Tag: movies

Articles about movies

Review: ‘If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story,’ starring Juan Martinez, Jennifer Willmott, Maria De La Rosa, Rachel Blaney, Robert Geffner, Chris Hughes and Sky Hughes

February 24, 2021

by Carla Hay

Jodi Arias mugshot in “If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story” (Photo courtesy of Discovery+)

“If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story”

Directed by Christopher Holt

Culture Representation: The documentary “If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story” features a group of white people and some Latino people discussing the case of Jodi Arias, the California woman who was convicted of the 2008 murder of her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander in Arizona.

Culture Clash: Some people interviewed in the documentary say that justice was served with the murder conviction, while others say that the conviction was unfair because they believe Arias’ claims that she acted in self-defense.

Culture Audience: “If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in notorious true crime cases.

Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander in “If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story” (Photo courtesy of Discovery+)

The Jodi Arias case has gotten so much publicity that most people who followed the story already know what the outcome was. On June 4, 2008, she killed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander by stabbing him 27 times and shooting him at his home in Mesa, Arizona. Arias claimed it was self-defense, but she was convicted of first-degree murder in 2013. In 2015, she was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The documentary “If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story” (directed by Christopher Holt) doesn’t reveal anything new, but it does a very good job of presenting both sides of this tragic story.

The documentary includes interviews with some of Alexander’s friends and members of law enforcement who wholeheartedly believe that Arias is guilty. Representing the other side in the documentary are members of Arias’ defense team and an unidentified female relative, who wholeheartedly believe that Arias is not guilty because they think that Arias acted in self-defense. The documentary seems mostly objective in trying to present a balanced view of both sides.

The people interviewed in the documentary are:

  • Christopher Black, who knew Arias in high school
  • Rachel Blaney, a police detective in California’s Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office who interviewed Arias and investigated the case
  • Jeff Jensen, a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints elder who knew Alexander and Arias
  • Maria De La Rosa, a defense mitigation specialist who is on Arias’ side
  • Professor Robert Geffner, a psychologist for the defense
  • Tom Fichera, Arias’ former boss at Ventana Inn & Spa in Big Sur, California
  • Chris Hughes and Sky Hughes, a former husband and wife who were friends of Alexander
  • Juan Martinez, the former Maricopa County, Arizona prosecutor who was the lead attorney in the state’s case against Arias.
  • Taylor Searle, one of Alexander’s friends
  • Richard Van Galder Jr., a homicide sergeant in Arizona’s Mesa Police Department
  • Jennifer Willmott, who is Arias’ defense attorney
  • An unidentified female relative of Arias who wanted to remain anonymous

The movie includes excerpts from Arias’ diaries that are read by an actress in voiceovers. There are also re-enactments for some of the scenes that involve Arias driving from California to Arizona on the day that she committed the crime, as well as re-enactments of Arias and Alexander’s relationship in happier times. These re-enactments are a little tacky. The voiceover readings would have been sufficient.

A diary excerpt that’s read in the beginning and end of the documentary is: “Five things I’m grateful for: (1) babies; (2) pizza; (3) the shape of my body; (4) my hair; (5) Travis Alexander.” Considering what Arias is convicted of doing to Alexander, these words are haunting.

The movie goes pretty deep into the background and psychology of Arias. Viewers can make up their own minds if she’s an evil sociopath or a victim of a long history of abusive relationships. One thing is clear: She and Alexander had a relationship that was doomed to fail because of her obsessiveness and his unwillingness to give her the commitment that she wanted.

Born in Salinas, California, on July 9, 1980, Arias is the daughter of William “Bill” Angelo Arias (a former restaurateur) and Sandy Arias. Jodi has an older half-sister, two younger brothers and a younger sister. According to the documentary, her life was relatively stable until the family moved in 1995 to the smaller city of Yreka, California, so that Sandy could be closer to her relatives and because Bill was having some health problems.

In Yreka, Jodi was a misfit who was often bullied by other kids in high school, according to her former classmate Black. He describes Yreka High School as a “diverse” school when it came to race, but most of the students knew each other for years, so Jodi’s status as a newcomer automatically made her an outsider. Excerpts from her diaries reveal that she became addicted to smoking marijuana during her unhappy years in Yreka. She also had a troubled relationship with her parents, especially with her father. (Her family supported her before, during and after the trial.)

While she was in high school, Jodi began dating a man named Bobby Juarez, who was a few years older than Jodi. Juarez lived in a trailer and is described in the documentary as a strange recluse and very domineering. Jodi eventually dropped out of high school and worked as a waitress to support herself and Juarez, who was chronically unemployed. They broke up because he reportedly cheated on her often.

Jodi then moved to Big Sur, California, and got a fresh start working in hospitality at the Ventana Inn & Spa. Her former boss Fichera remembers her as a pleasant and down-to-earth employee. She was also romantically involved with a co-worker named Darryl Brewer, a much-older man who was a divorced dad. According to Fichera, that relationship didn’t last because Jodi wanted to get married and start a family with Brewer, but he did not.

Her next serious romance was with Alexander, who was born in Riverside, California, on July 28, 1977. He was a rising star as a salesperson/motivational speaker for Pre-Paid Legal Services (PPL). Jodi met Alexander in September 2006, at a PPL convention in Las Vegas. In November 2006, Jodi converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon religion, which was Alexander’s religion. Jodi and Alexander officially began dating in February 2007, but their relationship was tumultuous with multiple breakups and reunions.

Because she lived in Palm Desert, California, and he lived in Mesa, Arizona, for most of their relationship, they would often meet and stay at the home of Chris and Sky Hughes, who lived somewhere in the middle, in Murrieta, California. In 2007, Jodi moved to Mesa to be with Alexander, but that arrangement didn’t last. Alexander’s friends warned Alexander that Jodi wasn’t good for him, but he couldn’t make a complete break from her.

Chris and Sky Hughes, who were married during the time they knew Alexander, say that they saw signs early on that Jodi was too possessive in her relationship with Alexander. Sky says that she often caught Jodi spying on Alexander. Jodi would do things such as snoop in his phone without permission or eavesdrop on his conversations.

The documentary doesn’t go too much into Alexander’s background, except to reiterate what has already been reported. His friends describe him as a fun-loving, outgoing guy who was very flirtatious with women. The documentary doesn’t mention how he and his seven siblings were raised by his paternal grandparents, starting when he was 11, because his parents (who are now deceased) had drug problems.

As has been reported elsewhere, Alexander had two sides to him: He presented himself as a strict Mormon to some people and claimed that he was saving his virginity until he got married. But the reality was his other side: He definitely like to party, and he wasn’t a virgin.

He and Jodi took sexually explicit photos of each other. These photos surfaced after his death, and she detailed their sexual relationship in her diaries. Ultimately, Jodi and Alexander were incompatible because he was interested in dating other women, and she wanted a monogamous commitment from him that would lead to marriage.

Even though Alexander told people in 2008 that his on-again/off-again relationship with Jodi was over, and he was dating someone else, he was still secretly seeing Jodi on the side for sex. By all accounts, she thought that she still had a chance to get back into a serious relationship with him, but he saw things differently. Prosecutors say that the motives for the murder were jealousy and revenge.

On the day that Jodi killed Alexander in his home, they had sex. She took explicit nude photos of herself and Alexander. And she took photos of him during and after the murder. She left the camera in the washing machine, thinking that water would destroy the photo evidence. But through computer forensics, investigators were able to recover the damning photos from the memory card.

Even though Jodi’s supporters vigorously defend her, they can’t erase the fact that she lost credibility when she changed her story more than once. First, she denied having anything to do with the crime. Then, when the photo evidence was found, she claimed that she and Alexander were victims of a home invasion by unknown intruders. And then, her last excuse (which was used in the trial) was that she killed Alexander out of self-defense because he was allegedly abusive to her.

Jodi’s arrest, interrogations by police and highlights from the trial are all covered in the documentary. Police detective Blaney remembers that Jodi came across as emotionally aloof when Blaney interrogated Jodi before the arrest: “It was hard to find Jodi’s soft spot.” The documentary does not portray Alexander as saintly, since it mentions evidence brought up in the trial that he sent derogatory messages to Jodi when they were having problems in their relationship.

Jodi’s supporters in the documentary try to victim-blame Alexander, by saying that any mean-spirited text and email messages that he sent to Jodi somehow constitute enough reason for her to kill him in-self-defense. Defense psychologist Geffner says that Alexander was “leading a double life” and that “there was emotional and verbal abuse during the entire relationship” between Jodi and Alexander. Defense attorney Willmott comments that there was “formidable power and jealousy and cruelty from Travis.” De La Rosa goes as far to say that Jodi didn’t get a fair trial because of sexism and misogyny toward Jodi. Because Jodi was sexually active, “that made people hate her,” says De La Rosa.

What these defenders didn’t mention but the documentary does bring up is that Jodi admitted in her court testimony that there was no proof that Alexander physically abused her. The defense’s legal representatives also sidestep the issue of why Jodi changed her story so many times and tried to cover up the fact that she killed Alexander. And the defense psychologist doesn’t state that the excessive number of stab wounds and choosing an additional way to kill by shooting the victim are indications of overkill rage that go beyond self-defense.

In the documentary, Alexander’s friend Searle becomes so overcome with emotion that at a certain point in the interview, he couldn’t speak. He comments on this tragic murder: “There’s nothing in the world that can make sense of what happened.” Chris Hughes and Sky Hughes, who wrote a 2015 tribute book about Alexander called “Our Friend Travis: The Travis Alexander Story,” also express sadness over the tragedy of his death. However, police interview footage shows that shortly after Alexander was found brutally murdered, Chris and Sky were oddly laughing and grinning in the interview room when they said that Jodi probably committed the murder.

The documentary mentions that former prosecutor Martinez, who was fired and disbarred in 2020, has had his reputation ruined because he was accused of sexually harassing several women in situations unrelated to the Jodi Arias case. He was also accused of having a consensual but unethical sexual relationship with a female blogger who covered the Jodi Arias case, and leaking information about the case to the blogger.

Martinez believes that his tainted legacy won’t change the facts and the outcome of the Jodi Arias trial. He says he got “no joy” in his victory in the Jodi Arias case. “I see myself as a conduit of the truth,” Martinez adds. Jodi’s attorney Willmott says that she is hoping that Jodi will get a new trial. But that is extremely unlikely, considering that Jodi’s own testimony at the trial had a lot to do with her conviction and why she was sentenced to life without parole.

Discovery+ premiered “If I Can’t Have You: The Jodi Arias Story” on February 12, 2021.

Review: ‘Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare,’ starring Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson

February 23, 2021

by Carla Hay

Kristy Swanson and Sophie Bolen in “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” (Photo courtesy of Virgil Films/Collide Distribution)

“Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare”

Directed by Joel Paul Reisig

Culture Representation: Taking place in the Detroit area and briefly in Chicago and Houston, the dramatic film “Trafficked” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with some African Americans, Latinos and Asians) representing the middle-class and the criminal underground.

