Haugen, Paul Kaffile and Bret Curtis

May 21, 2025

by Carla Hay

“Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam”

Directed by Andy Robertson

Culture Representation: The three-episode documentary series “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” features an all-white group of people representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Three women share their stories about getting scammed out of money by online “boyfriends” who turned out to be frauds.

Culture Audience: “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching true crime documentaries about online romance scams, but the documentary is cheap exploitation that drags out for too long and ultimately does not reveal any new information.

Brian Haugen in “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Hulu)

If you’ve seen any documentary, talk show episode, or news report about women over the age of 50 who’ve been scammed by an “online lover” who turned out to be a fraud, chances are the culprit was someone who lived far away, usually in another country, and lied about everything. “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” is more of the same type of cautionary tale, but it’s dragged out to annoying levels because it still doesn’t reveal the individuals who were behind the scams featured in the documentary.

It’s an example of a documentary that didn’t need to be stretched into three episodes. The details on who’s likely to do these romance scams have been covered elsewhere. The re-enactments are tacky. The victims are used as props for tabloid-like TV exposure.

Directed by Andy Robertson, “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” puts the spotlight on three women over the age of 50 who were victims of these scams. Their last names are not revealed in the documentary. They all say that they met and fell “in love” with someone online and never met this boyfriend in person but sent money to him anyway.

The first episode, titled “The Face of Trouble,” details the scams that each woman had and how they got lured in by photos of a good-looking middle-aged man. The second episode, titled “Male Fraud,” reveals who is the man in the photos. The third episode, titled “In the Flesh,” shows the women meeting him in person and the results of an investigation into their scams.

The women admit that they were vulnerable to this fraud because they were feeling lonely and looking for passionate romance in their lives. They all describe meeting a handsome middle-aged man online who showered them with attention and compliments. He was not someone who presented himself as wealthy but as a responsible upper-middle-class career man who fell in love with them and wanted to start a life with them. They say they fell “in love” with him because of his kindness and personality, but it’s also obvious that the sexy pictures they saw of this long-distance lover was a huge part of the attraction.

Roxy, a homemaker from Connecticut, says her 51-year marriage became boring and stagnant when in 2019, she met a man who called himself Scott Hall through playing the online game Words With Friends. The man described himself as a widower father who worked as an oil rigger in Texas. Within four months of their first “meeting,” Roxy says her secret “romance” with Scott escalated to where she and Scott were making plans to run away and start a new life together. She sent him $1,000 through Bitcoin. However, she quickly found out that he was a scammer when a $4,000 check that he sent to her was returned by her bank as fraudulent, and the bank temporarily shut down her account until she able to clear up the matter and prove that she wasn’t responsible for the fraud.

Annette, a restaurant server in the Canadian province of Ontario, was going through a difficult time when she met a widower father named Mark Da Silva, who said that he lived in New York City and owned a gas-and-piping company. He said that his wife died of cancer and he was the father of a 20-year-old son. Annette says when she met him on a Facebook dating group, she had recently ended an unhappy marriage where her husband was too controlling; she was estranged from her stepchildren; and she was grieving over having to give away her dog because the dog bit some people. Annette says she and her online boyfriend planned to move to California together. She ended up giving her online boyfriend $40,000 (Canadian dollars) because he claimed he had banking problems when he had to do work overseas.

Gaby, a business owner in Germany, met a man called Michael Silver on LinkedIn. He told a similar story of being a widower whose wife died of cancer. Michael claimed to be a London-based owner of a wholesale company that bought and sold gems. He asked for money that he said were loans to pay for unexpected equipment repairs and customs fees. In total, Gaby says she sent him €1.5 million, which is about $1.7 million in U.S. dollars in the mid-2020s. Just like Roxy, Gaby says that she was married but bored in her marriage and was ready to leave her husband for her online lover.

What all of these women have in common, besides being scammed by a fake online lover, is that whoever conned them used stolen photos of the same man and presented these photos as pictures of themselves. The man whose photo images were stolen is Brian Haugen, a Los Angeles-based makeup artist and actor. And he’s a victim of identity theft because Haugen’s photos and videos that he posted online have been used for an untold number of scams (hundreds, according to the documentary), where the fraudsters set up fake accounts to contact women to scam out of money.

Annette’s best friend Nicole (whose last name isn’t revealed in the documentary) says she was able to detect a bad alteration of one of the photos because Haugen’s head was placed on the body of a man wearing an oil rigger outfit. The head looked too big for the body. Photos that look fake are an obvious “red flag” that the person online is using a false identity.

Did any of the victims in this documentary get suspicious before sending money to someone they never met in person? Gaby says she was skeptical, but the first time the online boyfriend had borrowed money from her, he promptly paid her back. In hindsight, Gaby says that it was just a way for him to gain her trust because the other times he subsequently asked her to send him money, it was for much larger amounts than the amount he asked for and paid back the first time. She never got her money back except for that first repayment.

Gaby says she also asked the scammer to do a video chat with her. She now knows that the scammer used one of Haugen’s videos and altered it with artificial intelligence “deep fake” technology to use Haugen’s video image but with the scammer’s movements and voice superimposed on the image. Ruth Grover, founder of the group ScamHaters United, is interviewed as a fraud expert in the documentary, and is one of the few sources of helpful information in the documentary. She recommends that if people are communicating with someone by video chat and need to verify it’s a real person, not “deep fake” imagery, the best thing to do is to ask to see the person stand up and turn around during the chat.

“Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” doesn’t reveal Haugen’s identity until the second episode. The fraud against the female victims is even more apparent when Haugen states that he’s been openly gay for years. Haugen then reveals he has “secrets” too: He’s a “leather daddy” who is heavily involved in BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism) but he keeps that part of his life separate from his job.

Well, it’s not secret when you willingly say and do these things for a documentary on a streaming service with millions of subscribers: As if to prove his “leather daddy” status, the documentary shows Haugen at a gas station wearing leather chaps with his naked butt cheeks showing. The cameras also show him at a BDSM nightclub where another man in leather uses a tasseled whip to lightly spank him on his rear end.

At this point, this true crime documentary about a romance scam turns into a showcase for someone who looks like he wants to be the star of a Grindr reality show. Haugen is then shown introducing his much-younger boyfriend Jabril. And then there are segments of Haugen promoting his makeup tutorial business. He’s also shown as an unofficial therapist to Roxy, Annette and Gaby during video chats after the women have found out Haugen is the real person in the photos they saw online under their “online boyfriends'” names. Roxy, Annette and Gaby all say that Haugen is a compassionate and wonderful person with them.

A fourth woman named Kathy (from Alabama) is mentioned as a victim of a scammer who used Haugen’s photos and made contact with Kathy on Instagram. Kathy was conned out of an estimated $300,000 to $400,000, according to Kathy’s younger sister Sandy and Kathy’s niece Mandy, whose last names are also not revealed but who are are interviewed in the documentary. The documentary also shows Haugen interacting cordially wth Sandy in person and online. Kathy (who found out that she had been scammed) died of malnutrition, but Sandy and Mandy both say that she really died of a broken heart, and the malnutrition was a manifestation of it.

It’s mentioned in the documentary that Kathy was being used by her scammer as a “money mule” to launder cash. He would have other women he was scamming send thousands of dollars in cash to Kathy, who would then transfer the money to the scammer through a Bitcoin account. Kathy believed him when he told her that the women sending her cash were customers who were sending him payments for his business.

Although the grief and embarrassment of these scam victims seem very real, “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” has too many scenes that look rehearsed or semi-scripted. The victims do re-enactments that look very awkward because the acting is so bad. Re-enactments are common in true crime documentaries. However, in “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam,” it probably would’ve been better to have professional actors and actresses do the re-enactments.

“Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” has a half-hearted attempt to find out who’s responsible for the scams that cheated Roxy, Annette, Gaby and Kathy out of their money. Annette and Haugen do online video chats with a Nigerian man, who uses a cat avatar as a disguise and who makes vague and unsubstantiated claims that he’s a former scammer who knows the person who scammed Annette. He refuses to give any important details.

Roxy says that her scammer (also from Nigeria) contacted her four years after she cut off contact with him. She claims that she demanded that he tell her his real name. He only gave her the name Johnson. Would this scammer really be stupid enough to give a victim any part of his real name? We’ll never know because Roxy had no way of tracing his messages.

Paul Raffile, a cyber investigations analyst, is brought in to do some sleuthing. In the end, he finds out a possible suspect for Kathy’s scams because Kathy kept meticulous records. This possible suspect is not named in the documentary.

The other women only get vague or dead-end answers that their scammers are most likely part of the Yahoo Boys network of online scammers, which share information and use many of the same scripts and tactics to defraud people. Unfortunately, the victims in this documentary are unlikely to get justice. Haugen says he faces a tough battle to get his name and reputation cleared up because social media companies rarely do anything when fake accounts get reported to social media companies.

And to put it as tactfully as possible, Annette is not the smartest one in this bunch. Even after she knows that Haugen is gay, she is seen snuggling up to him and saying in a voiceover that a part of her wishes that Haugen could “change is mind” about being gay so she could date him. Someone get Annette to a PFLAG meeting as soon as possible.

Annette also admits in the documentary that she was so angry when she found out she was scammed, she deleted all of the photos and messages from her scammer. Raffile says deleting or destroying evidence is one of the biggest mistakes that scam victims can make. He also says that the most progress can be made in the investigation of Kathy’s scammer because she kept so much evidence, which Raffile says he is handing over to authorities as soon as possible. One of the people interviewed in the documentary is FBI special agent Bret Curtis, whose expertise is in cybercrimes.

Of course, people of any age or gender can become the victim of online scams. But there’s something deliberately mocking about the way this documentary singled out lonely middle-aged women to be featured in this documentary. It seems to be perpetuating a stereotype that women who are in Generation X and older generations didn’t grow up with the Internet and therefore are more likely to be unwitting victims of Internet scams.

“Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” is also noticeably inconsistent in revealing how the fraud affected the victims’ lives after they found out that they were victims. Kathy’s family members believe that Kathy lost her life from a “broken heart” because of the scam. Roxy says, “I hurt my whole family,” but she implies that her family (including her husband) forgave her. However, the documentary never bothers to mention if Gaby’s marriage survived this scam.

As for Annette, she is not asked in the documentary how she might be changing her online dating activities because of what she experienced with the online fraud. Clearly, Annette has still got some ignorance issues to resolve if a part of her hopes she has a chance to date Hausen if he “changes his mind about being gay.” This exploitative documentary doesn’t seem to care if these victims really heal from the trauma but just wants to put them on display to be laughed at for falling for these online scams.

Hulu premiered “Hey Beautiful: Anatomy of a Romance Scam” on May 20, 2025.

Review: ‘Murder Has Two Faces,’ starring Robin Roberts, Mayra Escobar, Reina Solis, Roger Chiang, Bobby Chacon, Tiffany Taylor and Leroy West

May 6, 2025

by Carla Hay

“Murder Has Two Faces”

Directed by Lisa Cortés

Culture Representation: The three-episode documentary series “Murder Has Two Faces” features a racially diverse group of people (Latin, African American, white and Asian) who are connected in some way to U.S. murder cases that have been in the news.

Culture Clash: The series compares and contrasts media coverage and law enforcement’s handling of similar murder cases where the victims were white and the victims were not white.

Culture Audience: “Murder Has Two Faces” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching true crime documentaries about how race plays a role in how people perceive crime victims.

Mayra Escobar and Robin Roberts in “Murder Has Two Faces” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Hulu)

“Murder Has Two Faces” is an admirable and candid true crime series that compares how similar murder cases are given different priorities by the media and law enforcement when the victims are white or not white. Robin Roberts hosts and does interviews with professional compassion. It’s not the first true crime documentary series to show how white supremacist racism can affect what happens to these murder cases. However, it’s the first that does a notable compare-and-contrast racial examination for well-known murder cases that have striking similarities.

Directed by Lisa Cortés (who is an executive producer of the series), “Murder Has Two Faces” has three episodes that all focus on the murders of women who were under the age of 35. The first episode, title Motherhood Interrupted,” compares and contrasts the cases of two murdered women who were eight months pregnant and were found dismembered separately in the San Francisco area in 2002: Laci Peterson (who was white) and Evelyn Hernandez (who was Latina). The second episode, titled “The Capitol Killings,” compares and contrasts the unrelated cases of two murdered women who worked for U.S. Congressmen in Washington, D.C.: Joyce Chiang (who was Asian) in 1999, and Chandra Levy (who was white) in 2001. The third episode, titled “Good Guys Gone Bad,” compares and contrasts the murder cases of killers who targeted sex workers who were the same race as the killers: Philip Markoff (also known as the Craigslist Killer) was white and was the prime suspect in a 2009 crime spree in Boston, while Khalil Wheeler-Weaver (also known as the Tagged Killer) is black and has been convicted of a 2016 series of murders that happened in New Jersey.

A few people who give commentary in all three episodes: Amara Cofer, creator of Black Girl Gone: A True Crime Podcast, talks about the racial disparities in coverage of cases involving white people versus coverage of cases involving people of color. Bobby Chacon is a retired FBI profiler who was involved in diving searches in the cases of Laci Peterson, Evelyn Hernandez and Joyce Chiang.

The cases in “Motherhood Interrupted” are so similar, for a period of time before one of these murders ended up being solved, investigators and the media mistakenly speculated that the same person could have committed both murders. The dismembered bodies of Peterson and Hernandez were both found on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. Both women were eight months pregnant with sons. Peterson and Hernandez were reported missing just seven months apart from each other.

Laci Peterson’s murder received worldwide media attention and is still the topic of many news reports and documentaries. She was reported missing in December 2002. The bodies of 27-year-old Laci and her unborn son Conner (who was her first child) were found in April 2003. It’s common knowledge that in 2004, her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering Laci and Conner. In 2020, his death penalty sentence was overturned, and he was re-sentenced to life in prison without parole. Scott Peterson still maintains that he’s not guilty of these murders.