Culture Clash: A 16-year-old girl is kidnapped and forced to work as a prostitute, while her family frantically searches for her with the help of a private investigation team.

Culture Audience: “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” will appeal primarily to people who don’t mind watching low-quality crime movies that have unrealistic scenarios, bad dialogue and terrible acting.

Shane Carson, Tevis R. Marcum, Mark Boyd, Dean Cain and Garrett Thierry in “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” (Photo courtesy of Virgil Films/Collide Distribution)

“Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” warps the very disturbing and horrifying crime of sex trafficking into an atrocious melodrama with acting so bad that it’s almost a crime itself. The movie is also filled with racist stereotypes that are downright offensive. And the sloppily written screenplay includes a vigilante plot development that is not only unbelievable but it’s also dangerously irresponsible in how this scenario is resolved.

“Trafficked: A Parent’s Worse Nightmare” (directed by Joel Paul Reisig) has too many inaccurate portrayals of how law enforcement and private investigators deal with sex trafficking. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the damage and trauma done by this horrendous crime, just for the sake of making a “cash grab” movie. Tacking on some religious preaching in the film doesn’t make this exploitation any better.

There’s absolutely nothing educational or informative about “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worse Nightmare.” People already know that there are online predators who can lure victims into doing all sorts of things. This awful movie examines how a fictional suburban Detroit family reacts when a 16-year-old girl in the family is kidnapped and forced into prostitution after she was targeted by an online predator.

There are so many things wrong with the movie’s direction, acting and screenplay (which was written by Reisig, George P. Saunders and Scott Voshel) that it’s a lesson on what not to do in filmmaking and what not to do if a loved one becomes a victim of sex trafficking. The movie opens by introducing the Detroit private investigator who’s supposed to be the “hero” of the story: John Belton (played by Dean Cain), who thinks he’s above the law when he commits crimes in order to make himself look like a good investigator.

The first scene in the movie shows John going with three men from his team to storm into a run-down house filled with tattooed thugs who are involved in underground dog fighting. John and his small squad have rifles and are clad in camouflage fatigues, as if they’re in military combat and on a raid. John calls himself Captain, based on on his military background of being in the U.S. Marines. Because he and his team are trespassing with guns and have forced their way into the house, it’s automatically a crime, since it’s an armed home invasion.

The criminals scatter, as John and his men yell at them to leave the house, but one of the goons has blockaded himself in a room with a gun. It isn’t long before John and his crew break down the door and surround the thug, who quickly surrenders by giving up his gun. What’s the reason for this home invasion?

John tells the cornered criminal: “You stole a dog—a rich man’s dog. Rich men don’t like having their dogs stolen. Paid us good money to track you down.” The man offers to give back the dog, but that’s not good enough for this ill-tempered private investigator. John then proceeds to beat up the unarmed man, while John’s underlings look on in approval.

During this vicious assault, John tells the thug that he wants the names and addresses of all the people in Detroit who are involved in illegal dog fighting. John then orders one of his underlings named Tex to plant a stash of cocaine in the house. Tex gleefully says the stash of cocaine is enough for a “life sentence.”

Exactly who are the good guys here? In the real world, a defense attorney for any these dog fighters would have a field day with all the crimes committed by this corrupt private investigator and his team. It’s as if the filmmakers have no idea how the law works when it comes to how evidence is supposed to be legally collected and what’s admissible in court.

Later, at the headquarters of Belton Private Investigations, a smug John has a meeting with his small staff to let them know that the Detroit Police Department has busted the dog fighting ring. Now that it’s been established that John will break the law to get what he wants, viewers can predict what unrealistic and illegal things he’ll do to solve his next big case when a 16-year-old girl disappears and her family hires him to find her. There’s some horrid vigilante nonsense in the movie that’s almost laughable if the crimes weren’t so serious.

The kidnapped girl is Allison Riley (played by Sophie Bolen), who has a happy and comfortable life in suburban Detroit with her father Case (played by Mark Boyd), who’s a real-estate agent; her mother Joanna (played by Kristy Swanson), who’s a homemaker; and Allison’s younger sister Rachel (played by Stella Shoha), who’s about 13 or 14 years old. Joanna’s mother Barbara (played by Nancy Wagner) is also around a lot, although it’s unclear if she lives with the family or not.

Allison is first seen horseback riding with some teenage friends from her high school. She’s in good spirits because the next day will be her 16th birthday, and her family has a party planned for her at their home. Allison is also feeling great because she’s been flirting with a guy online named Tyler, whom she hasn’t met in person yet.

Tyler is supposedly slightly older than Allison, who’s mildly teased by her friends about her online “boyfriend.” Rachel also knows about Tyler, but Allison hasn’t told her parents about him. The parents will soon find out about this secret “boyfriend” and how Allison was lured right into a kidnapping trap.

The night before her birthday, Allison is chatting online with Tyler, who persuades her to meet him that night. She then sneaks out of the house to meet the guy who calls himself Tyler, who picks her up in his car. He’s a good-looking man in his late teens or early 20s.

Apparently, Allison never bothered to ask for this guy’s photo because when she gets in the car, she asks him, “Tyler?” And he says that he’s Tyler. “Where are we going?” Allison asks this mystery driver. “You’ll see,” he replies.

And the next thing you know, the guy hands over Allison to a couple of thugs for some money. Allison is kidnapped, and she’s thrown into a room with other underage teenage girls who are locked in animal cages. They all look as terrified as Allison. As soon as she’s held captive, Allison is told that if she tries to run away or get help, her sister Rachel will be the next to be kidnapped.

The next day, when Allison doesn’t show up at school and her after-school birthday party, Joanna is convinced that something is wrong. Her husband Case is less worried and thinks that they shouldn’t panic. In a very unrealistic moment, he tells the party guests to just go home. In a situation like this in real life, the parents would’ve asked the party guests to help them look for Allison and to contact them if they find out where she is.

Another plot hole in the movie is when Joanna finds out that Allison has an online boyfriend named Tyler whom Allison had planned to meet in person in the near future. But instead of trying to find out more about who he is, Joanna just gets a little upset that Allison didn’t tell her, and Joanna lets that crucial information slide right by her and doesn’t bother to check Allison’s laptop computer. (Allison took her phone with her.) Most parents would immediately search their missing child’s room for clues on what happened and where the child went, but these dimwitted parents don’t do that.

Joanna contacts the police and insists that something bad has happened to Allison. The cops who come to the house to question the family say that if Allison doesn’t show up in 48 hours, then the family can file a missing persons report. Joanna tells the cops that Allison isn’t into drugs or alcohol, has no psychological issues, and would have no reason to run away from home. When the investigating cops ask if it’s possible that Allison temporarily ran off with the mystery boyfriend, Joanna adamantly says no, but Case says yes.

The cops remind Case and Joanna that Allison was reported missing two years ago, but it was a false alarm because Allison had spent the night at a friend’s house and didn’t tell her parents. Joanna flinches at the reminder, but she is firm in declaring that the situation is different this time, because all of Allison’s family, friends, schoolmates and their parents don’t know where she is. The cops leave and tell the Rileys to wait and see if Allison shows up within 48 hours.

Joanna doesn’t want to wait that long. She asks Case if his “pothead” friend Kessler knows anyone who can help investigate quicker and more effectively than what the police can do. Kessler is never shown in the movie. The next thing you know, the Rileys are referred to Belton Private Investigations. John answers the phone when Case calls. John asks some basic questions and tells Case up front that his fee is $20,000 to start the investigation, and then $20,000 a week after that.

It’s a little out of the Rileys’ price range, because they’d have to dip into Allison’s college savings to pay for the investigation. Case is reluctant to do that and he thinks that they should wait for the police to investigate. Joanna feels the opposite way and thinks they should immediately hire John. Joanna and Case start to argue about it until Joanna’s mother Barbara interrupts and says she’ll pay for the private investigation.

The members of John’s investigative team are a motley group of people:

  • Tex (played by Tevis R. Marcum), the oldest one in the group, appears to be in his late 50s or early 60s. He taught John a lot of fight skills, and he’s very loyal to John. Tex’s specialty is to talk to white people who have connections to the criminal world.
  • Biggs (played by Shane Carson) is somewhat of a jokester. His specialty is to talk to black people who have connections to the criminal world.
  • Aaron (played by Brian Papendrea) is an egotistical computer nerd who sometimes clashes with Biggs. Aaron does almost all of the technology-related work for the team.
  • Karen (played by Maria Wasikowski) is assertive and not afraid to stand up to Tex, who has a tendency to be condescending to her. Much to her annoyance, Karen is often tasked with going undercover as a sex worker or talking to sex workers to get information.
  • Maggie (played by Eileen Hayes) is the office secretary who is very religious. Her ties to the local church community will come in handy in this investigation.
  • Ben (played by Garrett Thierry) is the newest person on the staff. Because he’s a young, good-looking guy who’s less intimidating than Tex and Biggs, Ben is responsible for interviewing Allison’s friends at her high school. Ben gripes when he says he’d rather interview female college students, not underage girls.

As for the pimps who kidnapped Allison, they are all African American men who are written with every conceivable worst stereotype that you can imagine. The ringleader calls himself Daddy (played by Deon Hunt), and he insists that his prostitute prisoners call him Daddy too. His real name is never revealed in the movie. Daddy leads a group of about four pimps, but it’s implied that there are more thugs in his criminal network that he can call on if necessary.

Some of the prisoners are young women, but most are underage girls. The victims are all of different races, but it’s repeated throughout the movie that Allison is considered more “desirable” than the non-white females who are held captive because she looks like an innocent white girl from the suburbs. The pimps take turns raping a new prisoner such as Allison before they force her to be a prostitute. The movie doesn’t show these rapes in graphic detail, but it’s made clear that is what the pimps are doing.

Daddy and his fellow pimps make their prisoners go to motels and private homes for their prostitution activities. And these pimps openly drive around in a van, Mercedes or Cadillac with a bunch of young girls, who are dressed like hookers, going in and out of the cars in groups—and somehow all of that goes unnoticed. These thugs might as well have the words “Pimps R Us” on a car license plate, because that’s how obvious they are.

What’s disgustingly racist about this movie is that it makes it look like the only people who kidnap women and girls for sex trafficking are men who aren’t white. It’s a stereotype that’s very inaccurate, because the reality is that people (men and women) of all races commit these crimes, but you wouldn’t know it from how it’s portrayed in “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare.” The movie plays into racial bigotry and ignores the fact that trafficking victims are most likely to be trafficked not by strangers but by people they know, who are usually the same race as the victims.