Hernandez, whose murder remains unsolved, was reported missing in May 2002, and her body was found in July 2002. She was a 24-year-old single mother who was pregnant with a son named Fernando. The father of Fernando is a married older man named Herman Aguilera, who worked as a limousine driver at the time of her disappearance. Just like Scott Peterson, the father of Fernando was an unfaithful husband who reportedly did not want this pregnancy. It’s mentioned in the documentary that murder is the number-one cause of death for pregnant women.

Aguilera, who was married at the time he and Hernandez had their affair, was last questioned by the San Francisco Police Department in August 2002, and he was never named as a suspect. Aguilera claims that he talked to Hernandez on the phone on the day that she disappeared, but he says he didn’t see her that day. Aguilera doesn’t have a solid alibi for the entire time that Hernandez could have disappeared that day. However, there has been no evidence that he saw her that day.

The documentary mentions that Aguilera could not be reached for comment. Unlike Scott Peterson, Aguilera has never publicly commented or given any interviews. The documentary does not disclose the name of his wife, but it’s mentioned that Aguilera and his wife stayed together after Hernandez’s disapperance and murder were in the news.

Hernandez also had a 5-year-old son named Alex from another relationship. Alex also went missing on the same day that Hernandez went missing. Although her body was found, the bodies of Alex and Fernando were not found. Fernando is presumed to be dead, but Alex is still officially a missing person.

The documentary also points out that socioeconomic class has a lot to do with prejudices in how murder cases are covered. Hernandez was a working-class immigrant who was originally from El Salvador. Laci Peterson was a middle-class homemaker who was born in the United States. Both had different experiences of the American Dream, but Laci was considered the more “important” story by the news media.

Although “Murder Has Two Faces” compares and contrasts what happened in the cases where the murder victims were white and were not white, it doesn’t spend too much time rehashing the enormous amount of media coverage that the white victims got. Instead, the docuseries makes sure that the women of color who were the murder victims get a thoughtful spotlight so that loved ones can talk about what these women were like when they were alive.

For “Motherhood, Interrupted,” the interviewees who knew Fernandez personally are Mayra Escobar, a Guatemalan immigrant, who was a friend of Hernandez since they were in high school together; Reina Solis, Hernandez’s sister who happens to be deaf; Twiggy Damy, a friend of Evelyn’s; and Berta Hernandez (no relation to Evelyn Hernandez), who was Evelyn’s drama teacher at a youth center called Casa de Los Jóevnes. They all describe Evelyn as someone who had an outgoing and strong personality.

Escobar says, “Evelyn had a light around her. Evelyn was such a charismatic person. She wanted to feel that she was important.” However, Escobar doesn’t sugarcoat the difficulties that Evelyn had in her life. According to Escobar, Evelyn left home at age 16 because Evelyn was not getting along with her strict mother. Evelyn also struggled financially.

Evelyn was also feeling despondent over her disintegrating relationship with Aguilera and his lack of enthusiasm for the arrival of their unborn child. For example, he wanted nothing to do with Evelyn’s baby shower that was supposed to take place a few days after she disappeared. (The baby shower was cancelled because of her disappearance.) Escobar says that during the last few months of Evelyn’s life, Evelyn distanced herself from her family and friends. Damy says that it wasn’t until after Evelyn disappeared that her friends and family found out that Aguilera was married.

Lyanne Melendez, a reporter for KABC-TV in San Francisco, says she was “outraged” about the disparity between the media coverage that Laci Peterson got compared to Evelyn Fernandez. However, she makes this admission when commenting on the media that covered the Evelyn Fernandez case: “We were not pushing police like we did with Laci Peterson.” Melendez later says of how Latin people are treated as crime victims compared to how white victims of similar crimes are treated: “As a Latina, it made me sad. It made me feel like we were not good enough.” She also notes of KABC-TV’s coverage of the Evelyn Hernandez murder: “We could’ve done better and not let go of the story.”

Dan Dedet, a detective who handles cold cases (investigations that have reached dead ends) at the San Francisco Police Department, comments in the documentary about the case of Evelyn Hernandez and her missing sons: “We could use the help from the public. We have a [phone] tip line where people can remain anonymous. I will never forget Evelyn and Alex. I would really like to close this case before I’m gone.”

The documentary mentions that there was also a language barrier that could have hindered the investigation because police investigators who know sign language are uncommon, and they weren’t readily available to communicate with Evelyn’s sister Solis, who is non-verbal. In the documentary, someone does voiceover interpretation for what Solis’ sign language. There are also sometimes culture barriers when most of the investigating officials in the U.S. are white and only know how to speak English, and they have to interact with communities where the majority are people of color whose first language is not English.

Solis says she is always praying for Evelyn, Alex and Fernando: “They’re in heaven, and they’re being taken care of now.” Escobar adds, “We want justice for Evelyn and the boys.” Other people interviewed in this episode are Holly Pera, a retired homicide detective for the San Francisco Police Department; and Kelly St. John, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle; Danielle Slakogg, professor of criminology at Cal State University.

“The Capitol Killings” episode features impactful and heart-wrenching interviews with Roger Chiang, Joyce Chiang’s younger brother, who was a tireless advocate in pushing the police and the media to not let Joyce’s case become forgotten. Joyce, who was 27 years old when she died, disappeared from Washington, D.C.’s Dupont Circle in January 1999. Her decomposed body was found in the Potomac River in April 1999.

Roger describes the childhood that he and Joyce had as two of four siblings born in the United States to parents who immigrated from Taiwan. He says that they experienced angry racist bullying from people when they lived in Chicago as children. Roger remembers that this was his parents’ response to the racism: “They pushed us to do better.”

Joyce was a protective sister, says Roger, who adds: “She was one of the most loving, caring human beings in the world.” Amy C. Well, who was Joyce’s classmate and friend at Smith College, describes Joyce as the life of the party. Judy Kim, who was Joyce’s best friend in college, also describes Joyce as caring and very charming.

After graduating from Smith College, Joyce took night classes at Georgetown University Law School while she had a day job as an immigration advisor to U.S. Congressman Howard Berman. After she graduated from law school and passed the bar, she became an attorney at the U.S. immigration and Naturalization Service, which was the job she had at the time she disappeared.

Chandra Levy was a 24-year-old intern who worked with then-U.S. Congressman Gary Condit at the time she disappeared in May 2001. Her decomposed remains were found in Rock Creek Park in May 2002. In the time period between her disappearance and when her remains were found, there was a media frenzy that included the scandal that Condit was having an affair with Levy.

Condit, who always denied accusations that he was responsible for Levy’s disappearance, was considered the main person of interest until Ingmar Guandique, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was caught and convicted of murdering Levy. A jailhouse informant gave a crucial tip that Guandique confessed to the crime, and DNA evidence proved that Guandique was the killer. His 2010 murder conviction was overturned in 2016, due to prosecutorial misconduct. Instead of getting a new trial, he was deported to El Salvador in 2016.

The widespread media exposure for the Levy case helped revive interest in the Joyce Chiang case. But some people believe that it’s a shame that the media will more likely pay attention to a case of a murdered person of color if it can be linked to a case of a white person who’s been missing or has been murdered. Naomi Ishisaka, assistant managing editor for the Seattle Times, comments on this racial inequality: “Our culture has ideas of what is a universal victim. And that is dictated by race and class and age … When it comes to Asian Americans, I think we’re largely invisible.”

Joyce Chiang’s family and other loved ones did not get the same closure for her case that there was for Levy’s case. There was the additional nightmare of Joyce’s case being erroneously described as a probable suicide by Terrance “Terry” Gainer, who was assistant chief of the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia from 1998 to 2002, and chief of the United States Capitol Police from 2002 to 2006. Gainer made those suicide theory remarks to the media after Joyce’s body was found. Roger Chiang believes there was some racial bias from Gainer (who is white) because Gainer pushed a theory that Joyce, who was under an internal investigation in her job, could have killed herself as part of Asian culture that teaches that suicide is an option for people who want to punish themselves for disgracing their families.

It wasn’t until 2011, when two murder suspects were identified as causing Joyce’s death, that the Metropolitan Police finally admitted their mistake and described Joyce’s death as a homicide that has been solved. The police believe that the two suspects—Steven Allen and Neil Joaquin—were drug users who robbed, kidnapped, and murdered Joyce because they saw her walking alone on a street and thought she would be an easy target. Allen and Joaquin became suspects because they committed similar robbery/kidnapping crimes, according to the Metropolitan Police.

The police theory is that the suspects dumped Joyce Chiang’s body in the Anacostia River (where some of her belongings were found), which leads to the Potomac River, where her body was found. Unfortunately, no one has been arrested or charged with her murder because not enough evidence was found to definitively link any suspects to the crime. Allen is currently serving a life sentence for an unrelated crime. Joaquin was last reported to be in his native Guyana and cannot be extradited for this case.

During this episode, some of Joyce’s answering machine messages are played for people being interviewed, and it moves some people to tears when they hear the messages. Roberts gets tearful when talking to Roger, who is emotional during many moments. However, he also expresses gratitude that Joyce’s death is now rightfully classified as a homicide, not suicide. He and many people felt that the suicide theory was unnecessary damage to her reputation when she couldn’t defend herself.

Other people interviewed in this episode are Laura Ashburn, reporter for WJLA-TV Washington, D.C., from 1996 to 2000; Chuck Regini, a retired FBI agent; Joe Gentile, a retired public information officer for the Metropolitan Police; journalist Eddie Dean; and James Young, a a retired police detective for the Metropolitan Police.

The “Good Guys Gone Bad” episode is about serial killers who had deceptive appearances of being harmless and upstanding young men. Markoff, the so-called Craigslist Killer, was a medical student in Boston with no previous arrest record. He found his victims through ads that they placed on the website Craigslist. He was accused of robbing three sex workers and murdering one of them (Julissa Brisman), all during April 2009. Markoff was arrested and pleaded not guilty. In August 2010, when Markoff was 24, he committed suicide by asphyxiation in a Boston jail where he had been awaiting a trial whose start date had not been set at the time of his death.

Wheeler-Weaver, nicknamed the Tagged Killer, also used the Internet to find his victims. He contacted them through the Tagged social network. Just like Markoff, Wheeler-Weaver (who worked as a security guard) was in his early 20s and did not have a criminal record when he was arrested for murder. Because of DNA evidence and phone records, Wheeler-Weaver (who was born in 1996) was convicted of three murders that happened from September to November 2016. He received a sentence of 160 years in prison and won’t be eligible for parole until 140 years into his sentence, which means that he will die in prison.

The three murder victims—19-year-old Robin West, 20-year-old Sarah Butler and 33-year-old Joanne Brown—were strangled or asphyxiated, and their bodies were found in Orange, New Jersey, which was Wheeler-Weaver’s hometown. In 2022, Wheeler-Weaver was charged with the murder of 15-year-old Mawa Doumbia, who died of strangulation. He has maintained that he is not guilty of these four murders. At the time this documentary was released, a trial date had not been set for the Doumbia murder case.

This episode has perhaps the most blatant example of racial and socioeconomic prejudice when comparing how the authorities handled the Craigslist Killer case and the Tagged Killer case. In both cases, there were survivors who escaped attempted murder. But in the Craigslist Killer case, the survivors were immediately believed and the media issued widespread warnings about the Craigslist Killer’s methods and the types of women he was targeting. Markoff was arrested within two weeks of his killing spree.

By contrast, Tagged Killer survivor Tiffany Taylor (who escaped by convincing Wheeler-Weaver to go back to her motel room to retrieve her phone that had damning evidence) wasn’t taken seriously by police when she reported that Wheeler-Weaver raped her and tried to murder her by strangulation. Taylor said she knew Wheeler-Weaver’s name, address and other important identifying information. But when police questioned him, they believed his denials and didn’t investigate further. Taylor was dismissed as a disgruntled sex worker who wanted to get revenge on a customer.

Taylor is interviewed in the documentary and says she still struggles with knowing that Wheeler-Weaver killed Butler after he tried to murder Taylor. She and many other people believe that Butler’s murder could have been prevented if police had taken Taylor’s evidence seriously and had arrested Wheeler-Weaver. Instead of sensationalizing the gruesome aspects of the attempted murder, this documentary takes the time to let Taylor tell the circumstances that led her to become a sex worker.

Taylor says she and her single mother fell on hard times after her mother was diagnosed with cancer, and they became homeless. Taylor says she was “running the streets to survive.” She was five months pregnant when Wheeler-Weaver tried to murder her. Taylor says one of her biggest motivations to survive was to not only save herself but also her unborn child.

One of the most emotionally moving parts of the entire series is when Robin West’s father Rev. Leroy West meets up with Taylor and comforts her. Taylor tells him, “I really appreciate you checking up on me.” He responds, “I’ve lost a daughter but gained a daughter.” They embrace in a very heartfelt moment that looks completely authentic, not staged.

Earlier in the episode Leroy West and his son Azrien Lee-West talk about what Robin was like. They both describe her as having a lively personality but she began to become rebellious at age 15 when her parents separated in 2016. Leroy says that whatever sex worker activity that Robin was involved with, she was new to it when she was murdered. Leroy comments on being angry at Wheeler-Weaver: “My anger is not going to bring my daughter back. Helping people is a way of keeping Robin alive.”

Other people interviewed in the “Good Guys Gone Bad” episode are Michael Krusznis, retired lieutenant of the Newark Police Department; Paul Sarabando, retired sergeant of the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office; Lea Webb, New York state senator of the 52nd District; Anthony Johnson of WABC-TV New York; and journalist Julia Martin.

If there’s any constructive criticism of this docuseries, it’s that documentary could have had an episode for a murder case involving an Indigenous/Native American person. Cases involving missing and murdered people have devastated a significant percentage of the Native American population but these cases rarely get national media coverage. During the media frenzy when travel vlogger Gabby Petito went missing in Wyoming in 2021, there were 51 Indigenous/Native American people (most of them women) who were reported missing in Wyoming in 2021, according to the National Crime Information Center. None of these cases for Indigenous/Native American people got even a tiny fraction of the media attention that Petito’s case got.

“Murder Has Two Faces” might not eliminate the problem of racial inequalities in how murders are reported by the media and investigated by law enforcement. However, this documentary series is a definite step in the right direction in bringing more awareness to the added injustice of certain crime victims being treated as inferior because of their race. And hopefully, this documentary will inspire more people to make a difference in reducing this problem.

Hulu premiered “Murder Has Two Faces” on May 6, 2025.

Review: ‘Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert,’ starring Matt Murphy, Heather Brown, Ryan Peters, Salvatore Ciulla, Martina Teinert and Matt Gutman

February 19, 2024

by Carla Hay

“Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert”

Culture Representation: The three-episode documentary series “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” features a predominantly white group of people (with a few Asians and Latin people) talking about the case of the 2012 kidnapping and brutal assault of Mary Barnes and her male roommate from their home in Newport Beach, California.

Culture Clash: The three kidnappers (led by Hossein Nayeri) beat, tortured and cut off the penis of the male roommate (whose identity is not revealed in the documentary) because the kidnappers mistakenly thought that he had about $1 million in cash hidden in California’s Mohave Desert.

Culture Audience: “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime documentaries about well-known criminal cases, but this docuseries just re-uses a lot of footage that was previously filmed for a March 2020 episode of the ABC newsmagazine series “20/20.”

A 2013 photo of Hossein Nayeri (center) in “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Hulu)

“Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” is just a repackaged “20/20” episode that originally aired in March 2020, with expanded and updated commentary from law enforcement officials and attorneys. This is a very lazy documentary. ABC News Studios produces “20/20” and several other news programs and documentaries. Many of the documentaries from ABC News Studios are labeled as original Hulu documentaries because they premiere first on Hulu in the United States. (Outside the U.S., many Hulu programs premiere first on the Disney+ streaming service.) ABC, Hulu and Disney+ are all owned by Disney.

There is no credited director for “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert,” but David Sloan is listed as the documentary’s senior executive producer. On the surface, “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” might seem to be a Hulu original documentary, but the majority of the documentary’s content actually isn’t original because so much it previously aired on or was originally filmed for “20/20” in the show’s Season 42, Episode 21, titled “Catch Me If You Can,” which premiered on March 13, 2020. The previously filmed interviews were conducted in 2019, and are labeled as such in this repackaged documentary that was released in 2025.

The only “new” content includes interviews with two former district attorneys who were involved with the case; the former police detective who was the lead investigator of the case; two defense attorneys; and the “20/20” correspondent who originally reported on the case. All of them give hindsight comments that don’t add anything noteworthy. It’s not a complete “bait and switch” documentary, but there needed to be more transparency that “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” is really an expanded version of a previously aired “20/20” episode. For example, there could have been caption for the 2019 footage that says, “Previously filmed for ’20/20,’ in 2019,” instead of just putting the year that the footage was filmed.

“Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” has three episodes that tell the story in mostly chronological order. Episode 1, titled “Treasure Hunt,” describes the home invasion and kidnapping. Episode 2, titled “Cat-and-Mouse Trap,” is about the police investigation that included a sting operation where the wife of the kidnapping ringleader cooperated with law enforcement to gather evidence and get him arrested. Episode 3, titled “Weed and Bananas,” has details of the arrest, escape from jail and eventual trial of the mastermind kidnapper.

“Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” begins by showing Matt Murphy surfing in Orange County, California. Murphy is a former senior district attorney for Orange County and is a familiar face to people who watch a lot of true crime TV shows because he’s been interviewed on many of these shows. Murphy says in a voiceover that the Orange County city of Newport Beach is “like a Beverly Hills by the sea. But it’s also the type of place where people go to steal and sometimes hurt people to get money.” Murphy adds, “When it comes to wanton cruelty, I’ve seen some really bad things, but I’ve never seen anything like this.”

The cruelty that Murphy is talking about is a home invasion/brutal kidnapping that took place on the night of October 2, 2012. Mary Barnes, originally from New York, had moved to Newport Beach from Florida just a few days earlier to live with William “Bill” Bannon, who was her boyfriend at the time. Bannon shared the four-bedroom Newport Beach house with a roommate, who is only identified in the documentary as Michael S., who worked as a legal marijuana dispensary owner. In 2012, marijuana in California was only legal for medicinal purposes.

Bannon was away on a business trip when the home invasion happened, but Barnes and Michael were at the house. Michael, who was 28 years old at the time and described as a friendly guy, was the real target of the masked kidnappers. Michael and Barnes were tied up with zip ties, blindfolded, and held by gunpoint by three male kidnappers, who hauled them in a white truck and drove about 140 miles east to the Mohave Desert. The documentary has a brief audio interview with Michael S., but he doesn’t reveal anything new, and it’s not clear when this interview took place.

In a 2019 interview originally filmed for “20/20,” Barnes says that the kidnappers kept demanding that Michael give kidnappers the $1 million in cash that the kidnappers said he was hiding. She said one of the kidnappers tried to disguise his identity by pretending to be a Mexican gangster. Cash and jewelry were in the house, but the kidnappers left some of it behind because they were sure that Michael had even more money stashed away in the Mohave Desert.

Michael repeatedly told the kidnappers that he didn’t have $1 million but he had about $100,000 that he could give to them in cash by the next day. He was telling the truth, but the kidnappers didn’t believe him. The kidnappers beat up Michael, kicked him, and used a blowtorch to burn him to try to force him to tell them where the money was buried. Barnes was tied up nearby, and although she couldn’t see what was happening, she could hear this vicious assault.

In the 2019 interview, Barnes remembers hearing the sound of something being cut in a back-and-forth saw direction, while a bound-and-gagged Michael yelled in pain. Barnes found out from the kidnappers had cut off Michael’s penis and had taken the penis with them. The kidnappers also covered Michael with bleach and left him bloodied and unconscious.

It’s unknown if the kidnappers thought that Michael was going to die, but they didn’t inflict this type of violence on Barnes. One of the kidnappers threw the knife and told Barnes that it was her lucky day because they weren’t going to kill her, and if she could find the knife, she could probably cut the zip ties and free herself. The kidnappers then drove off without Barnes being able to see anything about the vehicle except knowing it was a white truck.

Barnes was able to find the knife and cut the zip ties around her leg. And when she ran for help, the first person she saw in this remote area happened to be a Kern County sheriff senior deputy on patrol named Steve Williams, who is interviewed in the documentary. Michael was found bound and gagged and severely injured but still alive when other law enforcement officers and medical help arrived. Michael had no known enemies. And without a good description of the kidnappers or their vehicle, the case was at a standstill.

But then, an observant neighbor who lived near the house where the home invasion took place reported to police that she saw suspicious activity at the house on the day that the home invasion took place. The neighbor, whose name is not revealed in the documentary, said that she saw three men, wearing construction gear in a white truck, go behind the house. The men took a ladder to go into the house, but she didn’t see the men come out of the house, and she didn’t see any construction work being done. The neighbor wrote down the truck’s license plate number and gave it to police.

This clue was an extremely lucky break that investgators needed. The license plate was for a truck registered to Kyle Handley, a marijuana dealer who casually knew Michael. Handley and Michael had gone on a high-roller trip to Las Vegas in the past but had lost touch with each other. Handley saw the large amounts of cash that Michael was spending on this Las Vegas trip and assumed that Michael was a millionaire.

Handley told his longtime friend Hossein Nayeri, another low-level marijuana dealer, about Michael’s supposed wealth. Handler, Nayeri and another friend named Ryan Kevorkian then plotted to kidnap Michael to rob him of at least $1 million in cash. Keep in mind that these criminals never actually had proof that Michael had that amount of cash. They just made that assumption.

Unbeknownst to Michael, these kidnappers had Michael under secret surveillance for several weeks, by using GPS tracking on Michael’s car and by installing hidden cameras on the street outside Michael’s house. The GPS tracked Michael driving to the Mohave Desert on multiple occasions, but these trips to the desert were actually to look at land for a potential real-estate deal—not to bury cash, like the kidnappers wrongly assumed. After Handley’s house was searched with a warrant, investigators found out about this surveillance and so much more, including the fact that Nayeri was the mastermind and chief planner for this home invasion, kidnapping and botched robbery.

This review won’t rehash all the details of this case, but it’s enough to say that there were plenty of twists and turns. Nayeri fled to his native Iran after he found out there was a warrant for his arrest. Iran does not extradite people who are wanted for U.S. criminal charges. With the help of Nayeri’s then-wife Cortney Shegerian, police lured him to the Czech Republic, where he was extradited back to the United States on charges of kidnapping, torture and aggravated mayhem. Nayeri was arrested on November 7, 2013.

Shegerian admitted that she knew about the robbery plans in advance but she claims that she didn’t know that anyone was going to be harmed. In exchange for not being arrested as an accomplice, Shegerian agreed to cooperate with investigators in providing evidence and getting Nayeri arrested. At the time all of this was going on, Shegerian had graduated from law school and had plans to be an attorney.

In a 2019 interview with “20/20” that is shown in this documentary, Shegerian claims that she was an abused wife who was brainwashed, manipulated and threatened by Nayeri, who is seven years older than she is. The former couple began dating when she was 16, and they got married in 2010, when she was 24. Her parents did not approve of Nayeri. Shegerian says that Nayeri kept her estranged and isolated from her family.

“I thought I loved him,” Shegerian says in the interview about Nayeri, whom she describes as cruel and sadistic but also very charismatic and persuasive. She currently works as an employment attorney and is a partner in a law firm in Los Angeles County. After her divorce from Nayeri, she married another man in 2018.

Even while in jail awaiting his trial, Nayeri wanted to evade the charges. On January 22, 2016, 37-year-old Nayeri and two other inmates—20-year-old Jonathan Tieu and 43-year-old Bac Duong—escaped from Orange County Men’s Central Jail in Santa Ana, California. The jailbreak inmates filmed themselves escaping. Some of this footage is in the documentary. The three prison escapees were all apprehended a week later in California.

Nayeri was convicted and sentenced in 2019. His accomplices Handley and Kevorkian also received prison sentences. Kevorkian’s ex-wife Naomi Rhodus was charged as an accessory after the fact. All of their courtroom sentences won’t be revealed in this review, in case people want to find out by watching this documentary or by looking at other news reports about this case. “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” doesn’t mention that in March 2023, Nayeri received an additional two years and eight months to his prison sentence because of his 2016 escape from jail.

What these four criminals have in common (besides this notorious case) is that they all knew each other from when they were students at Clovis West High School in Clovis, California, which is in Fresno County, about 275 miles north of Newport Beach. “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” interviews two people who knew Nayeri in high school, where he was on the wrestling team: his former wrestling teammate Paris Ruiz and former Clovis West High School head wrestling coach Brad Zimmer. They both describe Nayeri as being nice, intelligent and well-spoken in high school.

Ruiz and Zimmer say that Nayeri was an Iranian immigrant who was somewhat fanatical about wrestling because Nayeri said wrestling was a massive sport in Iran. They both say that Nayeri told people that his father was a doctor who lived for a while with his wife and children in the United States, but then the father moved back to Iran for reasons that Nayeri did not disclose to many people. Ruiz and Zimmer say that they rarely saw Nayeri’s mother.

“Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” also delves a little into Nayeri’s past as a U.S. Marine who was stationed at Camp Pendleton in California’s San Diego County. He had problems with authority, so his miltary career was short-lived. The documentary interviews his ex-girlfriend Jennifer Tindal, who dated Nayeri in the 2000s. She says that Nayeri went on a “downward spiral” after he caused the death of his best friend in a 2005 car accident where Nayeri was driving under the influence. Nayeri received a suspended sentence and a five-year probation for this crime.

Other people interviewed in the documentary are Heather Brown, former senior district attorney of Orange County, California; Ryan Peters, the former Newport Police Department detective who was part of the investigaton of the case; Lewis Rosenblum, who is Shegerian’s former attorney; Nayeri’s former defense attorneys Salvatore Ciulla and Martina Teinert; Los Angeles Times reporter Anh Do; and ABC News correspondent Matt Gutman. In 2019, Gutman’s interviewed Nayeri (before he went on trial) in the “20/20” episode about this case. Excerpts from that inteview are in the documentary.

Murphy describes Nayeri as a “psychopath” and is very open about his disgust for this convicted criminal. Gutman looks back on his interview with Nayeri and says he knew that Nayeri was trying to manipulate him the entire time. As an example of how charming Nayeri could be, his former defense attorney Teinert says she never saw the cruel side to him that many other people described. However, she tells a story about how after Nayeri complained about the lunch food in jail, she made a sandwich at home that she was going to give to him, and her husband pointed out that Nayeri was manipulating her.

“Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” has the usual true crime documentary use of dramatic music and heightened editing to create suspense in telling the story. But even over three episodes and using a lot of previously filmed footage, this docuseries still comes across as incomplete. There is so much emphasis put on Nayeri, the documentary gives almost no information about his accomplices. For example, there’s no mention of background information for Nayeri’s accomplices, what led these accomplices to a life of crime, and what their arrests were like.

It’s made very clear that Nayeri was the mastermind. However, he didn’t commit these crimes by himself. It’s an absolute failure of this documentary not to look at the entire story and not fully acknowledge that accomplices and enablers were a big part of this case too. After a while, “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” looks like “The Hossein Nayeri Show,” and that emphasis is just too tacky to take.

Hulu premiered “Wicked Game: Devil in the Desert” on February 4, 2025.

Review: ‘Brats’ (2024), starring Andrew McCarthy, Ally Sheedy, Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Timothy Hutton and Jon Cryer

June 8, 2024

by Carla Hay

Emilio Estevez and Andrew McCarthy in “Brats” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Neon/Hulu)

“Brats” (2024)

Directed by Andrew McCarthy

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Brats” features a predominantly white group of people (with two people of color) from the entertainment industry and the media discussing the so-called Brat Pack group of actors and actresses who were teen idols and breakout successes in the early-to-mid-1980s.