The majority of Detroit’s population is black, but the filmmakers perpetuate racist stereotypes of pimps in a scene where Daddy calls a pimp in Houston to do a trade of prostitutes. And the pimp in Houston is Latino. Meanwhile, all the prostitution clients are portrayed as middle-class or wealthy white men who look like “respectable” people.

There are predictable scenes of Daddy forcing the prostitution prisoners to take pills, which he calls “candy.” And there’s an unnecessary scene of Daddy driving his grandmother back to her home from church and giving her some cash as a gift. His grandmother thinks that he’s a good man and has no idea how he got that money, so the scene is supposed to show that Daddy is leading a double life.

After the 48 hours have passed, the Riley family files a report with the police. When the cops find out that the family has already hired John as their private investigator, they warn the Rileys that John will just get in the way of the police investigation, because the police are going to interview the same people and check the same places as John and his team. The cops advise the family to save their money and let the police handle the investigation, but the Rileys have already committed to John and want to keep their options open.

The kidnapping victims have their phones, photo IDs and other personal items taken away from them by the pimps. However, as shown later in the movie, Allison is allowed to temporarily use her phone to quickly call her parents and lie to them by telling them that she’s safe in Chicago with her “boyfriend” and that they don’t need to look for her. It’s an obvious lie, but that doesn’t stop this dumb movie from having a plot development where one of Allison’s parents has a temporary meltdown and starts to believe the lie that Allison is somewhere with a boyfriend they’ve never met and that maybe the family should give up looking for her.

As weeks stretch into a month, and Allison still hasn’t been found, Joanna and Case have very different reactions that are the opposite of how they felt when Allison first disappeared. A month after Allison has gone missing, Joanna becomes disillusioned with John and wants to fire him, especially after she finds out that he was dishonorably discharged from the Marines and he’s an alcoholic who’s been to rehab three times. Joanna now thinks John is a scammer. Meanwhile, Case disagrees and thinks they should stick with John, even though the family’s money is starting to run out.

This disagreement on how to handle the investigation leads to a marital rift between Joanna and Case. He temporarily moves out of the home and stays in a hotel, where he makes a drunken phone call to John. It’s one of the more ridiculous scenes in the movie because it manipulates people into thinking that a certain desperate act is going to happen but it doesn’t. Case also goes behind Joanna’s back to do some things that lead to the cringeworthy ending of the movie that will have viewers rolling their eyes at the silliness of it all.

The dialogue in this movie is woefully idiotic. And the acting by almost everyone in this film is very stiff and awkward. “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” is an insult to people who’ve lived this nightmare in real life and those who’ve died from it. Instead of wasting money to watch this pathetic garbage that calls itself a movie, people should donate to a reputable group that helps trafficking victims instead.

Virgil Films/Collide Distribution released “Trafficked: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” on VOD and DVD on January 26, 2021.

Review: ‘Love Sarah,’ starring Celia Imrie, Shannon Tarbet, Shelley Conn, Rupert Penry-Jones and Bill Paterson

February 22, 2021

by Carla Hay

Celia Imrie, Shannon Tarbet and Shelley Conn in “Love Sarah” (Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films)

“Love Sarah”

Directed by Eliza Schroeder

Culture Representation: Taking place in London, the dramedy film “Love Sarah” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with some people of Indian, Latino, African and Japanese heritage) representing the middle-class and the working-class.

Culture Clash: A rising-star pastry chef dies before launching a bakery business, but her best friend, 19-year-old daughter and estranged mother decide to band together and open the bakery in her memory.

Culture Audience: “Love Sarah” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching sentimental and harmless dramas.

Shelley Conn and Rupert Penry-Jones in “Love Sarah” (Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films)

It might be a good idea not to watch “Love Sarah” when you’re hungry. The delectable pastries that are on display throughout this comedy/drama movie are among the highlights of this good-natured but ultimately bland and predictable story. However, the acting performances are watchable, and the movie has its heart in the right place, so it can be recommended viewing for anyone who’s in the mood for an uplifting story about forgiveness and following dreams.

Directed by Eliza Schroeder and written by Jake Brunger, “Love Sarah” starts off with the heartbreak of three very different London women whose lives have been shaken up by the death of a loved one named Sarah Curachi. On the day that she died, Sarah (played by Candice Brown), who’s in her late 30s, is shown riding her bicycle on her way to the empty storefront that she has rented in Notting Hill with her best friend Isabella (played by Shelley Conn), who’s about the same age as Sarah. Isabella is waiting outside impatiently because Sarah is late.

Meanwhile, Sarah’s mother Mimi Curachi (played by Celia Imrie), a retired circus owner/performer who lives by herself, is writing a letter of apology to someone who’s obviously her daughter. Viewers find out later that the letter was supposed to be sent to Sarah, who is Mimi’s only child.

Sarah is a single mother to a 19-year-old aspiring ballet dancer named Clarissa Curachi (played by Shannon Tarbet), who sometimes goes by the nickname Lari. Clarissa is a bit of a rebel because even though she’s training to be a dancer, she regularly smokes marijuana and she’s irresponsible with money.

It’s not shown in the movie, but Sarah was accidentally hit by a car, so she never made it to the storefront that day. Sarah and Isabella, who went to culinary school together, were renting the space with plans to open a bakery. The movie shows how the three most important people in Sarah’s life cope with her death.

After Sarah’s death, Isabella is shown in a distressed meeting with a leasing agent named Clive (played by Andrew Davis). Isabella is upset because, as a co-signer on the lease, she’s still responsible for paying the rent. Sarah was the star chef in this business partnership. (Sarah was good enough to train with celebrity chef Ottolenghi, as Isabella mentions in the meeting.) Because Sarah died, the bakery’s investors pulled out of the business.

Isabella (who quit her job as an investment banker) has been draining her savings to pay the rent. Despite a lot of pleading, the landlord won’t let Isabella out of the lease until another renter can take over the lease. Isabella decides it’s up to her to find another renter. The rental space, which is unfurnished and run-down, is definitely a “fixer upper” that had been vacant for quite some time before Sarah and Isabella rented it. Therefore, it’s going to be a big challenge to find someone else to take over the lease.

Meanwhile, Clarissa is also going through some tough times. She’s grieving over her mother’s death and hasn’t been able to concentrate in her dance classes. One night, her live-in boyfriend Alex (played by Max Parker), who’s also a dancer in the same class, tells Clarissa that their relationship isn’t working anymore, and he breaks up with her. Apparently, Clarissa’s name was not on the lease, because Clarissa is the one who has to move out.

With nowhere to go, Clarissa breaks into the storefront and spends the night there. The next morning, she’s about to be possibly arrested by the police, who were notified that there was a break-in. Isabella is there with two cops when she notices that Clarissa is sleeping on the floor. Isabella tells the cops that she knows Clarissa and can vouch for her, so the police officers leave.

An embarrassed Clarissa tells Isabella that she’s homeless because of the break-up with Alex. Isabella says that Clarissa can temporarily stay at Isabella’s place, but Clarissa declines the offer because she knows that Isabella’s home is so small that the only place that Clarissa would be able to sleep is on the couch. Clarissa tells Isabella that there’s only one other person she can ask for a place to stay. They both know who it is, and they both are reluctant to be in contact with her.

Sarah’s mother Mimi had been estranged from Sarah when Sarah died. That estrangement also extended to Clarissa, who has been avoiding seeing her grandmother for about a year or more, according to the inevitable conversation that Clarissa has later with Mimi. The movie shows Mimi grieving by avoiding spending time with her friends who invite her to social outings, and by spending time alone at home watching old film footage of herself when she used to be a trapeze artist in the circus.

What did Mimi do that was so awful that her daughter and granddaughter didn’t want to be in contact with her? The answer is revealed later in the movie. And what Mimi did is not as bad as you might think it is.

However, there are other hints in the story that Mimi’s fractured relationship with Sarah had been a problem for years. As the owner of a circus, Mimi often had to travel, and Sarah felt neglected when she was growing up. Mimi also has a prickly and overly judgmental personality that makes it hard for people to get close to her. Sarah’s father is not mentioned in the story, but it’s implied that Mimi was a single mother when she raised Sarah.

Sarah repeated the same pattern, by raising Clarissa as a single mother with no father around to help. The identity of Clarissa’s biological father becomes a subplot to this movie. After Sarah’s death, Clarissa is shown looking at her own birth certificate and seeing that the space for the father’s name has the word “unknown.”

It’s not a surprise to Clarissa, because she’s apparently been told all of her life that her biological father wasn’t going to be a part of her life. But now that Sarah has died, Clarissa wants to find out who her father is. Isabella mentions to Clarissa that Sarah always told her that Clarissa’s father was someone whom Sarah barely knew. Sarah wasn’t even sure what his name was.

Isabella has gone back to her investment job, working in a corporate office. Her heart isn’t in it, but she needs the money. And as fate would have it, Isabella has found another renter for the storefront. It’s a man who wants to turn the space into a wine bar. But lo and behold, shortly before Isabella is about to close this deal to sign over the lease to someone else, Clarissa shows up at Isabella’s office and begs her not to give up on the bakery.

Isabella is practical and tells Clarissa that she can’t afford to launch the bakery. Clarissa tells Isabella that she knows how to get the money to launch the business. And that leads to the inevitable scene where Clarissa reunites with Mimi. At first, Mimi is wary of Clarissa’s sudden reappearance in her life. And Mimi correctly guesses that what Clarissa wants from Mimi has something to do with money.

However, Clarissa is able to convince Mimi to invest in the bakery because she says it will be a way to honor Sarah. They decide to call the bakery Love Sarah. And the next thing you know—in the unrealistic way that movies conjure up ultra-convenient scenarios—Clarissa, Mimi and Isabella suddenly have the skills work on Love Sarah’s interior design and construction together. The first time that Clarissa takes Mimi to the dilapidated storefront, she says excitedly, “You can definitely see its potential.” Mimi quips in response, “What, as a crack den?”

Because a movie like this usually likes to have some romance as part of the story, there are two men who each end up becoming a potential love interest—one for Isabella, and the other for Mimi. There’s the predictable trope of the men making the first move, and the women playing hard to get, but we all know how these storylines are going to end.

Mathew Gregory (played by Rupert Penry-Jones) was a culinary school classmate of Sarah’s and Isabella’s. He suddenly shows up at Love Sarah one day and says he’s no longer working as a chef of a two-star Michelin restaurant. He also announces to Isabella that he wants to be a chef with her at the bakery. Isabella isn’t very happy to see Mathew because he used to date Sarah in their culinary school days, but he cheated on Sarah, so the relationship ended. Therefore, Isabella has a hard time trusting Mathew.

Sarah, Mathew and Isabella went to culinary school 20 years ago. Clarissa knows that the timeline of when Sarah and Mathew dated matches the timeline of when Clarissa could have been conceived. Mathew knows it too, so there’s some drama over a DNA test that results in Clarissa finding out whether or not Mathew is her biological father. However, Clarissa isn’t the only reason why Mathew wants to work at the bakery.