Culture Clash: The Brat Pack struggled with this nickname that was given to them in a 1985 New York magazine article, as members felt this label damaged the perception that they wanted to be taken seriously as actors.

Culture Audience: “Brats” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners, 1980s nostalgia and pop culture documentaries.

A 1985 photo of Rob Lowe and Andrew McCarthy in “Brats” (Photo courtesy of ABC News Studios/Neon/Hulu)

As a documentary, “Brats” offers an appealing blend of 1980s nostalgia, psychotherapy analysis and pop culture commentary in this forthright look at how members of the so-called Brat Pack were affected by this label that they did not want. “Brats” director Andrew McCarthy, who was a reluctant member of the Brat Pack, doesn’t make the movie a “where are they now” pity party of actors and actresses who became famous at a young age in the 1980s. Rather, “Brats” is about coming to terms with one’s past and learning some life lessons from experiences that can be seen with a different perspective that comes with wisdom and age. “Brats” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival.

As explained in the documentary, the Brat Pack was a description coined by journalist David Blum, who wrote a June 1985 cover story article for New York magazine about young up-and-coming actors and actresses who frequently co-starred in the same movies. The article was originally supposed to be a small feature profile of Emilio Estevez (Martin Sheen’s eldest child), who had co-starred in movies such as 1983’s “The Outsiders” and 1985’s “The Breakfast Club,” which was his breakout hit. Blum hung out with actors Estevez, Rob Lowe and Judd Nelson at various Los Angeles-area restaurants, bars and nightclubs and reported what he saw and heard.

When the article was published, it was a somewhat unflattering exposé about the Brat Pack being spoiled, entitled partiers who were more interested in fame than in the art of acting. In pop culture, almost all of the stars of the 1985 drama movie “St. Elmo’s Fire” were lumped into the Brat Pack group: Estevez, Lowe, Nelson, McCarthy, Ally Sheedy and Demi Moore, although Blum’s “Brat Pack” article actually named only male actors as members of the Brat Pack. “St. Elmo’s Fire” co-star Mare Winningham, who was never considered part of the Brat Pack, was spared from most of the tabloid coverage that the others received.

“St. Elmo’s Fire” (directed and co-written by Joel Schumacher, who died at age 80 in the year 2020) is considered the ultimate Brat Pack movie because it’s the only movie to star the most members of the Brat Pack, and it was the movie that came out around the same time as the notorious New York magazine article. “Brats” has a very telling clip from an archival “Entertainment Tonight” interview that Moore did (while in her character’s wardrobe) on the set of “St. Elmo’s Fire.” In the archival interview, Moore says that the stars of “St. Elmo’s Fire” played characters with personality traits that were very similar to the cast members’ personality traits in real life.

In “St. Elmo’s Fire,” the headlining cast members all portrayed a close group of friends who have recently graduated from Georgetown University and who like to hang out at a bar called St. Elmo’s. Estevez’s law student character Kirby Keager, a St. Elmo’s waiter, is the earnest overachiever and unofficial leader of the group, just as Estevez was described in the New York magazine article as the unofficial leader of the Brat Pack. Moore’s banker character Julianna “Jules” Van Patten is a “wild child” with a drug habit. In real life (and in the “Brats” documentary), Moore says her cocaine addiction was so well-known when she filmed “St. Elmo’s Fire,” she was ordered to have a “sober companion” on the set with her at all times, to prevent Moore from getting out of control with her drug use.

Lowe’s musician character William “Billy” Hicks (who plays saxophone in a rock band) is a heartthrob hooking up with several women, even though Billy is married. Lowe had the same playboy reputation, except Lowe was a bachelor in real life during his Brat Pack years. Winningham’s wealthy do-gooder character Wendy Beamish is in love with Billy and becomes one of his sexual conquests. Winningham also had a “clean” image in real life.

Nelson’s aspiring politician character Alec Newberry is another “bad boy” cheater, although Alec is much more discreet than Billy about committing infidelity. Nelson, just like Lowe, also had a reputation as a ladies’ man who loved to party in real life. Sheedy’s aspiring architect character Leslie Hunter is nice but insecure. Leslie is engaged to Alec and is reluctant to marry him because she suspects that Alec is cheating on her.

McCarthy’s writer/journalist character Kevin Dolenz is Kirby’s intellectual roommate. Kevin is publicly cynical about love but privately is secretly in love with Leslie. In real life, as seen in “Brats,” McCarthy says he had a crush on Sheedy when they filmed “St. Elmo’s Fire.” When McCarthy confesses this crush to Sheedy during the interview that she did for “Brats,” she has a hard time believing him because he seemed so emotionally aloof when they worked together. McCarthy agrees.

After this New York magazine article was published, the so-called Brat Pack members tried to avoid working with each other as much as possible because they thought the Brat Pack name was a stigma for their careers. Moore and Estevez, who were an on-again/off-again couple in the mid-1980s, were the exceptions to Brat Pack members who avoided working together during the Brat Pack heyday. Estevez and Moore were briefly engaged to each other, but their relationship ended around the same time that their 1986 co-starring movie “Wisdom” (which was written and directed by Estevez) was a huge flop. “Wisdom” and the failed romance of Estevez and Moore are not mentioned at all in “Brats.”

Molly Ringwald—who starred in a string of teen-oriented hit movies written by filmmaker John Hughes, such as 1984’s “Sixteen Candles,” 1985’s “The Breakfast Club” and 1986’s “Pretty in Pink”—was also considered to be part of the Brat Pack, even though she was never really a close friend with the other members, who were all in their 20s in the mid-1980s, while she was still a teenager. Ringwald declined to participate in the “Brats” documentary, according to McCarthy, who co-starred with Ringwald in “Pretty in Pink” and 1988’s “Fresh Horses.” Someone who is not mentioned at all in “Brats” but who is often considered part of the Brat Pack is Anthony Michael Hall, who was a teenager when he co-starred in “Sixteen Candles,” “The Breakfast Club” and Hughes’ 1985 comedy “Weird Science.” In 2009, Hughes died of a heart attack at the age of 59.

Nelson was elusive and the former Brat Packer who was the most difficult to contact for the “Brats” documentary, according to McCarthy, although the ending of “Brats” hints that Nelson eventually made contact with McCarthy by phone. Nelson is not interviewed in the movie, so it can be presumed he also declined to participate. Nelson’s absence from the “Brats” documentary isn’t a surprise. For decades, Nelson has generally shunned his association with the Brat Pack, except for when he does the occasional “Breakfast Club” reunion interview.

McCarthy does voiceover narration and interviewing for this documentary (his feature-film directorial debut), where he somewhat pretentiously wants to make to clear that he’s always been a serious actor from New York City. McCarthy drops quotes from playwrights Tennessee Willams and Eugene O’Neill, as if to prove he is well-versed in the work of theater artists. The Brat Pack actors and actresses interviewed for “Brats” are Estevez, Lowe, Moore and Sheedy, with McCarthy usually doing the interviews at the interviewees’ respective homes.

In “Brats,” McCarthy also debunks any false perceptions that the Brat Packers are close friends all these years later. And as if to prove a point about how much distance McCarthy put between himself and the other members of the Brat Pack, McCarthy mentions multiple times in “Brats” that he had not seen Estevez, Moore and Lowe in person for at least 30 years until he met up with them for this documentary. (Most of the interviews for the documentary were conducted in 2022.)

In the case of Estevez, McCarthy says he hadn’t seen Estevez since the “St. Elmo’s Fire” premiere in Los Angeles. McCarthy also says in the documentary (as he has in his 2021 memoir “Brat: An ’80s Story”) that he and Lowe were very competitive with each other at the height of their Brat Pack fame. In the “Brats” documentary, former rivals Lowe and McCarthy joke about how Lowe constantly meets Brat Pack fans who tell him they prefer McCarthy, while McCarthy constanly meets Brat Pack fans who tell him that they prefer Lowe.

Not surprisingly, Lowe and Moore (the two former Brat Packers with the most successful acting careers who are in this documentary) seem to be most at ease with the Brat Pack label. Estevez is still visibly uncomfortable with the Brat Pack label. Sheedy and McCarthy seem to have mixed feelings but have made as much peace as possible with this Brat Pack label.

Lowe expresses the most appreciation for how the Brat Pack movies changed some people’s lives and influenced the industry. Lowe and McCarthy both agree that it’s beautiful when fans express how much the Brat Pack movies changed their lives. Lowe puts a very positive spin on everything by saying that although the New York magazine article was “mean-spirited” and “an attempt to minimize our talents,” the benefits of Brat Pack fame outweighed any down sides.

Moore uses a lot of therapy lingo in discussing how she processed her Brat Pack fame. She says of the Brat pack label: “It didn’t really represent us.” However, Moore says pushing back against the Brat Pack label was “againstness” that just fed into any negativity and backlash that the Brat Packers got.

Estevez, who says he often turns down invitations to talk about his past at length, tells McCarthy in “Brats” why he agreed to do this documentary interview: “It was time we clear the air on a couple of things.” Estevez agrees with McCarthy’s assessment that the Brat Packers consciously avoided co-starring together in another large ensemble movie like “St. Elmo’s Fire” because of the Brat Pack label. “We would’ve been kryptonite to each other,” Estevez comments.

As for the Brat Pack media frenzy, Estevez states: “Was it something we benefited from? Maybe. But in the long run, we did not.” What’s missing from Estevez’s commentary is any acknowledgement that being the son of a famous actor certainly gave him advantages in the entertainment industry that he benefited from, long before the Brat Pack label existed. It seems a bit tone-deaf for Estevez to blame an unflattering magazine article for perhaps not getting some career opportunities when he already had more advantages and more opportunities than most actors will ever have.

Sheedy, one of the co-stars of “The Breakfast Club” (a comedy/drama about a group of high school students who spend a Saturday in detention), says that “The Breakfast Club” is the “gift that keeps on giving” because it’s the movie that she’s done that seems to have had the biggest impact on people. In “The Breakfast Club,” Sheedy had the role of Allison Reynolds, the “weird” misfit loner of the group. In real life, Sheedy says she related to Allison a lot because Sheedy describes herself as being a quiet misfit when she was in high school.

McCarthy says that he and other people with the Brat Pack label had their careers “branded, without any wiggle room.” McCarthy adds, “It was such a stigma, early on. Nobody wanted to be associated with it.” He later says to Sheedy about being a member of the so-called Brat Pack: “We were members of a club we never asked to join.”

The main “what if” question presented in “Brats” is: “What if the Brat Pack description had never been applied to this group?” On the one hand, McCarthy says that for years, he felt resentment over not getting the types of prestigious movie roles where he would get to work with A-list directors. On the other hand (a point that McCarthy says he has now more appreciation for in hindsight), the Brat Pack fame helped him to continue to work steadily for years as a well-paid actor, which is something that most actors never experience. And, by his own admission, McCarthy says his entree into the movie business was relatively quick and easy, compared to what most other actors experience.

What’s left unsaid but can be discerned from the conversations that McCarthy has with his interviewees is this indisputable truth: Being in a constant state of “career envy” is not a healthy place to be for anyone. Even if the people who were labeled as Brat Packers never had the Brat Pack label thrust upon them, they probably wouldn’t have had the types of careers that they saw some of their actor peers achieving. The reality is that people who call themselves actors rarely get to be a superstar like Tom Cruise or an Oscar winner like Sean Penn. (Cruise and Penn were listed as members of the Brat Pack in Blum’s 1985 article.) And just like in any profession, many people have highs and lows in their careers and can never go back to the highest of highs that they achieved.

Most people who’ve heard of the Brat Pack don’t know that Blum’s 1985 “Brat Pack” article also listed Nicolas Cage as a member of the Brat Pack. Cage, who is a member of the famous Coppola filmmaking family, was described in the article as the “ethnic” Brat Packer because of Cage’s Italian American heritage. Cage would go on win to an Oscar for Best Actor (for the 1995 alcoholism drama “Leaving Las Vegas”) and has had a career with its share of ups and downs. However, Cage’s career was certainly not defined or branded by what Blum wrote in that “Brat Pack” article. The “Brats” documentary does not mention Cage at all because Cage is proof of someone who was able to transcend the Brat Pack label.

Lauren Shuler Donner, a longtime successful film producer whose credits include “St. Elmo’s Fire” and “Pretty and Pink,” is interviewed in “Brats” and has the best attitude of all the “Brats” interviewees about the Brat Pack label. She tells McCarthy what she thought of the Brat Pack label and everyone associated with the Brat Pack: “It distinguished us. I thought it was fabulous. I thought, ‘Aren’t these guys lucky? Aren’t these guys talented?'”

Also interviewed are three “Brat Pack adjacent” actors: Jon Cryer, a co-star of “Pretty in Pink”; Timothy Hutton, who won a best supporting actor Oscar for 1980’s “Ordinary People”; and Lea Thompson, who is best known for her role in 1985’s “Back to the Future.” Hutton, who is interviewed at his farm in New York state, doesn’t have much that’s interesting to say in this documentary. (It should be noted that Hutton was also mentioned as a Brat Packer in Blum’s article, but Hutton’s career had already started to decline by 1985.) In “Brats,” Cryer mostly reminisces with McCarthy about filming “Pretty in Pink,” which famously had its original ending drastically changed after audiences at test screenings expressed extreme dislike for the original ending. Thompson’s comments are mostly about the Brat Pack movies’ influences on young people.

Pop culture journalists (including Blum) and filmmakers also weigh in with their thoughts on the Brat Pack. They include “Pretty in Pink” director Howard Deutch, who is married to Thompson; author Bret Easton Ellis (“Less Than Zero”); film critic Kate Erbland; screenwriter Michael Oates Palmer (“The West Wing”); pop culture critic Ira Madison III; journalist/author Malcolm Gladwell; talent manager Loree Rodkin; casting director Marci Liroff; and journalist Susannah Gora, author of “You Couldn’t Ignore Me If You Tried: The Brat Pack, John Hughes, and Their Impact on a Generation.”

When McCarthy interviews Blum for this documentary, Blum also seems to have mixed feelings about what the term Brat Pack did to people’s careers, including his own. Blum expresses pride and no regrets over creating this Brat Pack description, which was a riff on the Rat Pack clique consisting of Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, Dean Martin and Joey Bishop. (In the “Brats” documentary, McCarthy and Lowe tell a quick and amusing story about how they met Liza Minnelli at the original Spago restaurant sometime in 1985, and she took them to Davis’ house to meet Davis, who served them drinks and complimented McCarthy and Lowe. It was a “Rat Pack meets Brat Pack” moment, says McCarthy.) However, Blum admits that he created the label Brat Pack with the hope that his career would advance too. Based on the results, Blum (ironically, just like McCarthy) doesn’t think it helped his career and might have pigeonholed him as his main claim to fame.

The “Brats” documentary has a brief mention of the Brat Pack’s lack of racial diversity being a sign of the times, when on-screen entertainment was much more racially segregated than it is now. However, Madison (who is African American) and Gladwell (who is a biracial British Canadian) both say that people of color are so accustomed to seeing white-oriented entertainment, the Brat Pack movies just represent this reality. (And the reality is that there are many white people who only have white friends, as seen in Brat Pack movies.) Regardless of race, the Brat Pack movies had character personalities that people of any race could relate to on a human level. The main cultural divides in Brat Pack movies had to do with social class and popularity, not race.

The “Brats” documentary tends to overstate how “pioneering” the Brat Pack was in the 1980s. The Brat Packers certainly were never the biggest teen idols of all time. And none of the Brat Pack movies came close to being 1980s blockbusters such as megahits “E.T: The Extraterrestrial,” “Back to the Future” or “Top Gun.” In fact, many of the Brat Pack movies had middling success at the box office or were outright bombs. The documentary doesn’t mention Brat Pack movie flops such as “Wisdom,” “Fresh Horses,” 1984’s “Oxford Blues” and 1986’s “Blue City.”

Lowe has the biggest ego of the former Brat Packers when he claims that entertainment launched in the 21st century—such as the youth-oriented CW network and teen-oriented TV shows like “Glee”—would not have existed without the Brat Pack. (None of the Brat Packers had anything to do with creating the CW or “Glee,” by the way.) Lowe admits that the Brat Pack wasn’t as big as the Beatles, but he speculates that at the height of the Brat Pack craze, it’s possible the Brat Pack could have sold out Shea Stadium in New York, like the Beatles did.

The “Brats” documentary gives proper context to the 1980s boom of movies centered on teenagers and people in their early 20s. But the documentary ignores that there was also a proliferation of youth-oriented movies in the 1950s and early 1960s. “Back to the Future” co-star Thompson correctly points out the main difference between the youth-oriented movies of the 1980s and those in previous decades was that these 1980s movies were the first to benefit from being released on home video within a year of their theatrical releases. The home video releases extended the influences of these movies and made it easier for Generation X (people who were in their teens and 20s in the 1980s and 1990s) and younger generations to discover these films and watch these movies repeatedly in ways that weren’t possible before the invention of home video.

“Brats” has the expected archival footage of film clips and interviews. The documentary includes a somewhat amusing archival clip from the after-party of the “Pretty in Pink” movie premiere in Los Angeles. In this archival clip, an uncomfortable-looking McCarthy and “Pretty in Pink” co-star James Spader are being interviewed for MTV by Fee Waybill, the lead singer of the Tubes, whose solo song “Saved My Life” was on the “Pretty in Pink” soundtrack.

It’s obvious from this interview that McCarthy’s discomfort with the Brat Pack label was part of a larger issue that McCarthy had with fame. In the “Brats” documentary, McCarthy says of how he felt at the “Pretty in Pink” premiere: “That night encapsulates my career: thrilled but terrified.” McCarthy adds that he also remembers getting very drunk that night.

“Brats” also mentions the importance of soundtrack music from certain Brat Pack movies. Hughes (who directed “Sixteen Candles” and “The Breakfast Club”) put a lot of his favorite artists on his movie soundtracks, which is why these soundtracks often had European artists who had their international breakthroughs and biggest hits because of being on these soundtracks. For example: Simple Minds’ “Don’t You (Forget About Me)” from “The Breakfast Club” soundtrack and OMD’s “If You Leave” from the “Pretty in Pink” soundtrack. The “St. Elmo’s Fire” soundtrack (which had North American and British artists) was notable for hits such as John Parr’s title track and David Foster’s instrumental “Love Theme From St. Elmo’s Fire.”

Although some of the former Brat Pack members (including McCarthy) do a little bit of whining about their fame and success, most of the “Brats” documentary is a thoughtful reflection of how self-images and careers were affected by other people’s perceptions of the Brat Pack. The movie purposefully avoids the former Brat Packers telling wild tales of 1980s excesses, although McCarthy does briefly allude to his alcoholism and recovery, which he went public about years ago. (Some former members of the Brat Pack—such as McCarthy, Lowe and Moore—have memoirs where they’ve shared some of their stories about substance abuse and decadence.) What will resonate most with viewers of “Brats” is the acknowledgement that emotional maturity and self-identity can be difficult journeys for many people, regardless if they are famous or not.

Hulu will premiere “Brats” on June 13, 2024.

Review: ‘Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge,’ starring Diane von Furstenberg

June 7, 2024

by Carla Hay

“Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge”

Directed by Trish Dalton and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

Some language in French with subtitles

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” features a predominantly white group of people (with a few black people and Asians) from the fashion and entertainment industries discussing the life and career of fashion designer/mogul Diane von Furstenberg.

Culture Clash: Diane von Furstenberg battled against sexism and antisemitism and became one of the few female owners of a major fashion company in the 1970s, but her complicated personal life has had a lot of chaos and heartbreak.

Culture Audience: Besides appealing to the obvious target audience of Diane von Furstenberg fans, “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching documentaries about the fashion industry, celebrities and feminists who conquered a male-dominated field.

Diane von Furstenberg, Talita von Furstenberg and Morgan Hill in “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” (Photo courtesy of Hulu/Disney)

“Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” is a definitive visual biography about the trailblazing fashion designer/mogul Diane von Furstenberg, who is candid about her personal life and career. Her charisma and unconventionality make this very conventionally formatted documentary shine. Because she’s been open about many aspects of her life over the years (including her 2014 memoir “The Woman I Wanted to a Be”), there isn’t too much revealed about von Furstenberg in this movie that she hasn’t already revealed about herself. However, von Furstenberg’s hindsight gives the documentary a richer perspective of her life, as she is equally comfortable discussing her past and her present, while looking ahead to her future.

Directed by Trish Dalton and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” had its world premiere at the 2024 Tribeca Festival. “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” is also the name of an installation that went on display in New York City in June 2024. The installation could be considered an extension of the documentary and vice versa,

The documentary begins by showing a 1980s clip from an interview that von Furstenberg did with David Letterman. In the interview, he’s somewhat condescending, as he tries to make it sound like von Furstenberg was a “one-hit wonder,” whose claim to fame was inventing the wrap dress and being previously married to a prince (Egon von Furstenberg). The rest of the the documentary shows that Diane was far from a one-hit wonder but has actually been a master of reinvention and staying relevant in fickle industries. And even though she was married to a prince, her life has been far from being like a fairy tale.

Born to Jewish parents on December 31, 1946, in Brussels, Belgium, her birth name was Diane Simone Michele Halfin. Her mother Liliane, also known as Lily, is discussed a lot in the documentary as Diane’s biggest life mentor, but von Furstenberg barely mentions her father. As a child of Holocaust survivors (Lily survived the notorious Auschwitz death camp), von Furstenberg said the Holocaust wasn’t discussed in her family, but she learned from her mother what would become a lifelong motto about survival: “Fear is not an option.”

In the documentary, von Furstenberg (who is an only child) talks about how her mother was told by doctors that her child wouldn’t live. In a sense, von Furstenberg’s entire life snce birth has been about beating the odds and defying people’s expectations. She says in the documentary that her mother taught her to be fearless and independent. “She wanted to equip me, in case I needed to live the way that she lived.” And that meant growing up fast.

Here parents’ marriage fell apart when Lily left the family to be with another man. Diane, who was a teenager at the time, was sent to live in a boarding school. In the documentary, Diane doesn’t express any bitterness about this family turmoil and says that being sent to boarding school was probably the best thing that could have happened to her during this time. It was at boarding school where Diane (who describes herself as sexually fluid) says she fell in love for the first time with a man and with a woman and had affairs with both sexes.

A recurring theme in the documentary is that Diane is someone who doesn’t like restrictions placed on her, whether these restrictions are traditional gender roles, monogamy or whatever she wants to do with her life. She has gotten pushback and criticism from some people for how she has lived. However, even with her constant battle to retain these personal freedoms, she has a tendency to want to escape or be in denial when life gets too difficult for her, by her own admission.

In the documentary, Diane describes her first husband Egon (a German prince), whom she married in 1969, as a magnetic charmer who swept her off of her feet in a passionate love affair. At the time, it was considered somewhat scandalous for this German prince to marry a middle-class Jewish woman. Diane also describes the antisemitism of Egon’s father, who would refer to Diane’s and Egon’s two children—Alexander (born in 1970) and Tatiana (born in 1971)—as the “little Jews.” Diane says when she was pregnant with Alexander, also known as Alex, she told her unborn child, “We’ll show them.”

Alex and Tatiana are both interviewed in the documentary. They describe their mother as not beng very attentive when they were children, but she taught them to be more independent than most kids their age. Tatiana says that Diane’s style of parenting can ether be considered “neglectful” or “free.” Diane admits that she was a very non-traditional mother whose was busy running a business and having a very active social life where her children were not necessarily her biggest priority, even though her love for them always existed. Lily has the main child caretaker of Alex and Tatiana. Diane also shares painful memories about Lily having a mental breakdown.

In the early 1970s, Diane says she and Egon (who was also openly bisexual) were living in New York City and were fully immersed in a celebrity lifestyle of parties and swinging in their open marriage. Diane describes Egon as being more promiscuous than she was and the reason why they separated in 1972 eventually got divorced in 1983. Egon died of AIDS in 2004, at age 57. In the documentary, the family’s devastation over his death is discussed by Diane, Egon and Tatiana.

Alex says in the documentary that it wasn’t unusual to see famous people spend the night. Diane doesn’t name drop a lot about who her famous lovers were, but she mentions that she slept with Ryan O’Neal and Warren Beatty separately on the same weekend. And she says that Mick Jagger and David Bowie propositioned her to have a threesome with them, but she turned down this offer.

Diane says of the end of her first marriage: “Divorce, for me, was freedom … I became the woman I wanted to be … I was the woman in charge.” Her split from Egon also coincided with the rise of Diane as a designer and a business mogul in the fashion industry during a period of time when it was highly unusual for a woman to be either or both.

The documentary retells the well-known stories behind the wrap dress (which Diane invented in 1974) and Diane’s meteoric rise in the fashion industry with her self-titled fashion brand, also known as DVF. Diane says she initially got the inspiration for the wrap dress from wrap blouses that ballerinas would wear. When Diane saw Richard Nixon’s daughter Tricia Nixon wear a DVF wrap blouse over a skirt during the 1973 Watergate scandal, Diane got the idea to make a wrap dress. It became worldwide sensation and was popular because it looked like high fashion but was affordable.

And for someone who considers herself a fiercely independent feminist, a few close friends (such as writer Fran Lebowitz) say in the documentary that there have been periods in Diane’s life when Diane transformed herself to be more compatible with whichever man she was in a serious relationship with at the time. When Diane was married to Egon, she was the jetset and glamorous princess wife that she was expected to be.

Later, her photographer friend Peter Arnell says that when Diane was having problems with her business and her love life in the 1980s, she escaped from her problems by doing a lot of traveling. Her love affair with Italian writer Alain Elkann resulted in Diane dressing differently, by changing her wardrobe from her signature bright prints to more toned-down and conservative clothes that university intellectuals tend to wear. In her current phase, she has been part of a power couple since her love affair with billionaire entertainment mogul Barry Diller, who is interviewed in the documentary and whom Diane describes as her “soul mate.” Diane and Diller (who also identifies as sexually fluid) eloped in 2001, after meeting in the mid-1970s and being in an on-again/off-again romance since the 1980s.

Even though Diane preaches having a fearless attitude, she also expresses some vulnerability when she says that she doesn’t like going back to Brussels. “I feel really sad in Brussels,” she says. “Every time I come back, I feel small again.” She is vague about how she overcame business difficulties. (The closure of DVF stores in 2020 is not mentioned at all in the documentary.) However, she gives credit to good timing that wrap dresses became popular again in the 2000s.

“Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” has an eclectic mix of people interviewed. They include media mogul Oprah Winfrey, former U.S. first lady/politician Hillary Rodham Clinton, artist Anh Duong, model Karlie Kloss, Diane’s friend Olivier Gelbsman, former British Vogue editor-in-chief Edward Enninful, makeup artist Gigi Williams, former Interview editor Bob Colacello, fashion designer Christian Louboutin, former DV creative director Nathan Jenden, author Linda Bird Franke, New York Times fashion writer Vanessa Friedman, “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” installation curator Nicolas Lor, “Diane von Furstenberg: A Life Unwrapped” author Gioia Diliberto, Nobel Prize winner Nadia Murad, George Washington University international affairs professor Muqaddesa Yourish, spritual guru Deepak Chopra, TV host Seth Meyers, and Diane’s grandchildren Talita von Furstenberg, Tassilo von Furstenberg and Antonia Stenberg.

At an age when most people have retired, Diane says she has no intention of retiring anytime soon. In the documentary Close friends and family members describe her as having more energy than most people who are decades younger than Diane is. Unlike many people in the fashion/beauty industry, Diane also says she’s not afraid of being old.