Mimi catches the eye of a man named Felix (played by Bill Paterson), who’s around the same age as she is. He lives in a building that’s directly across the street from the bakery. Mimi first notices Felix looking out his window at her while she’s at the bakery. After the bakery opens, Felix stops by and introduces himself as an inventor.

Felix is a little bit of an eccentric, and he tells Mimi, Isabella and Clarissa (who are all working at Love Sarah) that he’s invented a top-notch security system. Felix offers his services to install the security system because he says there have been break-ins and burglaries in the area. But it’s pretty obvious from the way he acts (he makes it known that he’s single and available) that the security system is just an excuse to try to get to know Mimi better. It should come as no surprise that she eventually warms up to his attention.

“Love Sarah” has a few very corny moments, such as when the spirit of Sarah is seen looking into the bakery and smiling at all the activity taking place. Fortunately, this ghostly appearance is only fleeting, because the last thing this movie needed was to turn into a “Ghost” ripoff, with Sarah appearing reincarnated in the bakery kitchen to guide the chefs in making the pastries. There’s also a very formulaic plot development where a would-be couple gets together, then has a falling out over a lie/misunderstanding, and then the person who feels betrayed has to decide if the other person deserves another chance.

All of the actors play their roles solidly and convincingly, but this movie isn’t going to win any awards. Some parts of the movie drag in a sluggish manner, so the pacing would’ve improved with better dialogue and more interesting things happening in the bakery. And there are some antics that Mathew does that are a little ridiculous and borderline stalker-ish, in his attempt to impress someone in the story.

Another flaw is how the movie clumsily handles Clarissa’s dreams of becoming a dancer. Clarissa’s work to become a professional dancer is shown in the beginning of the movie as a big part of her identity. And then, she’s not shown dancing at all when she decides to work full-time in the bakery. It’s as if the movie doesn’t want to explain how she handled not being in dance classes anymore because she had to be at Love Sarah. It’s not until the end of the movie that Clarissa’s identity as a dancer is hastily brought back up again, almost as an afterthought.

“Love Sarah” has a lot of sentimentality, but it isn’t a completely squeaky-clean movie, since there’s some occasional cursing in the film. For people interested in an overall feel-good movie, “Love Sarah” is a pleasant diversion. And it’s sure to delight foodies who love pastries because there’s an enticing variety that’s on display.

Samuel Goldwyn Films released “Love Sarah” in select U.S. cinemas and on digital and VOD on January 15, 2021.

Review: ‘They Call Me Dr. Miami,’ starring Michael Salzhauer

February 21, 2021

by Carla Hay

Dr. Michael Salzhauer in “They Call Me Dr. Miami” (Photo courtesy of Discovery+)

“They Call Me Dr. Miami”

Directed by Jean-Simon Chartier

Culture Representation: Taking place in the the Miami area, the documentary “They Call Me Dr. Miami” features a predominantly white group of people (with some African Americans and Latinos) representing the middle-class and upper-middle-class discussing the career of famous plastic surgeon Dr. Michael Salzhauer.

Culture Clash: Dr. Salzhauer, who has the nickname Dr. Miami, markets his services through sexually suggestive videos and social media, which are sometimes at odds with his religious beliefs as an Orthodox Jew.

Culture Audience: “They Call Me Dr. Miami” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in the sociology and mentality of people who are addicted to fame and outward appearances.

Dr. Michael Salzhauer in “They Call Me Dr. Miami” (Photo courtesy of Discovery+)

Love it or hate it, plastic surgery is here to stay and has grown into a billion-dollar business. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, people spent $16.5 billion on plastic surgery in the United States in 2018. That number is expected to rise to $67 billion by 2026, according to Fortune Business Insights. Dr. Michael Salzhauer of Bal Harbour Plastic Surgery in Bal Harbour, Florida, is milking this market demand for all it’s worth.

He’s the subject of the documentary “They Call Me Dr. Miami” (directed by Jean-Simon Chartier) that’s equal parts fascinating and cringeworthy. People who are for, against or neutral about plastic surgery will find plenty of interesting aspects about the documentary, which takes a candid look (flaws and all) at this flamboyant plastic surgeon, who has the nickname Dr. Miami. The movie isn’t a one-sided fawning documentary, since some of Dr. Salzhauer’s critics are interviewed, and the movie has necessary information about the dangers of plastic surgery.

It’s probably no coincidence that the rising demand for plastic surgery is almost parallel to the rise in visually oriented social media platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat. There’s pressure to look a certain way on social media, where everyday people are often expected to have photos and videos that look like they’re professional models and look like they have glamorous and idyllic lifestyles. Some people feel the pressure to look this way more often than others, depending on their self-esteem and social circles.

Dr. Salzhauer is the first to admit that social media is the main reason why he’s as well-known and successful as he has become. Social media took his plastic surgery practice from being prominent to being world-famous. He even starred in a short-lived reality show on WE TV called “Dr. Miami,” which was on the air in 2017. Dr. Miami has also been name-checked in songs by famous rappers, including Snoop Dogg (“I Don’t Care What You Do”), 2 Chainz (“4 AM”) and Future (“Cuddle My Wrist”).

As Dr. Salzhauer explains in the documentary, he started promoting his plastic surgery business on Instagram, but his Instagram account got deleted because of all the nudity he posted on the account. And then his daughter Aleah, who was 15 years old at the time, suggested that he join Snapchat. And that’s when his Snapchat activities propelled him into becoming a celebrity. He did livestreams of surgeries from his operating rooms and expanded his Dr. Miami persona into music videos and a thriving merchandise business.

His music videos and other short films, which often show him as a rapper, are definitely cheesy but are meant to be humorous. He also parodies other pop culture in his videos. For example, the documentary shows him directing a “Game of Thrones” spoof, with actors in cheap-looking costumes. One of the actresses, who’s supposed to promote breast implants, tells an actor, “My boobs will keep you warmer than your books.” Another actor talks about Dragon Botox.

Needless to say, his videos are definitely geared to adults. There’s a lot of nudity and almost an obsession with close-ups of women’s barely clad rear ends “twerking” or dancing in other sexually suggestive ways. Take the worst stereotypes of how rap videos can be degrading to women, in terms of images and lyrics, and chances are that type of content has been in a Dr. Miami video. He also uses a lot of real-life rappers (who aren’t famous) in his videos to make it look like he has some kind of “street cred.” It’s all just so tacky and fake—and the same can be said for how a lot of bad plastic surgery looks.

In the documentary, Dr. Salzhauer says he doesn’t care if he makes a fool out of himself, as long as he can continue to be famous and it’ll benefit his business. It’s clear from watching the documentary that Dr. Salzhauer is addicted to being in the limelight and craves constant approval from the public. The risqué content of his videos, as well as his habit of livestreaming his surgeries (patients’ faces aren’t shown and they sign waiver forms allowing the livestreams), have made him a controversial figure in the medical industry.

And that’s why some people might be surprised to know that underneath the slick and often-smarmy persona, Dr. Salzhauer is a very religious Orthodox Jew. It’s this duality that makes the documentary so intriguing to watch. He literally squirms as he tries to justify how he presents an almost decadent image as a famous plastic surgeon when he’s promoting himself in public, compared to the reality of how he is in private at home as a happily married, religious father of five.

Dr. Salzhauer admits, “There are moments when my persona as Dr. Miami and my activities on social media conflict with my core religious beliefs, mainly in how I’m perceived by others.” He says that his “salacious” promotional content is the best way to get people’s attention. And he justifies it by saying: “It’s hard to sell or explain surgery of the body without showing bodies.” What he doesn’t explain is that even though men and women get plastic surgery, women’s bodies are almost always the ones used in sexually exploitative ways in his videos.

His wife Eva Salzhauer, who is interviewed separately, and has been married to him since 1995, says about the sexually exploitative music videos that her husband makes: “The music bothers me. The words bother me. I understand that you have to do certain things that may not be what you would do in your home.” She calls him an “amazing husband and father” who can be a “silly guy at work, who’s very serious about his work as a doctor, but then he likes to do creative things with his social media.”

Who is Dr. Michael Salzauer? Born in 1972 in New York City, he says that his first major influence to go into medicine was by watching the 1972-1983 TV series “M.A.S.H.,” the sitcom based on the 1970 comedy film about American medics in the Korean War. He comments, “That was my idea of what medicine was. It just looked like they were having a good time, making jokes, operating, and saving people’s lives.”

He and Eva began dating when she was 19 and he was in medical school. According to Dr. Salzhauer, she was the reason why he first became interested in plastic surgery. When they were dating, she got into a car accident that left a scar on her mouth, beneath her lower lip. Eva wanted to get plastic surgery to remove the scar. At the surgeon’s office, Dr. Salzhauer saw “before and after” plastic surgery photos for the first time. And he says that’s when he knew he wanted to be a plastic surgeon. (Eva says the only cosmetic procedure she’s had since then is Botox.)

Dr. Salzhauer doesn’t talk much about his upbringing, but he says he was raised Jewish but didn’t become Orthodox until he was an adult. Dr. Salzhauer says that becoming an Orthodox Jew was “the most important decision” he ever made for himself and his family. His wife Eva says that he’s deeply insecure about his looks, going back to his childhood. (There’s a brief flash of a family photo of him as a child, with his parents, brother and two sisters.)

Eva says of her husband: “I think he is vain. I think part of the vanity comes from self-esteem.” She further comments. “He always jokes that his brother and sisters were so beautiful, and he was the most unattractive one of the family. He always tells me, ‘I thank you for settling for me,’ like I did him a favor.” Eva also says that her husband can relate to his patients who also have insecurities about their looks. “Maybe that’s why he chose this particular type of work,” she adds.

Later in the movie, Dr. Salzhauer says that he’s definitely “self-absorbed” but that he doesn’t fit the psychiatric definition of a narcissist. He admits that he’s had surgery on his nose, teeth and chin. And he mentions that if he could get any more surgery, it would be to make himself taller. The documentary also shows Dr. Salzhauer getting a Botox treatment to get rid of wrinkles around his eyes.

“They Call Me Dr. Miami” shows some of what he’s like in his personal life, such as having meals with his family, attending temple and having a religious meeting with Rabbi Menachem Katz. Dr. Salzhauer’s five children are daughter Aleah and sons Tzvika, David, Jacob and Yonaton. The doctor is shown proudly looking on as one of his sons plays the piano in their home. In another scene, Dr. Salzhauer trains three of his sons in weightlifting and then takes them out for some ice cream.

For whatever reason, Aleah is his only child who’s interviewed in the documentary. She comes across as intelligent, down-to-earth and very intuitive about the dichotomy of her father’s Dr. Miami persona and who he is in real life. She says that she stopped following her father on social media because it was too embarrassing for her. Aleah mentions what she dislikes the most about her father: “I disapprove when he tends to be someone he’s not.”

She also tells it like it is when it comes to the dangers of putting too much self-esteem in social media, which is something that she thinks has happened to her father. “You could have so many followers and have no actual friends,” she says of the superficiality of social media. Eva also confirms that although her husband is a celebrity doctor, he doesn’t have many close friends.

Dr. Salzhauer’s patients who spoke on camera for the documentary were all young women (under the age of 25), whose names were not included in the film. One was a 20-year-old car salesperson from Las Vegas who wanted butt implants and was prepared to spend up to $16,000 for the surgery. She traveled from Las Vegas just so Dr. Miami could be the one to do the plastic surgery on her. She says she became a fan of the doctor through his Snapchat videos, and her goal is to look more like an Instagram model. Another patient shown in a consultation was hoping to get breast implants because she also wanted to improve her looks for social media.

The documentary also includes archival news footage of plastic surgery horror stories of patients (all women) who died after botched plastic surgery, usually from unlicensed people and shady “discount” surgery centers. Dr. Salzhauer says he’s never had a patient die because of surgery he’s performed (he mentions that it’s his biggest fear), although he says that some of his colleagues have had that fatal experience with patients.

The documentary includes a scene of Dr. Salzhauer somewhat panicking when a female patient is unable to regain consciousness after surgery. The attempts to revive her are not shown on camera, but the audio can be heard. Dr. Salzhauer makes a frantic phone call to an anesthesiologist, who instructs him on what to do. It turns out that the patient had mucus blockage, and the problem was able to be resolved.

There’s also an archival clip of social media influencer Freelee the Banana Girl explaining how she regrets having plastic surgery when she was in her 20s. She thinks that people, especially women and girls, are brainwashed into thinking that they have to look a certain way in order to be considered “beautiful” or “sexy,” when most people realistically can’t achieve those physical standards. Meanwhile, there are also some social media clips of a few young women who say that they like having plastic surgery because it’s their own choice to improve their physical appearance in the way that they want

Dr. Joshua Lampert, a plastic surgeon who is a critic of Dr. Salzhauer, has this to say about plastic surgery: “It’s not a game. These procedures can have bad outcomes. If I saw a pilot of a commercial airline dancing around in the cockpit, I probably wouldn’t get on the airplane. There’s a problem when the entertainment becomes the most important thing. You’re not going to see choreographed dances in my operating room, ever.”

Although Dr. Salzhauer’s patients sign waivers that allow him to use their surgeries to promote his business, there’s still something gross and inappropriate about Dr. Salzhauer apparently having no problem with taking selfie photos in front of an unconscious patient in the operating room, as if that person is a prop in his self-promotion. He’s shown doing this in the documentary like it’s no big deal. And once again, you’ll notice a pattern here: All of his patients featured in the documentary are female.

At the very least, this documentary will let more people know that this is the type of doctor who will take a patient’s vulnerable medical experience and use it to promote himself and his business in the most public and shameless ways. He’s been doing this for years, so it’s not exactly a secret. But it says a lot about how people might or might not respect themselves by allowing themselves to be used in this way.

If there’s one major shortcoming of this documentary, it’s that it doesn’t show enough of what it’s like for men to have plastic surgery. Even if none of Dr. Salzhauer’s male patients wanted to be interviewed, the movie barely mentions what men are thinking when they decide to do get these procedures done. There’s a brief scene of Dr. Salzhauer filming a comedic video with rapper Beach Boii to promote penis implants, but that video doesn’t count as a serious analysis of male patients who get plastic surgery.

There should have been more information on demographics and cultural context for plastic surgery. It seems like women are more likely than men to get cosmetic surgery at younger ages. And there could be sociological reasons for that, since women have age limits on biologically conceiving children, while men do not. The documentary makes it clear that women are more likely to be judged and exploited for their looks than men are, but the documentary doesn’t really examine why.

Other people interviewed in the film include plastic surgeons who have followed the Dr. Miami modus operandi of promoting themselves, such as Dr. Martin Jugenberg (also known as Dr. 6ix), Dr. Jonathan Kaplan (also known as Real Dr. Bae) and Dr. Scott Blyer (also known as Dr. B Fixin). They all do laughably horrible rap videos in their attempts to look cool. There’s also an archival clip of Dr. Salzhauer on the syndicated daytime medical talk show “The Doctors” as he unapologetically faces some of his doctor critics who were guests on the show.

Brittany Benson, who was Dr. Salzhauer’s assistant for several years, is also interviewed in the documentary. Like the other women who’ve worked for him (almost all of his employees shown in the documentary are young women), she believes there’s nothing wrong with plastic surgery, and she seems addicted to social media. Benson mentions that her parents feel that elective cosmetic surgery is vain and sinful, and they were shocked when they found out on the “Dr. Miami” TV show that she had plastic surgery, with Dr. Salzhauer as the one who operated on her.

And it seems that Dr. Salzhauer isn’t an easygoing or entirely pleasant boss. In the documentary, he is seen berating Benson on the phone because she didn’t post something on social media quickly enough for him. “Are you on drugs?” he callously asks her. She replies in a sullen and insulted voice, “No.” Not surprisingly, the next time Benson is seen in the documentary, she mentions that she no longer works for the doctor.

Dr. Salzhauer had “auditions” to replace Benson, where applicants could send videos of themselves. The documentary includes clips of some these job applicant videos, which show a series of young, attractive women dancing, often in sexually suggestive ways, for the camera. Dr. Salzhauer likes what he sees, and he zeroes in on a young woman who looks like she’s barely out of high school.

Dr. Salzhauer remarks that she looks like she could be a Kardashian-Jenner and that he could make her a social media star if she worked for him. It’s clear that his definition of being his ” assistant” means that the person he chooses has to be a young, attractive female whose sex appeal and willingness to do whatever he tells her to do on camera are more important than her intelligence and skills/experience working in a doctor’s office.

As divisive as Dr. Salzhauer’s self-promotion and his way of conducting business can be, “They Call Me Dr. Miami” does an admirable job of looking at many sides of the issue. This doctor might not be everyone’s cup of tea. But just like elective plastic surgery, it all comes down to personal choice.

Discovery+ premiered “They Call Me Dr. Miami” on February 11, 2021.

Review: ‘Breaking News in Yuba County,’ starring Allison Janney, Mila Kunis, Awkwafina, Wanda Sykes, Juliette Lewis, Samira Wiley and Regina Hall

February 21, 2021

by Carla Hay

Allison Janney in “Breaking News in Yuba County” (Photo courtesy of Anna Kooris/MGM)

“Breaking News in Yuba County”

Directed by Tate Taylor

Culture Representation: Taking place in the fictional U.S. Southern city of Stanlow, the dark comedy “Breaking News in Yuba County” features a predominantly white cast (with some African Americans, Asians and Latinos) representing the middle-class, working-class and criminal underground.

Culture Clash: A lonely, middle-aged woman pretends that her philandering criminal husband has been kidnapped (even though he really died of a heart attack), so that she can get sympathy and attention.

Culture Audience: “Breaking News in Yuba County” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of star Allison Janney and to people who don’t mind watching incoherent movies about people behaving badly.

Allison Janney, Mila Kunis and Regina Hall in “Breaking News in Yuba County” (Photo Anna Kooris/MGM)

Oscar-winning actress Allison Janney has worked with director Tate Taylor in all of his feature films so far, and she usually plays supporting or minor characters in these movies. The dark and violent comedy “Breaking News in Yuba County” is the first Taylor-directed film where Janney is front and center as the movie’s lead character. And it’s a dreadful misstep not only for Taylor and Janney but also for everyone involved in this embarrassing mess. “Breaking News in Yuba County” (whose producers include Taylor and Jake Gyllenhaal) is proof that having a talented cast doesn’t automatically equal a good movie.

In “Breaking News in Yuba County” (whose horrendous screenplay was written by Amanda Idoko), Janney portrays Sue Buttons, a lonely woman who feels neglected and under-appreciated and goes to extreme lengths to get attention. The movie shows obvious signs that Sue doesn’t get the respect that she thinks she deserves, to try and make her look sympathetic. But her personality and actions are so off-putting (and so are almost all of the characters in this stinker film) that the movie’s attempts to be comedic are pathetic and monotonous.

“Breaking News in Yuba County” takes place in an unnamed U.S. state in the South, in a fictional city called Stanlow, located in Yuba County. In the movie’s opening scene, viewers see Sue listening to motivational affirmations on her iPod as she goes to a supermarket. She repeats these mantras several times throughout the movie: “My story matters. I am enough. I am confident.” Sue’s self-directed pep talks do little to change the way that the outside world treats her. And something happens on her birthday that causes her to snap and go from being a mild-mannered, law-abiding citizen to being a stone-cold, heartless fraudster.

She arrives at the grocery store to pick up her small birthday cake, which is inscribed with the words “Happy Birthday, Sue.” But Sue notices that the “e” looks more like a “c.” She points out this mistake to the pastry worker behind the counter, with a tone of voice implying that she wants the error corrected. But the worker just ignores Sue’s attempt to assert herself and asks if Sue is paying by cash or credit.

Sue is married to a corrupt banker named Karl (played by Matthew Modine), who’s first seen at their home talking dirty to a woman whom he plans to meet later for a sexual tryst. Sue doesn’t know about this affair but she’ll soon find out on her birthday. She’ll also find out later about her husband’s illegal activities. In the meantime, Sue has made plans for her and Karl to have a romantic dinner at a restaurant on her birthday.

But as soon as she arrives home, Karl is out the door to go meet up with his mistress. Meanwhile, Sue takes her birthday cake and makes the correction on the letter “e” herself. She then goes to her job, a place called Sidewinder Safety Tubs, where she works in customer service at a call center. The only work on the job that the movie shows her doing is taking one phone call from a rude customer who curses at her.

Considering all the ludicrous shenanigans that Sue gets up to later that take up all of her time, the movie shouldn’t have bothered showing her having a job at all. This movie is so badly written that it’s never explained how Sue took all the time off from work that she takes to try to cover up her web of lies. But the filmmakers seem to assume that everyone who’s watching this movie is as idiotic as the characters.

Sue just happens to be driving near a motel when she sees Karl’s car parked outside. She gets out and sees him holding some flowers and going into a motel room while calling a woman inside “honey” before he shuts the door. An alarmed Sue goes to the motel’s front desk and correctly assumes that the room is reserved in Karl’s name. Sue tells the front desk clerk that she’s his wife and pretends to have accidentally locked herself out of that room, so she asks for a spare key.

Sure enough, when Sue lets herself into the motel room, Karl is having sex with another woman, whose name is Leah Norton (played by Bridget Everett), whom Sue has never met before. Sue gets angry, while Karl and Leah are naturally startled and horrified at being caught. Karl is so surprised that he falls off the bed, has a heart attack, and dies.