There’s a scene early on in the movie where Diane climbs into a bathroom sink while she does her own makeup. She declares, “I do not understand why people do not embrace age. You shouldn’t say how old you are. You should say how long you have lived. If you take away wrinkles, you take away the map of your life. I don’t want to erase anything from life.”

in the documentary, Diane also says that her decision to sell her products on QVC, as of 1996, was one of the best business decisions she could’ve made—even though she got a lot of criticism for it by many people at the time who thought this QVC association would ruin the DVF brand. Nowadays, it’s not unusual for a designer with haute couture experience to partner with a low-priced retailer for business ventures. Diane’s ability to be relatable to the “1%” in high society and the rest of the “99%” of society has a lot to do with her longevity and popularity. “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” is a reflection of this wide appeal, since it’s a documentary that can be enjoyed for its celebration of the human spirit—regardless of how much or how little viewers care about fashion.

Hulu will premiere “Diane von Furstenberg: Woman in Charge” on June 25, 2024.

Review: ‘Cypher’ (2023), starring Tierra Whack

June 17, 2023

by Carla Hay

“Cypher” (2023)

Directed by Chris Moukarbel

Culture Representation: Taking place from 2019 to 2021, in various parts of the U.S., the comedy mockumentary film “Cypher” features a predominantly African American cast of characters (with some white people, Asians and Latinos) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: Real-life rapper Tierra Whack becomes the target of a conspiracy-theory cult.

Culture Audience: “Cypher” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of Tierra Whack, hip-hop culture and movies that poke fun at how social media plays a role in how celebrities are perceived and how they interact with fans.

“Cypher” is an inconsistent but mildly interesting mockumentary starring real-life rapper Tierra Whack as herself. The movie could have done more with its conspiracy cult storyline, but what’s there is fairly amusing. “Cypher” had its world premiere at the 2023 Tribeca Festival, where became the first mockumentary to win the festival’s Founders Award for Best U.S. Narrative Feature. It’s the top prize at the Tribeca Festival. And this top prize might lead viewers to believe that “Cypher” is a prestigious film. It’s not.

“Cypher” (written and directed by Chris Moukarbel) is nowhere near the level of an Oscar-worthy film. It’s not even the type of movie that will win any MTV Awards. It’s a moderately entertaining mockumentary to watch for people who like or have tolerance for hip-hop culture. Everyone else will be bored or turned off by this hit-and-miss comedy. As far as music-industry mockumentaries go, if 1984’s “This Is Spinal Tap” is the gold standard, then “Cypher” is like imitation bronze. Imitation bronze has a purpose, but just don’t expect it to be gold.

As many music celebrity mockumentaries tend to do, a great deal of “Cypher” shows the artist on tour. The movie’s title is explained by an on-screen caption saying that the definition of “cypher” is “a gathering of rappers freestyling together in a circle.” The beginning of “Cypher” has the obligatory backstory on Tierra Whack (yes, that’s her real name), who was born in 1995. For the purposes of this review, the Tierra Whack character in the movie will be referred to as Tierra. The real-life Tierra Whack will be referred to as Whack.

From an early age, as Tierra says in an “interview” for the movie, she was introduced to hip-hop by her mother. She also started writing poetry while still in elementary school, which led to her being a freestyle battle rapper in her hometown of Philadelphia. At age 15, one of her rap videos went viral, and she became an Internet sensation. (Nyla Naveah has the role of teenage Tierra.) Tierra got a record deal as a direct result of her Internet fame.

Just as in real life, “Cypher” shows that Tierra’s debut album “Whack World” (released in 2018) became a hit, and she became a fan fave of other music celebrities. The movie has snippets of artists such as Rihanna, Cardi B and Billie Eilish praising Tierra Whack. “Cypher” is supposed to take place from 2019 to 2021, but some of the timeline looks off in the movie.

Tierra’s entourage consists mostly of people under the age of 35. They include her co-managers Kenete Sims and Johnny Montina; hair stylist Jamilah Curry; makeup artist Camille Lawrence; and photographer Nick Canonica. A few music producers who are “interviewed” in the film include Warren “Oak” Felder and Jay Melodic. All of them play versions of themselves in “Cypher” and say the usual sycophantic things about Tierra that people would say about celebrities who are paying their salaries.

“Cypher” director Moukarbel can occasionally be heard (but is never seen) on screen talking to the people he’s interviewing for the movie. “This Is Spinal Tap” director Rob Reiner played mockumentary director Marty DiBergi in “This Is Spinal Tap.” Moukarbel does not make his presence in “Cypher” compelling or amusing. In other words, there is no Marty DiBergi-type director character in “Cypher.”

However, film producer Natalia-Leigh Brown portrays herself as a producer of this mockumentary. (In real life, Brown is not a producer of “Cypher.”) The Natalia-Leigh character is intensely driven and, in many ways, seems more in charge of the movie than the director. Viewers will either find her kind of hilarious or really annoying.

“Cypher” wastes some time with repetitive “goofing off on tour” footage from 2019. After a concert in Philadelphia, Tierra falls off the stage and mildly injures herself. She’s mostly embarrassed instead of hurt by anything physical from this tumble. After the concert, she and her entourage are hanging out at a diner when Tierra meets a 58-year-old woman named Tina Johnson Banner (played by Chris Anthony), who claims to be a devoted fan of Tierra.

Tina seems shy and hesitant at first when she approaches Tierra, who invites Tina to sit next to her at the table. This scene cuts back and forth between the conversation that Tina and Tierra are having by themselves and the innocuous conversation that members of Tierra’s entourage are having at a nearby separate table. It isn’t long before Tina starts to get weird and makes Tierra feel uncomfortable.

Tina gives a rambling monologue about sounds influencing people’s thoughts. She says there’s a video that explains everything. At this point, Tierra is done with the conversation and politely but firmly tells Tina that it was nice meeting her, but Tina needs to leave Tierra alone now. Tina is reluctant to leave, but before she does, Tina makes these cryptic comments to Tierra: “Watch the video” and “Don’t let them use you.”

At first, Tierra thinks this was just a harmless encounter with an offbeat fan. But then, Tina sends Tierra a bizarre video about belonging to a group called Warren, which has worked for years to decipher a document called the True Vision Manuscript that they discovered in the early 20th century. The True Vision Manuscript was supposed to be written by a secret society in Europe called Oculus, an offshoot of the Freemasons. Part of the True Vision Manuscript translation says that there’s a “chosen one” who has to pluck an eyebrow hair to gain true powers.

It’s at this point in “Cypher” that viewers will be turned off from or intrigued by finding out more about this mystery. And things get weirder. Tierra finds out that Tina has gone missing. Tina’s young adult daughter Marigold Johnson (played by Bionca Bradley) has been going on social media blaming Tierra for Tina’s disappearance, because Tierra was the last-known person to have seen Tina. Police start to investigate.

Tierra wants to find out the truth too, partly to clear her name, and partly out of curiosity. During this investigation, Tierra and her entourage find videos online or elsewhere, showing that Tierra and her entourage have been filmed with hidden video cameras by an unknown stalker or stalkers. The rest of the movie then becomes a tangled web of solving the mystery of not only Tina’s disappearance but also the translation of the True Vision Manuscript.

It should come as no surprise that Warren is a cult-like group that’s obsessed with the True Vision Manuscript, which is believed to hold the answers to a conspiracy. Tierra says she doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories. Where “Cypher” falters a little bit is that it can’t quite keep the momentum of the mystery going in a consistent way, resulting in a shift in the movie’s tone that’s sometimes awkward. One minute, Tierra is acting like a hip-hop Nancy Drew. The next minute, she’s preoccupied with recording her next album.

Luckily for “Cypher,” Whack is a natural actress who often holds scenes together when other people in the scene are acting a little too fake and corny. It might seem easy to play a version of yourself in a movie, but it’s actually much harder to do this type of performance in a mockumentary. Except for the over-the-top conspiracy cult part of the plot, much of this mockumentary could pass for a real documentary.

The choppy editing and shaky camera work in “Cypher” is intended to make the movie look hastily compiled, as if the information in the movie is too urgent to wait for more polished editing. “Cypher” is not a must-see film for mockumentary enthusiasts. However, it’s worth checking out for viewers who are up for a fairly bizarre ride that mixes music-industry shenanigans with conspiracy-theory investigations.

UPDATE: Hulu will premiere “Cypher” on November 24, 2023, the same date that the movie will premiere in select U.S. cinemas.

Review: ‘Bruiser’ (2022), starring Jalyn Hall, Trevante Rhodes, Shamier Anderson and Shinelle Azoroh

December 8, 2022

by Carla Hay

Jalyn Hall and Trevante Rhodes in “Bruiser” (Photo courtesy of Onyx Collective)

“Bruiser” (2022)

Directed by Miles Warren

Culture Representation: Taking place in the fictional city of Evans, Texas (and briefly in Dallas), the dramatic film “Bruiser” features a cast of African American, white and Latino characters representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: A 14-year-old boy from a middle-class family is charmed into rebelling against his parents by a drifter in his 30s who has a criminal record and a connection to the boy’s past.

Culture Audience: “Bruiser” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching low-budget and capably made dramas that explore issues about father-son bonding, family trust and teen rebellion.

Pictured in front: Jalyn Hall, Shinelle Azoroh and Shamier Anderson in “Bruiser” (Photo by Dan Anderson/Hulu)

Troubled relationships between fathers and sons is not a new concept, but “Bruiser” presents it in a thoughtful and artistic way. Although this drama’s story has a big secret that’s easy to figure out, not everything in the movie is predictable. The movie excels in authentically portraying the vulnerabilities of teenagers looking for an identity and independence from family members, as well as how these family dynamics can quickly get messy from miscommunication.

“Bruiser” is the feature-film debut of Miles Warren, who based the movie on his short film of the same name. Warren and Ben Medina co-wrote the feature-length “Bruiser” screenplay. “Bruiser,” the first feature film from Disney-owned Onyx Collective, had its world premiere at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival, followed by a U.S. premiere at AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It’s not a flashy movie, but it has a compelling, low-budget style that draws viewers into the world of the film’s characters that are realistically portrayed by a talented cast.

In “Bruiser,” the protagonist is 14-year-old Darious Garter (played by Jalyn Hall), who is in eighth grade at a private boarding school in Dallas called St. Andrew. It’s the type of school where the students are required to wear uniforms. Darious is quiet and somewhat introverted. He likes to draw and he has a relatively happy home life, until he meets someone who disrupts Darious’ perception of his family.

At the beginning of “Bruiser,” Darious is on a summer break from school. He has a sort-of girlfriend named Mia (played by Sarah Bock) who comes from a privileged family going to Greece for their summer vacation. Darious is on a financial scholarship to attend St. Andrew. His stepfather Malcolm Garter (played by Shamier Anderson) owns a car dealership called Garter Motors, where Malcolm is the chief salesperson. The dealership has been financially struggling, but Malcolm wants to keep it a secret from Darious and Darious’ mother Monica (played by Shinelle Azoroh), who’s a homemaker.

Monica is the one who picks up Darious from school to drive them back home to Evans, Texas, a rural suburb of Dallas. Darious is feeling restless because he prefers to live in a big city, and he’s already pining for Mia, whom he finds out later isn’t as into him as much as he’s into her. Monica cheerfully tells Darious on the ride back to their home, “Your father and I are so proud of you.”

Darious is mopey though, because he tells his mother that he’s going to be very bored in Evans on this summer vacation. During the ride home, Monica plays her favorite song: Otis Redding’s “Cigarettes and Coffee.” Darious teases his mother about how she always like to play that song, but she laughs off this good-natured ribbing and tells Darious that the song makes her feel happy. It won’t be the last time that “Cigarettes and Coffee” is heard in the movie, which uses the song as a symbol for conjuring up positive feelings.

Back at home, Darious is disappointed when he asks Malcolm if he can have a new bicycle, because he thinks his current bicycle is now too small for him. Malcolm firmly tells Darious no. Darious thinks Malcolm is being unreasonable. What Malcolm doesn’t tell Darious is that he can’t afford to give Darious a new bicycle.

Malcolm soon gets some bad news that he also keeps a secret from Darious and Monica: A St. Andrew school official has called and told Malcolm that Darious’ financial-aid scholarship is being cancelled. Ever the salesman, Malcolm urges the school to seek out other options and says that he expects the school to “make it work” so that Darious (who is a good student) can continue to attend the school on a scholarship.

It’s never been a secret that Malcolm is not Darious’ biological father, but Malcolm is the only father whom Darious has ever known. Darious’ biological father, who abandoned Monica while she was pregnant with Darious, has not been in Darious life ever since. Malcolm and Monica got married not long after Darious was born. Malcolm’s parenting style is loving but strict and stubborn and sometimes quick-tempered, while Monica tends to be more of a calm peacemaker who’s willing to listen and negotiate during a dispute.

Darious tries to reconnect with his hometown friends, but he doesn’t feel as close to them as he used to be. He’s still on good terms with a platonic pal named June (played by Ava Ryback), but Darious starts to have problems with a slightly older teen named Jason (played by Gavin Munn), who’s in the same clique as June. The movie has some subtle and not-so-subtle indications about social-class prejudices, because Darious doesn’t think that that his hometown friends are interesting or sophisticated as his friends at the boarding school.

One day, while hanging out in a woodsy area, Jason starts playfully roughhousing with Darious. The roughhousing turns into a full-on assault, with Jason beating up Darious for no good reason. However, it’s fairly obvious that Jason is jealous that Darious goes to a boarding school, but Jason doesn’t want to admit that to anyone.

A humiliated Darious runs away to a stream to clean up his bloodied face. Near this stream, he encounters a guy living in the houseboat that belonged to a wealthy man in the area named Mr. John. The stranger, who is in his 30s, starts talking to Darious, introduces himself as Porter (played by Trevante Rhodes), and asks Darious who his father is. When Darious tells him, Porter has a look of recognition on his face and says that he knows Malcolm because they both used to work for Mr. John, who committed suicide.