While Leah is freaking out and babbling, Sue finds out that Leah is also married. She slaps Leah and tells her that she will inform Leah’s husband about Leah’s cheating if Leah doesn’t leave the motel immediately. Sue also tells Leah that Sue will take care of the problem of Karl’s dead body. Leah doesn’t hesitate to quickly leave the motel.

Instead of being upset that Karl is dead, Sue forlornly says out loud as she sits on the bed, “You forgot my birthday.” Sue then hatches a plan to bury the body in a lot near the motel. This movie is so stupid, that it shows Sue digging the grave in plain view where anyone could have easily seen her. But there would be no “Breaking News in Yuba County” if she were caught that quickly and easily.

Meanwhile, Sue doesn’t find out until after Karl dies that he was involved in a money-laundering scheme with some local criminals, who used Karl to launder millions of dollars. The people in this illegal enterprise are a ruthless crime boss named Mr. Kim (played by Keong Sim); his sometimes-bungling daughter Mina (played by Awkafina), who tries to be as tough as her father; a menacing, trigger-happy thug named Ray (played by Clifton Collins Jr.); and Karl’s younger brother Petey (played by Jimmi Simpson), who’s been trying to leave his criminal life behind.

Petey works as a salesperson at a furniture store named Rita’s, owned by a sassy lesbian named Rita (played by Wanda Sykes), who manages the store with her equally feisty live-in girlfriend Debbie (played by Ellen Barkin). Rita and Debbie know that Petey has a criminal background, but he’s told them that he’s trying to “go straight” and stay out of trouble. Debbie is often suspicious of Petey and sometimes accuses him of stealing from the store. Meanwhile, Rita has a friendly rapport with Petey, and she strangely tells Petey that she wouldn’t mind too much if he was caught stealing because she would understand that he would be stealing out of desperation.

Sue is fixated on a local news/public affairs TV program called “The Gloria Michaels Show,” which has been doing constant coverage of a missing 13-year-old girl named Emma Rose. After Sue has buried Karl’s body, she goes home and watches the show. She has a silent “a-ha” moment when she sees Emma Rose’s parents Jonathan and Robin (played by Michael A. Newcomer and Liz Elkins Newcomer) being interviewed by host Gloria Michaels (played by Juliette Lewis), who tells the distraught parents that they have the unwavering support of the community in finding Emma Rose. Gloria is a TV personality who’s a mix of Nancy Grace and Deborah Norville, even down to having the same type of blonde bob hairstyle and Southern accent.

Sue decides that she can get the public’s sympathy and attention if she pretends that Karl is missing. Sue calls the restaurant to cancel the dinner reservation by saying that her husband isn’t feeling well. It’s a discrepancy (and plot hole) that a good investigation team would be able to uncover when Sue later reports that Karl is missing. She foolishly claimed that Karl disappeared during the time she said that he was too “sick” to go to the restaurant. Another big plot hole is that Sue never bothers to contact anyone to try to look for Karl. But, of course, this movie has incompetent cops who investigate and overlook many of these things that would expose her lies.

Sue goes to the local police station to report Karl’s disappearance, but the officer on duty, Detective Cam Harris (played by Regina Hall), is impatient and dismissive, especially when Sue tells her that Karl has been missing for less than 48 hours. Detective Harris doesn’t file a report and instead advises Sue to ask Karl’s friends and relatives if they know where he is, because many missing spouses usually have just gone somewhere without telling their spouses. Once again, Sue feels ignored and disrespected.

The gravity of what Sue has done begins to sink in with her. When she goes home, she has a meltdown and starts trashing her house. She picks up the birthday cake, as if she’s going to destroy it too, but she can’t bring herself to do it. It’s symbolic of how she’ll take extreme measures later in the story to save herself and destroy others, just so she won’t be exposed for committing the crimes of illegal disposal of a corpse and lying to the police.

Sue has a younger half-sister named Nancy (played by Mila Kunis), who comes over to visit shortly after Sue has her meltdown. The house looks like it’s been ransacked, so Sue pretends to be distraught that Karl is missing. Sue also plays along with Nancy’s assumption that Karl was probably kidnapped during a home invasion.

It just so happens that Nancy is a highly ambitious and competitive TV reporter who works for a local station that’s a rival to the station that has “The Gloria Michaels Show.” Sue and Nancy see Karl’s “disappearance” as an opportunity to get media attention for themselves. Predictably, Nancy offers to interview Sue on TV about the “disappearance.” Nancy doesn’t really care that Karl could be missing; she just wants to get a “news scoop” over the competition.

This TV interview is the first time that Petey finds out that his older brother Karl is missing. And that’s a problem because Karl had $3 million that he was supposed to launder, so now that money is missing too. In a panic, Petey tells Mina and Ray that he doesn’t know where Karl or the money is. And inexplicably, Mina decides to tell Petey that she and Ray have kidnapped Karl, so that they can extort $20,000 in ransom money from Petey. It’s a dumb decision by any standard, but it’s an example of how bad this movie is.

What follows is a convoluted and messy farce, with betrayals, more lies, and people inevitably getting killed in brutal ways. Detective Harris is the only cop on the case who gets suspicious of Sue. But Detective Harris is stonewalled by her dimwitted junior cop partner Officer Jones (played by T.C. Matherne) and their boss Captain Riggins (played by Dominic Burgess), who both think that Sue doesn’t seem like the type who could be a criminal mastermind. It’s a subtle commentary on how certain people, because of their physical appearance, are given a “privileged pass” with law enforcement.

The movie has a few supporting characters that don’t have much to do except be possible targets of violence. Petey has a pregnant girlfriend named Jonelle (played by Samira Wiley), who grows concerned at how strange he’s been acting lately. Her pregnancy only seems to be in the movie so there’s an inevitable scene of a pregnant woman in a vicious fight. And then there’s one of Karl’s bank colleagues named Steve (played by Chris Lowell), who doesn’t do much but act frightened when Mina and Ray predictably show up at the bank to look for Karl.

This type of low-quality movie usually has a cast of unknown actors. But it’s very disappointing to see how many talented and famous actors (who are all known for doing much better work elsewhere) are in this atrocious movie. Not even the action stunts are interesting to watch.

And the tone of the film is horribly uneven, as the actors do their performances as if they’re in very different films. Awkwafina, Barkin, Sykes, Kunis, Hall and Simpson act as if they’re in a goofy slapstick comedy. Matherene, Burgess, Wiley and Lowell act as if they’re in a serious drama. Janney, Lewis, Collins, Sim and Everett come closest to capturing the movie’s intended dark satire. Modine isn’t in the movie long enough for most viewers to care about his Karl character, who seems to be despicable anyway.

Almost as annoying as this movie’s characters is the music score by Jeff Beal, because it’s the epitome of sitcom smarm. Given how violent this movie is, the music is completely out-of-place and awkward, because it sounds like something that should be for an outdated family comedy series on TV. The overall direction of the movie is lazy, as if Taylor just let the actors do their own thing instead of having a cohesive tone for the film. And clearly, the filmmakers didn’t do enough to fix the many problems in the screenplay.

It seems as if “Breaking News in Yuba County” tried and failed to be like a Guy Ritchie crime film, by having a story where lawbreakers comically try to outdo each other in absurd ways, while they attempt to cover up everything and blame their misdeeds on other people. There are plenty of female-centric dark comedy satires that get all the elements right, including 2017’s “I, Tonya,” the movie that garnered Janney her Academy Award. Sometimes bad movies are fun to watch, but “Breaking News in Yuba County” is the type of irritating movie where viewers can’t wait for it to be over and won’t care what happens to the characters in the end.

MGM’s American International Pictures released “Breaking News in Yuba County” in select U.S. cinemas and on digital and VOD on February 12, 2021.

Review: ‘Paranormal Prison,’ starring Todd Haberkorn, Paris Warner, Don Shanks, Corynn Treadwell, Easton Lay and Brian Telestai

February 20, 2021

by Carla Hay

Todd Haberkorn in “Paranormal Prison” (Photo courtesy of Gravitas Ventures)

“Paranormal Prison”

Directed by Brian Jagger

Culture Representation: Taking place in Boise, Idaho, the horror flick “Paranormal Prison” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few African Americans and one Native American) representing the middle-class and working-class.

Culture Clash: A group of YouTube paranormal investigators, who are led by a cynical skeptic, visit an abandoned prison that is supposedly haunted.

Culture Audience: “Paranormal Prison” will appeal primarily to people who will watch any horror movie, no matter how terrible or boring it is.

Corynn Treadwell and Paris Warner in “Paranormal Prison” (Photo courtesy of Gravitas Ventures)

Horror movies have a reputation for being extremely derivative because so many of them recycle the same ideas that dozens of other horror flicks have already done. Slasher flicks have a maniac on the loose. Ghost stories have a group of people trapped somewhere with a spirit that’s supposed to be terrifying. And so, with originality not usually being a characteristic of a lot of horror movies, these movies should at least have some level of suspense and plenty of scares. Unfortunately, “Paranormal Prison” (directed by Brian Jagger) fails on every level of what makes a good horror movie.

“Paranormal Prison” looks like a student film that was made without any experienced filmmakers giving much-needed suggestions on all the improvements that should have been made to this embarrassing dud. This 70-minute movie is a terrible bore that, at best, should have been a short film instead. If you want to watch a feature-length movie where almost everything except for the last 15 minutes consists of people monotonously walking and talking in what’s supposed to be an abandoned prison, then go ahead and waste your time watching “Paranormal Prison.”

“Paranormal Prison” borrows heavily from the “Paranormal Activity” concept, including repeatedly using screens that show icons for recording activity and battery life, to replicate video recordings from the camera-operating perspective. The very thin plot of “Paranormal Prison” is that four paranormal investigators go to an unnamed abandoned prison in Boise, Idaho, to find out if the stories are true about the prison being haunted. The investigators are all in their 20s, except for their leader, who’s in his 30s. They are the staffers for a YouTube channel called The Skeptic & The Scientist, whose purpose is to debunk paranormal activity stories.

The four people on this excursion are:

  • Matthew (played by Todd Haberkorn), also known as The Skeptic, who’s the group’s cocky and obnoxious leader. Matthew is financing the YouTube channel with his trust fund money. He constantly likes to tell the other people on the team that they have to do what he says because he’s paying for everything.
  • Sara (played by Paris Warner), also known as The Scientist, is a self-described “tech geek.” She has invented a paranormal detection device that she will test for the first time in the abandoned prison.
  • Ashley (played by Coryn Treadwell), the channel’s sound technician, is a military veteran who joined the paranormal group after experiencing a personal tragedy that she talks about in the movie.
  • Jacob (played by Brian Telestai), the channel’s camera operator, is romantically involved with Ashley, even though his boss Matthew has a romantic interest in her too.

Matthew and Sara are the co-hosts of The Skeptic & The Scientist. Matthew doesn’t believe in ghosts, while Sara is open to the idea of ghosts existing if there is scientific proof. Even though Matthew and Sara co-host the channel, he never lets her or anyone else forget that he’s in charge. Because Matthew doesn’t believe that spirits exist, he doubts the effectiveness of Sara’s invention, which she calls a syncotron kinetic energy testing computer.

The abandoned prison that these paranormal investigators will be visiting was shut down in 1973, after its last big prison riot. The prison had a section for men and a section for women. According to a montage of local citizens being interviewed in grainy video footage, there was a government cover-up of a 1939 riot at the prison, where three prison guards were killed during this riot. Ever since the prison was permanently closed, it’s become known as a haunted site, and tours are given to the public.

The prison is said to be haunted by serial killer Mary Beth Flake, a local heiress from the early 1900s who was convicted of murdering several people (including her husband) because they were opposed to her suffragette activities for women’s right to vote. The abandoned prison also has an eerie reputation because people who make any recordings inside the prison find out after they leave the prison that their recordings are blank. The prison is about to be torn down and condominiums built in its place.

The Skeptic & The Scientist team members are the last people who’ve gotten a permit to film inside the prison before the building will be demolished. The four paranormal investigators go to the prison and are greeted by an assigned park ranger whose last name is Shtog (played by Easton Lay), and he gives them a guided tour of the run-down facilities. This begins the long-winded majority of this tedious movie, where it’s nothing but all five of them going from room to room while filming and talking. They’re supposed to be the only people in the prison . But are they really? The crew sets up some surveillance equipment, and not much happens for most of the story.

During this tour, Shtog tells them more details about Mary Beth Flake, whose photo is shown several times in the movie, as if it’s supposed to be scary. The local folklore about Mary Beth Flake (played by Amanda Fitch, because you already know that this movie will show her as a ghost) is that she is always associated with four roses. There’s a bushel of four roses growing year-round outside the prison that are supposedly kept alive because of the spirit of Mary Beth Flake. And the local legend is that if any of the four roses start to go away, that means trouble is coming.

Over the years, people who had ghost sightings at the prison reported smelling roses before they saw the ghost. The four roses are there when the team arrives at the prison. But it should come as no surprise that one of the four roses has gone missing while these visitors are inside the building. Sara is the first to notice the missing rose. She becomes frightened and asks the other people who has the flower. The other people there deny that they took the rose.

During the tour, the investigators see a large male mannequin lying on a bed in a prison cell. Shtog explains that the mannequin is of a real-life prisoner named Black Wolf, a Native American who was incarcerated during the same time as Mary Beth Flake. According to Shtog, she hated Black Wolf because he wasn’t white, and the two became mortal enemies. Predictably, Black Wolf (played by Don Shanks) is more than a mannequin in this movie.

During the long stretch of time when not much happens in the movie, there are some very weak attempts to bring some scares, by showing glimpses of shadows. Matthew mouths off a lot and becomes more and more irritating as the story goes on. Sara’s invention is supposed to work by showing a green light if it detects humans and a blue light if it detects a paranormal entity. But it’s questionable if they really need this invention because these paranormal investigators still get ambushed. And there’s at least one predictable “fake scare” scene in the movie.

“Paranormal Prison” director Jagger wrote the movie’s screenplay with Randall Reese, and it’s their first feature film. This lack of experience shows in the worst ways. “Paranormal Prison” is an example of a badly made movie that’s ruined by unnecessary filler. And certain details that should have been intriguing, such as the story about the four roses associated with Mary Beth Flake, end up being irrelevant to the movie’s conclusion.

The acting performances in this movie range from mediocre to downright awful. The filmmakers deserve some credit for not having sexist horror clichés of making the male characters the smartest ones who always come to the rescue of “weaker” female characters. In “Paranormal Prison,” the female characters are more intelligent than the male characters. But that’s not saying much when all the movie’s characters are stuck with forgettable dialogue, and the acting just isn’t very good at all. And because almost the entire film takes place inside a run-down building, there’s nothing impressive about the movie’s production design.

The last 15 minutes of “Paranormal Prison” are rushed, with scares and chase scenes crammed in, almost as afterthoughts. And a backstory is quickly introduced to explain why the prison is haunted. But these plot developments are too little, too late. “Paranormal Prison” is an apt title because viewers unlucky enough to watch this entire movie will feel like they’re trapped in a jail cell of unnaturally horrible and repetitive boredom.

Gravitas Ventures released “Paranormal Prison” in select U.S. cinemas, digital and VOD on February 19, 2021.

Review: ‘The Sinners’ (2021), starring Kaitlyn Bernard, Brenna Coates, Brenna Llewellyn, Aleks Paunovic, Lochlyn Munro, Michael Eklund and Tahmoh Penikett

February 19, 2021

by Carla Hay

Brenna Llewellyn, Natalie Malaika, Keilani Elizabeth Rose, Jasmine Randhawa, Kaitlyn Bernard, Brenna Coates and Carly Fawcett in “The Sinners.” (Photo courtesy of Brainstorm Media)

“The Sinners” (2021)

Directed by Courtney Paige

Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed North American city, the horror flick “The Sinners” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few people of color) representing the middle-class and working-class.

Culture Clash: In a conservative Christian town, seven teenage girls form a cult-like clique where they each represent the seven deadly sins, and then members of the group start getting murdered.

Culture Audience: “The Sinners” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in independent horror films that are suspenseful and make the most out of their low budgets.

A scene from “The Sinners.” Pictured in front row, from left to right: Carly Fawcett, Kaitlyn Bernard and Natalie Malaika. Pictured in second row, from left to right: Jasmine Randhawa, Keilani Elizabeth Rose, Brenna Coates and Brenna Llewellyn. (Photo courtesy of Brainstorm Media)

Before anyone dismisses “The Sinners” as just another horror movie where a bunch of teenagers get murdered, consider that it skillfully takes on religious bigotry and sexual oppression while balancing it with an intriguing mystery, gruesome horror and even some touches of comedy. It’s not an easy balancing act, but “The Sinners” mostly succeeds in being a memorable independent horror film in a sea of mindless slasher flicks.

“The Sinners” is the feature-film directorial debut of Courtney Paige, who wrote the screenplay with Erin Hazlehurst and Madison Smith. Paige is also an actress, which might explain why the casting is better than most low-budget movies of this type. Some of the acting is amateurish, but the dynamics between the actors look more authentic and natural than a lot of horror movies that could care less about character development or chemistry between the actors.

The story of “The Sinners” centers on a clique of seven girls who are classmates in their last year at a Christian high school in an unnamed city in North America. (The movie was actually filmed in Paige’s Canadian hometown of Kelowna, British Columbia.) These teenagers call themselves The Sins, and they have each assigned themselves to represent one of the seven deadly sins. They are:

  • Grace Carver (played by Kaitlyn Bernard), the group’s assertive blonde leader, represents the sin of lust. It’s ironic because Grace, who is the child of a strict pastor, is a virgin, but she has a secret love that’s considered taboo in her religion.
  • Tori Davidson (played by Brenna Coates), who sometimes dresses as an emo or Goth, represents the sin of wrath. She’s the tough-talking rebel of the group, and she’s in a secretive romance with Grace.
  • Katie Hamilton (played by Keilani Elizabeth Rose), who is very spoiled and materialistic, represents the sin of greed. She likes to make others feel inferior by bragging about what her wealth can buy her.
  • Molly McIvor (played by Carli Fawcett), a compulsive eater, represents the sin of gluttony. She is very self-conscious about her looks because she’s not as thin as the other girls in the group.
  • Robyn Pearce (played by Natalie Malaika), a passive follower, represents the sin of sloth. She wants to go to a good college but is too lazy to study, so she cheats instead.
  • Stacey Rodgers (played by Jasmine Randhawa), who often compares herself to other people, represents the sin of envy. Her loyalty depends on what she can get out of it.
  • Aubrey Miller (played by Brenna Llewellyn), a quiet redhead who becomes a target for the others’ bullying, represents the sin of pride. The other members of the Sins turn on Aubrey when Grace decides that Aubrey is a snitch.

Aubrey is the narrator of the movie, which opens with a scene of Aubrey being kidnapped by the other Sins, who are wearing masks. This kidnapping ends up being the catalyst for much of the horror that happens in the last third of the film, when certain members of the Sins are murdered, one by one. This isn’t a slasher film where the murderer is revealed from the beginning. There are several people who could be suspects.

Out of all the members of the Sins, Grace is the one whose home life is shown the most. She lives with her parents and three siblings in a very oppressive and religious home ruled over by her father Pastor Dean Carver (played by Tahmoh Penikett), who demands that everything has to be done his way. Grace’s mother Brenda Carver (played by Loretta Walsh) is passive, but she has compassion and often acts as a peacemaker when Dean and Grace get into arguments.

Grace’s older sister Hannah (played by Karis Cameron) sometimes shares Grace’s tendency to be sarcastic and rebellious. By contrast, their younger teenage brother Luke Carver (played by Maxwell Haynes) wants to be the family’s “goody-two-shoes” child and is ready to tattle on Grace and Hannah to their father if he sees them doing anything wrong. The youngest child in the family is a baby boy, who’s briefly seen in the movie and whose name is not mentioned.

At the beginning of the movie, Grace has broken up with a fellow student named Kit Anderson (played by Dylan Playfair), who is still pining for Grace because he keeps calling her and trying to get back together with her. Some of the students, including the other members of the Sins, are aware that Grace and Tori are more than friends. However, Kit is in denial that Grace could be a member of the LGBTQ community and ignores the rumors that are swirling about Grace’s sexuality.

Grace and Tori have to keep their romance a secret, because they go to a religious high school (where all the students wear uniforms and have classes where they study the Bible) and they live in a very conservative Christian community. Tori and Grace canoodle in bathroom stalls at school, and their study sessions in Grace’s bedroom have some snuggling and kissing. Grace’s pastor father doesn’t really approve of Tori, who’s the type of student who will get sent to the principal’s office for blurting out impatiently in class: “Jesus, are you done?”

Grace’s father also doesn’t really approve of Grace’s part-time after-school job working at a flower stand called Andy’s Flower Stream. The business, which operates out of an Airstream trailer, is owned by a bohemian type named Andy Lund (played by James Neate), who’s a laid-back and friendly boss. Andy lives in the trailer with his hippie-ish girlfriend Summer Dobson (played by Jen Araki), who encourages Grace to walk in bare feet and feel “love and light.”

In a voiceover, Aubrey says about Summer, who used to be Aubrey’s babysitter: “I always had a creepy feeling about her. You know the people who always claim ‘light and love and positive.’ Well, they’re usually the most broken.” But the person Aubrey dislikes the most is Tori, because she thinks Tori is a hateful bully.