Porter also notices the injuries on Darious’ face and asks what happened. When Darious tells him, Porter advises Darious to learn how to physically fight back against bullies. Porter wonders out loud to Darious what kind of father Malcolm is if Malcolm hasn’t taught Darious how to defend himself in a fight. It’s a foreshadowing of some of the conflicts to come between Porter and Malcolm.

It should come as no surprise that Porter is far from being a role model. He’s living on the houseboat illegally after leaving Las Vegas under suspicious circumstance. And he has a violent and shady past. However, Darious doesn’t know all of that when he first meets Porter, so Darious is intrigued by this tattooed stranger.

During their first meeting, Darious calls Porter “weird.” But over time, as Darious starts to become emotionally distant from Malcolm, Darious seeks out Porter’s company. And it isn’t long before Darious starts calling Porter “cool.”

Porter and Malcolm really do know each other but haven’t seen each other in years. It’s for the most obvious reason possible. Darious eventually finds out this “secret” and discovers that Malcolm wasn’t quite the upstanding citizen that he is now.

Much of “Bruiser” is about the tug-of-war between Porter and Malcolm, as they compete for Darious’ respect, time and attention. Some of this conflict gets very repetitive in the movie, but the pacing and plot developments do a very good job on effectively increasing the tension. It should come as no surprise that things between Porter and Malcolm get worse, with Darious caught in the middle.

One of the best things about “Bruiser” is how it realistically shows that these characters are not stereotypes. There are no absolute “heroes” or “villains” in the story of these feuding men. Porter does a lot of irresponsible things and has a violent past, but he has a noble motive for wanting to be in Malcolm’s life and to prove that he’s not the criminal that he used to be.

Malcolm is a very responsible parent, but his ultra-competitiveness with Porter makes Malcolm lose control and do some irrational things too. Monica tries to be a mediator in the increasingly hostile disputes between Malcolm and Porter. Ultimately, she’s completely loyal to Malcolm.

And where does that leave Darious? Feeling like underage teens often feel: Old enough to make his own decisions but too young to legally be out of his parents’ control. It leads to an emotionally volatile showdown that viewers will see coming, but how it all ends in the movie might not be what most viewers will expect.

Warren’s direction shows that he has a keen eye for casting the right people and allowing time for viewers to get to know the characters in an immersive way. The movie’s dialogue can be a tad simplistic, but it works as well as it does because the actors embody their characters in a way that’s utterly believable. Hall, Anderson and Rhodes give “Bruiser” the spirited energy of portraying two strong-willed men and an impressionable teenage boy who are all battling in some way with insecurities, macho bravado, and what their definitions are to be men.

Most of all, it’s a movie that succeeds in depicting gritty realism and rosy optimism in how people judge what it mean to be redeemable. “Bruiser” doesn’t offer any easy answers. The movie shows how destructive cycles can be difficult to break when they involve several people. But the movie also sends a clear message about the power of individual responsibility and how someone else’s past shouldn’t completely define it.

Onyx Collective released “Bruiser” in select U.S. cinemas for a limited one-week engagement on December 2, 2022. “Bruiser” will premiere on Hulu in the U.S., Star+ in Latin America, and Disney+ in all other territories on February 24, 2023.

2022 American Music Awards: Taylor Swift is the top winner

November 20, 2022

The following is a press release from ABC:

Taylor Swift at the 2022 American Music Awards at the the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles on Nvoember 20, 2022 (Photo courtesy of ABC)

Taylor Swift broke her own record of the most wins of any artist in the history of the American Music Awards Sunday night by clinching the top spot in the winner’s circle with six wins at the “2022 American Music Awards” (AMAs), to bring her total count to 40 wins. The year’s hottest night in music represents top achievements in music determined by the fans, for the fans. Hosted by Wayne Brady, the thrilling evening filled with world premiere performances and pop-culture moments aired live on ABC from the Microsoft Theater at L.A. LIVE in Los Angeles.

Show highlights included the following:

Eight-time AMA nominee P!NK skated in from the streets of Los Angeles for an epic start to the AMAs, opening the show with a powerful world premiere performance of her brand-new single “Never Gonna Not Dance Again.” She later graced the stage for a moving and powerful performance of “Hopelessly Devoted To You” dedicated to the inspirational life and career of 10-time AMA winner Olivia Newton-John.
This year’s AMA host Wayne Brady bantered with the audience, singing about how he prepared to host the AMAs in his opening monologue. Brady also tapped into his “Dancing With The Stars” skills to perform a number alongside his current DWTS partner, Witney Carson. Later in the show, Brady tapped into members of his audience including Niecy Nash-Betts for a random selection of words, which he used to improvise a rap on stage.
Two-time nominee Bebe Rexha made her U.S. television performance debut of her global smash hit “I’m Good (Blue)” in an out of this world futuristic performance.
Global superstar and Favorite Female Latin Artist winner Anitta made her AMAs stage debut with her smash hit “Envolver” and was joined by two-time AMA winner Missy Elliott who surprised fans hitting the stage to join Anitta for “Lobby.” The two danced through a hotel lobby celebrating the first-ever performance of their smash hit.
Country superstar, 17-time AMA winner and all-time Favorite Country Album record-holder Carrie Underwood flew through the theater on a neon orb to the stage to perform her hittrack “Crazy Angels.”
First-time nominee GloRilla made her AMAs stage debut with a surprise performance alongside last year’s AMA host Cardi B for their hit “Tomorrow 2.”
Imagine Dragons hit the stage for a fiery performance, singing a medley of their hits including “Bones.” The band was later joined by Atlanta rapper J.I.D. for a striking performance of their duo hit “Enemy.”
Multiplatinum rapper Lil Baby performed a medley of his smash hits “California Breeze” and “In a Minute” in a suave performance on the AMAs stage.
Artist, songwriter and actor Yola took the stage to perform her powerful original song “Break the Bough,” named the American Music Awards SONG OF SOUL, a spotlight moment that highlights an artist that uses music to invoke social change. Yola’s colorful performance showcased her vocal abilities and star power.
New Artist of the Year winner Dove Cameron made her AMAs stage debut in a theatrical performance of her hit single “Boyfriend.”
Presented by longtime friend Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie received his 18th AMA award with the prestigious Icon Award. Later in the evening, stars joined together to honor Richie with tribute performances, including two-time AMA winner Stevie Wonder and two-time AMA nominee Charlie Puth,who performed a medley of Richie’s hit songs complete with dueling pianos and scat singing.
Superstars Jimmie Allen, Ari Lennox, Yola, Muni Long, Melissa Ethridge, Dustin Lynch, and Smokey Robinson joined Wonder and Puth on the stage for an epic surprise recreation of the 1986 AMAs performance of “We Are The World,” a nostalgic highlight of the evening with Lionel joining the group on stage.
Adding the musical connectivity to a night filled with superstar performances, tributes and pop culture moments, iconic DJ, producer/rapper and philanthropist D-Nice was the resident 2022 AMAs House DJ.
In tribute to the life and career of Loretta Lynn, country star Jimmie Allen took the stage for a quick rendition of one of her greatest hits.
Host Wayne Brady led a moment of tribute to the late rapper Takeoff, speaking to his life, career and success in the music industry.

Winner Highlights of the “2022 American Music Awards”:

Taylor Swift broke her own record with six AMA wins, making the 40-time winner the most decorated artist in AMAs history. Her album “Red (Taylor’s Version)” earned the awards for Favorite Country Album, Favorite Pop Album and Favorite Music Video, while Swift also won Favorite Female Pop Artist, Favorite Female Country Artist and Artist of the Year. In 2013, Swift won the AMA for Favorite Country Album for the first version of her album “Red.”
Last year’s Artist of the Year winners BTS took home two AMAs this year, including the first-ever AMA for Favorite K-Pop Artist.
Six-time nominee this year Beyoncé won two awards tonight for Favorite Female R&B Artist and Favorite R&B Album for her latest album, “Renaissance.”
Ghost took home the first-ever AMA for Favorite Rock Album for their latest album “Impera.”
This year’s most-nominated artist, Bad Bunny, took home two AMAs for Favorite Male Latin Artist, Favorite Latin Album for “Un Verano Sin Ti.”
Elton John won his first AMA since 1998 for Collaboration of the Year for his hit “Cold Heart – PNAU Remix” with Dua Lipa.
First-time AMA nominee Dove Cameron took home this year’s New Artist of the Year award.
Anitta, a first-time nominee this year, won the AMA for Favorite Female Latin Artist.

Presenters throughout the night included Dan + Shay, Dustin Lynch, Ellie Goulding, Jessie James Decker, Jimmie Allen, Karrueche Tran, Kelly Rowland, Kim Petras, Liza Koshy, Latto, Meghan Trainor, Melissa Etheridge, Niecy Nash-Betts, Roselyn Sanchez, Sabrina Carpenter, Sheryl Lee Ralph and Smokey Robinson.

2022 AMERICAN MUSIC AWARDS WINNERS
Artist of the Year: Taylor Swift
New Artist of the Year: Dove Cameron
Collaboration of the Year: Elton John & Dua Lipa “Cold Heart – PNAU Remix”
Favorite Touring Artist: Coldplay
Favorite Music Video: Taylor Swift “All Too Well: The Short Film”
Favorite Male Pop Artist: Harry Styles
Favorite Female Pop Artist: Taylor Swift
Favorite Pop Duo or Group: BTS
Favorite Pop Album: Taylor Swift “Red (Taylor’s Version)”
Favorite Pop Song: Harry Styles “As It Was”
Favorite Male Country Artist: Morgan Wallen
Favorite Female Country Artist: Taylor Swift
Favorite Country Duo or Group: Dan + Shay
Favorite Country Album: Taylor Swift “Red (Taylor’s Version)”
Favorite Country Song: Morgan Wallen “Wasted on You”
Favorite Male Hip-Hop Artist: Kendrick Lamar
Favorite Female Hip-Hop Artist: Nicki Minaj
Favorite Hip-Hop Album: Kendrick Lamar “Mr. Morale & The Big Steppers”
Favorite Hip-Hop Song: Future ft. Drake & Tems “WAIT FOR U”
Favorite Male R&B Artist: Chris Brown
Favorite Female R&B Artist: Beyoncé
Favorite R&B Album: Beyoncé “Renaissance”
Favorite R&B Song: Wizkid ft. Tems “Essence”
Favorite Male Latin Artist: Bad Bunny
Favorite Female Latin Artist: Anitta
Favorite Latin Duo or Group: Yahritza Y Su Esencia
Favorite Latin Album: Bad Bunny “Un Verano Sin Ti”
Favorite Latin Song: Sebastián Yatra “Dos Oruguitas”
Favorite Rock Artist: Machine Gun Kelly
Favorite Rock Song (NEW): Måneskin “Beggin’”
Favorite Rock Album (NEW): Ghost “Impera”
Favorite Inspirational Artist: for KING & COUNTRY
Favorite Gospel Artist: Tamela Mann
Favorite Dance/Electronic Artist: Marshmello
Favorite Soundtrack: “ELVIS”
Favorite Afrobeats Artist (NEW): Wizkid
Favorite K-Pop Artist (NEW): BTS

2022 AMERICAN MUSIC AWARD WINNERS BY ARTIST
Taylor Swift (6): Artist of the Year, Favorite Music Video, Favorite Female Pop Artist, Favorite Pop Album, Favorite Female Country Artist, Favorite Country Album
Bad Bunny (2): Favorite Male Latin Artist, Favorite Latin Album
Beyonce (2): Favorite Female R&B Artist, Favorite R&B Album
BTS (2): Favorite Pop Duo or Group, Favorite K-Pop Artist
Harry Styles (2): Favorite Male Pop Artist, Favorite Pop Song
Kendrick Lamar (2): Favorite Male Hip-Hop Artist, Favorite Hip-Hop Album
Morgan Wallen (2): Favorite Male Country Artist, Favorite Country Song
Tems (2): Favorite Hip-Hop Song, Favorite R&B Song
Wizkid (2): Favorite R&B Song, Favorite Afrobeats Artist (NEW)
Anitta (1): Favorite Female Latin Artist
Chris Brown (1): Favorite Male R&B Artist
Coldplay (1): Favorite Touring Artist
Dan + Shay (1): Favorite Country Duo or Group
Dove Cameron (1): New Artist of the Year
Drake (1): Favorite Hip-Hop Song
Dua Lipa (1): Collaboration of the Year
Elton John (1): Collaboration of the Year
“ELVIS” (1): Favorite Soundtrack
for KING & COUNTRY (1):Favorite Inspirational Artist
Future (1): Favorite Hip-Hop Song
Ghost (1): Favorite Rock Album (NEW)
Machine Gun Kelly (1):Favorite Rock Artist
Måneskin (1): Favorite Rock Song (NEW)
Marshmello (1): Favorite Dance/Electronic Artist
Nicki Minaj (1): Favorite Female Hip-Hop Artist
Sebastián Yatra (1): Favorite Latin Song
Tamela Mann (1): Favorite Gospel Artist
Yahritza Y Su Esencia (1): Favorite Latin Duo or Group

About the “2022 American Music Awards”:

The AMAs represents the year’s top achievements in music determined by the fans, for the fans. Last year’s show stands as the most social telecast of 2021 with 46.5 million interactions, underscoring the role fans play in the annual event. A vibrant night of non-stop music, the AMAs features a powerful lineup featuring first-time collaborations and exclusive world premiere performances from music’s biggest names – from Pop to Rap, R&B to Country, Latin to K-Pop – and more, as well as memorable moments that live on in pop culture.
As the world’s largest fan-voted awards show, the AMAs air globally across a footprint of linear and digital platforms in more than 120 countries and territories.
The “2022 American Music Awards” winners are voted entirely by fans.Nominees are based on key fan interactions – as reflected on the Billboard charts – including streaming, album and song sales, radio airplay, and tour grosses. These measurements are tracked by Billboard and its data partner Luminate, and cover the eligibility period of Sept. 24, 2021, through Sept. 22, 2022.
Airing live on ABC, the “2022 American Music Awards” are produced by dick clark productions and Jesse Collins Entertainment. Jesse Collins is showrunner and executive producer. Dionne Harmon, Jeannae Rouzan-Clay, and Larry Klein are also executive producers. For the latest AMA news, exclusive content and more, follow the AMAs on social (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube), online at theamas.com and ABC.com, and join the conversation by using the official hashtag for the show, #AMAs.

ABOUT DICK CLARK PRODUCTIONS
dick clark productions is the world’s largest producer and proprietor of televised live event entertainment programming with the “Academy of Country Music Awards,” “American Music Awards,” “Billboard Music Awards,” “Golden Globe Awards,” “Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest,” “So You Think You Can Dance,” and the “Streamy Awards.” dick clark productions owns one of the world’s most extensive and unique entertainment archive libraries with more than 60 years of award-winning shows, historic programs, specials, performances and legendary programming. For more information please visit www.dickclark.com.

ABOUT ABC ENTERTAINMENT
ABC Entertainment’s compelling programming includes “Grey’s Anatomy,” the longest-running medical drama in primetime television; ratings juggernaut “The Bachelor” franchise; riveting dramas “Big Sky,” “The Good Doctor,” “A Million Little Things,” “The Rookie” and “Station 19”; trailblazing comedies “Abbott Elementary,” “The Conners,” “The Goldbergs,” “Home Economics” and “The Wonder Years”; popular game shows, including “The $100,000 Pyramid,” “Celebrity Family Feud,” “The Chase,” “Press Your Luck” and “To Tell the Truth”; star-making sensation “American Idol”; “Judge Steve Harvey,” the network’s strongest unscripted series debut in a year; reality phenomenon “Shark Tank”; family favorites “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and “Holey Moley”; “General Hospital,” which heads into its milestone 60th season on the network; and late-night talk show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”; as well as the critically acclaimed, Emmy®Award-winning “Live in Front of a Studio Audience” specials. The network also boasts some of television’s most prestigious awards shows, including “The Oscars®,” “The CMA Awards” and the “American Music Awards.”

ABC programming can also be viewed on Hulu.

ABOUT JESSE COLLINS ENTERTAINMENT
Founded in 2012, Jesse Collins Entertainment (JCE) is a full-service television and film production company that has played an integral role in producing many of television’s most memorable moments in music entertainment. The Emmy® winning company has a multi-year overall agreement with ViacomCBS Cable Networks. On the film side, the company also has a first look on JCE’s film development projects which could include Viacom’s film entities such as Paramount Players. JCE’s award-winning and critically acclaimed television includes programming from its three divisions. From the scripted division: scripted series—Real Husbands of Hollywood, American Soul and miniseries—The New Edition Story and The Bobby Brown Story. From the unscripted division: unscripted series – Cardi Tries, My Killer Body with K. Michelle, DJ Cassidy’s Pass the Mic and Forward: The Future of Black Music, competition/game shows—Becoming A Popstar, Rhythm + Flow, Sunday Best, Hip Hop Squares and Nashville Squares, talk show – Face to Face with Becky G and children’s series—Bookmarks: Celebrating Black Voices (Emmy® Award winner). From the specials division: award shows—The American Music Awards, BET Awards, Soul Train Awards, BET Hip Hop Awards, Black Girls Rock!, BET Honors, UNCF’s An Evening of Stars and ABFF Honors, specials—The Super Bowl Halftime Show, CNN’s Juneteenth: A Global Celebration of Freedom, Martin: The Reunion, John Lewis: Celebrating A Hero, Love & Happiness: An Obama Celebration, Change Together: From The March On Washington To Today, A GRAMMY Salute to the Sounds of Change, Stand Up for Heroes, Dear Mama, Amanda Seales: I Be Knowin’, Def Comedy Jam 25, Leslie Jones: Time Machine, The All-Star Nickmas Spectacular and Rip the Runway. Emmy® winner Jesse Collins, Founder and CEO, is the executive producer of all programming. He is also an executive producer for the Grammy Awards. He produced the 2021 Oscars.

Review: ‘Good Luck to You, Leo Grande,’ starring Emma Thompson and Daryl McCormack

June 12, 2022

by Carla Hay

“Good Luck to You, Leo Grande”

Directed by Sophie Hyde

Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed city in England, the comedy/drama film “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” features a small number of cast of characters (a few white people, one biracial person and one Asian person) representing the working-class and the middle-class.

Culture Clash: A repressed, middle-aged widow hires a gigolo to help her get in touch with her sexuality, and they have debates and other discussions about sexual confidence, relationships and his escort work.

Culture Audience: “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” will appeal primarily to people interested in well-acted movies that explore issues about how middle-aged women are often viewed by society and by themselves when it comes to sexuality and being “lovable.”

Emma Thompson and Daryl McCormack in “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” (Photo by Nick Wall/Searchlight Pictures/Hulu)

The title of “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” has the name of the gigolo in this comedy/drama, but the movie’s more fascinating story arc is with Nancy Stokes, the woman who hires Leo. Emma Thompson, who plays Nancy in the movie, gives a stellar performance in this conversation-driven film that has authentic, poignant and sometimes hilarious depictions of sexuality, sex work and the need for human beings to connect with each other in a meaningful way. “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” had its world premiere at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival.

Directed by Sophie Hyde and written by Katy Brand, “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” has a very small number of people in its cast, with two characters (Nancy and Leo) getting the vast majority of screen time. That’s because almost all of the scenes in the movie take place at in a room at the Duffield Hotel, where Nancy and Leo meet for their trysts. “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” takes place in an unnamed city in England, but the movie was actually filmed in Norwich, England. It would be easy to assume from the way that the movie is structured that it was adapted from a stage production, but Brand’s “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” is an original screenplay.

“Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” doesn’t waste any time in getting directly to the reason why Nancy and Leo have met. The first scene shows Nancy meeting Leo (played by Daryl McCormack) in the hotel room that she has rented for their first sexual encounter. Nancy is a 55-year-old widow and retired schoolteacher who used to work at a religious school for teenage girls. It will be the first time she has been with a sex worker and the first time she’s had sex with someone other than her husband.

Nancy has hired Leo because, as she tells him, Nancy and her late husband, whom she was married to for 31 years, had a boring sex life. Nancy also tells Leo that sex with her husband was so dull and predictable, he always wanted to have sex quickly and in one position. Nancy confesses to Leo that she’s never had an orgasm and has never had oral sex (because her husband refused to give or receive oral sex), so she wants to know what she’s been missing out on for all these years.

Leo is about 25 to 30 years younger than Nancy, who found Leo on a website where he advertises his services as a sex worker. In their first meeting together, Nancy is very nervous, while Leo is very confident. Leo asks Nancy if he can kiss her on the cheek, and she hesitantly obliges. He compliments her by telling her that the Chanel perfume that she’s wearing is sexy. She adds sarcastically, “For my age.” Leo clarifies, “At any age.”

Much of the movie is about insecure Nancy questioning how sexually attractive she is because of her age, her physical appearance, or lack of experience in having orgasms and trying new things sexually. She often makes self-deprecating remarks in a comedically sarcastic way, but always with an underlying sense of emotional pain. When Nancy and Leo first see each other, one of the first things she says to him is: “Am I a disappointment, so to speak?” Leo’s response is to gently kiss her.

Nancy is not digging for compliments. Nancy has been sexually repressed for years, so it’s affected her self-esteem. She knows it, and she’s ashamed of it. She tells Leo, “I made a decision after my husband died not to fake another orgasm again.” In an example of one of her self-deprecating comments, Nancy later jokes to Leo: “There are nuns with more sexual experience than me. It’s embarrassing.”

Leo deliberately doesn’t reveal much about himself to Nancy, which he says is a policy that he has for all of his clients. During the first meeting between Leo and Nancy, he says he’s originally from Ireland (which is obvious because he has an Irish accent) and that he’s been an escort for a while, without going into detail about exactly how many years he’s been in this line of work. At various times, Nancy tries to get Leo to talk more about himself, but Leo artfully dodges her questions or outright refuses to answer.

However, Leo is quick to tell Nancy that he’s not a desperate or unhappy sex worker. He says he’s willingly doing this work, and it makes him happy to give pleasure to the people who hire him. Leo also says that he has men and women for clients. Nancy doesn’t seem to mind what Leo’s sexual identity is, or the fact that he’s biracial. (Leo appears to be half-black and half-white.) This open-mindedness is an early indication that Nancy isn’t as uptight as she might first appear to be.

Nancy tells Leo in their first meeting, “I’ve never bought anyone before.” Leo gently corrects her: “You didn’t buy me. You bought my services. I’m not being exploited.” Nancy has told Leo up front that she will only meet him for secret encounters in this hotel. She doesn’t want to be seen in public on a “date” with him. Nancy doesn’t want to take the chance that anyone she knows might see her and Leo together, because Nancy doesn’t want to have to lie about or explain to anyone how she knows Leo.

Nancy is still very jittery during this first meeting, so she and Leo have some wine to help her relax. When she tries to get him to talk about himself, so that she can get to know him better, Leo skillfully steers the conversation back to talking about Nancy. A typical response that he gives to avoid answering a personal question is: “I’m whatever you want me to be, here in this moment.”

At times, Nancy seems eager to have sex, by saying, “Let’s get the sex over with.” But when Leo guides her to the hotel bed, Nancy stalls and says, “It feels controversial.” Even when she changes into lingerie, Nancy is still visibly uncomfortable. Nancy wants to talk some more before anything sexual happens between her and Leo.

During this conversation, Nancy demands to know the age of the oldest client Leo has ever had. He tells her 82. She seems relieved to know she’s not the oldest one. Nancy also wants Leo to tell her what he thinks is physically attractive about her. He tells her, “I like your mouth,” which he touches seductively.

Nancy still has a hard time relaxing, so she talks a little bit more about her personal life. She reveals to Leo that she has two adult, unmarried children: a son named Matthew and a daughter named Pamela. Nancy says that she has a better relationship with Matthew than she does with Pamela.

Nancy describes Matthew as “boring.” He has girlfriend who’s studying to be a primary schoolteacher, which Nancy also describes as “boring.” A psychiatrist might have a field day speculating over why Matthew has a girlfriend and a mother who’ve gone into the profession of being schoolteachers, and why Nancy doesn’t seem to approve of this girlfriend’s career choice.

Pamela is described as living a bohemian life in Barcelona, Spain. According to Nancy, she and Pamela don’t have a very good relationship with each other because Pamela thinks Nancy is “cold.” It’s obvious from the way that Nancy talks about her children, she rarely sees them and isn’t very close to them emotionally.

Slowly but surely, Leo reveals a little bit more about his personal life. He mentions that his single mother doesn’t know that he’s a sex worker. Leo has lied to his mother by telling her that he works at an oil rig. It’s still not enough information for Nancy, who keeps wanting to know more about Leo, especially after they meet for more than one tryst.

Nancy and Leo end up having sex during their first meeting, which is not spoiler information because the entire movie is about what Nancy hired Leo to do and how it affects both of them. (The sex scenes in movie, which has full-frontal nudity, are not pornographic, but they’re very explicit.) Over time, Nancy becomes emotionally attached to Leo. And at times, she gets a little jealous or possessive about him. Nancy wonders how much Leo might have feelings for his other clients.

Leo can see that Nancy is starting to develop romantic feelings for him, so he resists in a way that won’t offend her. “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” realistically shows the balancing act that sex workers have to do when they know that a client might fall in love, but the sex worker has to keep a professional distance while trying not to alienate someone who could be a loyal customer.

Nancy reminds Leo that she’s not a rich woman, and she’s spending a lot of her retirement money on him. It’s a somewhat manipulative way to try to get Leo to open up to her, but he doesn’t really take the bait. And why should he? No one is forcing Nancy to hire a sex worker. No one is telling her how she should spend her money.

Nancy also tries to endear herself to Leo by telling him that she can recommend him to female friends of hers who are also single and looking for sexual satisfaction. It’s another manipulation, because observant viewers can see that Nancy doesn’t really like knowing that Leo has other clients. Nancy knows that what she and Leo have isn’t love, but it seems like she has somewhat of a fantasy that she could be Leo’s favorite client because of the way that she has opened up emotionally to him.

One of the best things about “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” is how it candidly depicts the complications that can happen between a sex worker and a client when emotions get involved. The movie presents these complications in a way that’s very mature and completely believable. “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” also shows how confusion and resentment can arise when a client starts to wonder how genuine a sex worker’s compliments are when the sex worker is essentially being paid to give compliments to the client.

Thompson has the more intricate role to play in the movie, which she handles with great skill and nuance. However, McCormack holds his own very well as the deliberately mysterious Leo, who seems to know how to say all the right things to a client, but Leo gets uncomfortable when it comes to saying things about himself. Fortunately, the last third of the movie gives more depth to Leo than being a sex worker who avoids answering personal questions.

Because “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” takes place mainly in a hotel room, the movie might disappoint some viewers who are expecting more action outside of this hotel room. However, the last third of the movie does have a few scenes outside the hotel that offer a glimpse into what Nancy is like in another environment. These scenes also demonstrate how she might have changed because of her relationship with Leo.

There’s a very illuminating scene where Nancy has an unexpected encounter in a restaurant with a woman in her 20s named Becky (played by Isabella Laughland), who is a former student of Nancy’s and who now works as a server at the restauarant. Becky’s encounter with Nancy gives viewers a perspective of how Nancy was as a teacher. This scene is a way of showing how Nancy’s sexual repression affected other areas of Nancy’s life.

There have been many scripted movies about sex workers and their clients, but if they’re told from the clients’ perspectives, these clients are usually men. “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” is a rare movie that honestly depicts what it’s like for a middle-aged woman to reclaim and explore her sexuality by hiring a sex worker. It’s not trying to sell a gigolo fantasy, because the movie shows the pitfalls of ignoring the realities of sex work. “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” is ultimately an impressive story about a woman who hired a sex worker for one thing, and she ended up getting more than she expected.

Hulu will premiere “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” on June 17, 2022.