The top law enforcement official in town is Sherriff Fred Middleton (played by Aleks Paunovic), who provides some of the movie’s comic relief because he tries to be imposing but he’s really kind of a goofball. He’s first seen in the movie when he shows up in the empty classroom where his wife Maggie Middleton (played by Elysia Rotaru) is a teacher at the high school. (Maggie is also Andy’s sister.)

Maggie walks in the classroom and tells Fred, as she unbuttons her blouse, that they have nine minutes before the students arrive for the next class. Fred and Maggie, who’ve been trying to start a family, end up having quickie sex in the classroom. It’s played for laughs because Aubrey, who sees Fred leave the classroom and guesses what he had been doing there, asks him what he has on his collar. He quickly looks to see if a stain is there (there isn’t) and figures out that Aubrey was just trying to embarrass him when she tells him that she tried to go into the classroom but the door was locked.

Aubrey keeps a journal of her innermost thoughts. And all hell breaks loose when Tori and Kathy steal Aubrey’s journal. Certain incidents lead the other Sins to believe that Aubrey has been snitching on them. And when they find out what Aubrey has to say about them in the journal, their suspicions seem to be confirmed.

First, they lure Aubrey into a “study group” session which turns out to be an excuse to harass and haze her. Then, they kidnap Aubrey and take her to a remote wooded area, where things spiral out of control, but Aubrey manages to escape and goes missing. And then, other members of the Sins start to disappear and are brutally murdered.

Sheriff Middleton and his Deputy Douglas Sanders (played by Taylor St. Pierre) end up clashing with the higher-level government detectives who are sent to investigate the murders. The outside investigators are Detective Zankowski (played Michael Eklund) and Detective O’Ryan (played by Lochlyn Munro), who treat the sheriff and the deputy like incompetent yokels. Middleton and Sanders think that they’re being undermined by arrogant big-city types who don’t know the community. Meanwhile, as these two factions have their power struggle, more of the Sins get killed.

“The Sinners” makes great use of cinematography by Stirling Bancroft to create an atmosphere of foreboding beneath the pristine and orderly exterior of this suburban community. (There’s a recurring image of a rose stuck in the mouth of dead girl that’s particularly striking. It’s probably why the move was originally titled “The Color Rose.”) The movie’s production design and costume design are well-done, given the film’s small budget. And the whodunit aspect of the mystery is not as predictable as viewers might think it is.

There’s only one scene in the movie that seems awkward and out-of-place. It involves Grace having a secret occult meeting with two women and one man who look at least 10 years older than she is. It’s never explained how a sheltered preacher’s kid like Grace came to find these people or how long she’s known them. And the scene ends up being irrelevant, given what happens at the end of the movie.

The actresses who portray the seven Sins are convincing as a pack of “mean girls” who are “frenemies,” with their loyalty to each other always in question. As Tori, Coates stands out with having the most realistic acting and also the most obviously complicated character. On the one hand, Tori is exactly the type of bully that Aubrey despises. On the other hand, Tori has a very tough-but-tender side to her that’s loving with Grace and very protective of her. Their secret romance adds another layer of terror and anxiety in the story, since the unforgiving homophobia in their community makes Grace and Tori afraid to be open about the true nature of their relationship.

“The Sinners” is definitely not a horror classic on the level of director David Fincher’s 1995 film “Seven,” another macabre thriller with the seven deadly sins as its theme. As far as slasher films go, “The Sinners” can be considered slightly better than most. And it’s also a promising feature directorial debut for Paige, who shows she has a knack for telling a gripping horror story in a way that can capture people’s interest from beginning to end.

Brainstorm Media released “The Sinners” on digital and VOD on February 19, 2021.

UPDATE: Lifetime will premiere the movie under the title “The Virgin Sinners” on August 21, 2021.

Review: ‘The Mauritanian,’ starring Jodie Foster, Tahar Rahim, Benedict Cumberbatch and Shailene Woodley

February 19, 2021

by Carla Hay

Tahar Rahim and Jodie Foster in “The Mauritanian” (Photo courtesy of STX)

“The Mauritanian”

Directed by Kevin Macdonald

Some language in Arabic, French and German with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Mauritania, Cuba, the United States, Germany and Afghanistan, the dramatic film “The Mauritanian” features a cast of white, North African, Middle Eastern and a few black characters representing people who are connected in some way to the case of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian citizen who was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for being a suspected terrorist.

Culture Clash: Slahi’s legal team argued that he was being wrongly imprisoned by the U.S. government, because he wasn’t given the proper due process in the court system and he wasn’t charged with a crime.

Culture Audience: “The Mauritanian” will appeal primarily to people in interested in social justice issues, especially in how Muslims were treated after the 9/11 attacks.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Zachary Levi in “The Mauritanian” (Photo courtesy of STX)

Movies like “The Mauritanian” usually don’t get made unless there’s a message of hope and inspiration at the very end. But this dramatic interpretation of a real-life story of legal injustice also exists to show the horrors of being caught in a system of imprisonment without being charged with a crime. That’s what happened to Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian citizen who was held captive at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for being a suspected terrorist.

In many ways, “The Mauritanian” (directed by Kevin Macdonald) follows a typical formula of a movies about a wrongfully imprisoned person who’s fighting for legal justice and release from prison. There are crusading defense attorneys, corrupt government officials and brutal scenes of prison life. There’s also some hokey dialogue that lowers the quality of the movie.

However, the “The Mauritanian” is not a typical movie of this ilk because it tells a very specific story about someone who was imprisoned for years by the U.S. government without even being charged with a crime. And that’s highly unusual in any legal case in the United States. The other way that “The Mauritanian” is not a typical movie about a legal case is that the two defense attorneys who do the most work on the case are both women, and the defense team is led by a woman.

These legal dramas often take the perspective of the privileged lawyers involved in the case, but “The Mauritanian” never loses the perspective of the person who is suffering the most in this case: Slahi (played by Tahar Rahim), whose story is told from the moment he was questioned and detained, as well as through flashbacks. However, the movie gives a lot of screen time to the legal finagling that went on outside of Guantanamo Bay, in order to give scenes to the better-known actors in this cast who portray the lawyers and government officials who are in a power struggle over this case.

“The Mauritanian” opens with a scene of 30-year-old Slahi at a wedding reception in Mauritania in November 2001. Outside, he apprehensively meets with two plainclothes Mauritanian police officers who have shown up to question Slahi about where his cousin Khalid al-Shanqiti is. Slahi replies, “I have no idea where [he] is. I doubt even Bin Laden knows.” Viewers who don’t know the story will later find out in the movie that al-Shanqiti is a personal poet and spiritual adviser to Osama Bin Laden, who was widely identified as the leader of the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.

One of the cops tells Slahi: “After the New York attacks, Americans are going crazy. They want to talk to you.” A nervous Slahi goes inside the building and erases all of the contacts from his phone. Slahi then goes back outside and agrees to go for questioning, but he insists on taking his own car. What happened during that interrogation session, which is shown later in the movie as flashbacks, resulted in Slahi being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

The movie then shows how lead defense attorney Nancy Hollander (played by Jodie Foster) got involved in the case. Hollander is portrayed as a no-nonsense, politically liberal lawyer who believes in the same ideals as the American Civil Liberties Union. She’s also a partner in the law firm Friedman, Boyd & Hollander, which is based in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

“The Mauritanian” presents a scenario of Hollander first becoming aware of Slahi’s case in 2005, when she has a lunch meeting with a colleague named Kent (played by David Flynn) from another firm. Kent tells her that a Mauritanian lawyer approached his firm to take Slahi’s case, but Kent’s firm declined the request. It’s mentioned during this lunch meeting that the German news publication Der Spiegel has reported that Slahi is suspected of helping plan the 9/11 attacks.

What lawyer wants to defend a suspected 9/11 terrorist and accuse the U.S. government of wrongful imprisonment of said terrorist? Hollander does. Her partners at the law firm discourage her from what they think will be a losing case, given the political climate at the time. They also don’t like that this would be a pro bono case for Hollander. In other words, she wouldn’t be getting a fee that would bring income to the firm.

Early on in the movie, it ‘s shown that Hollander is someone who likes to fight for underdogs, so she remains undeterred in wanting to taking the case. Because she’s a partner in the firm, Hollander has more clout than a junior lawyer or non-partner would have, so she ends up getting her way in the firm representing Slahi, with Hollander as his lead attorney. Hollander also has the advantage of having national security clearance, so she has access to certain information and people that a regular attorney would not have.

The first person she recruits to be her second-in-command attorney and researcher is Teri Duncan (played by Shailene Woodley), a junior attorney who shares Hollander’s enthusiasm for taking on the case. However, Duncan’s loyalties will be tested later on when things don’t go smoothly. Duncan is friendlier and more easygoing than Hollander, but Duncan is also someone who is more likely to be intimidated or discouraged by setbacks than Hollander is.

This contrast in Hollander’s and Duncan’s personalities affects the case in different ways. The first meeting that Hollander and Duncan have with Slahi at Guantanamo Bay (after they go through high-level clearances and briefings) is so they can convince Slahi to hire them as his attorneys. Hollander is noticeably stiff and uncomfortable in interacting Slahi, while Duncan is better at being more approachable in the conversation. Slahi can speak English, Arabic, French and German, although he sometimes needs a translator when he needs to speak to someone in English.

Duncan makes eye contact with Slahi in a way that makes him feel that he can trust them, so he agrees to let them be his attorneys. He also makes a remark that at this point in his dismal situation, he doesn’t have better options. These qualified attorneys, who wholeheartedly believe that Slahi is not guilty of being a terrorist, are offering their services for free, so it would also be foolish for him to turn down their offer.

While Hollander and Duncan are are on the case, the movie shows hints that Duncan is somewhat attracted to Slahi and might have a personal interest in him outside of their attorney/client relationship. (Duncan and Slahi were both single at the time this story took place.) It’s mentioned early on in the movie that Hollander was separated from her husband Bill and living alone during this time in her life. In other words, don’t expect to see scenes of Hollander with a family, like other characters have in the movie.

Slahi’s life before prison is shown in flashback scenes of him with his family members, including his controversial cousin al-Shanqiti, a known terrorist associate who used the aliases Abu Has al-Mauritani and Mafouz Walad al-Walid. Slahi was especially close to his mother, who expressed concerns abut him living in another country when Slahi was in his 20s and got an electrical engineering scholarship at a university in Germany.

After getting his college education, Slahi moved to Afghanistan in 1990. It was this period of time in his life that put him on the radar of being a suspected terrorist. As portrayed in the movie, Slahi and his cousin al-Shanqiti attended radical Islamic training groups. The U.S. government suspected that Slahi and his cousin al-Shanqiti joined the Al Qaeda terrorist movement that had Bin Laden as its leader at the time.

One of the main reasons for Slahi’s imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay was that the U.S. government accused him of recruiting to Al Qaeda one of the men who years later was identified as one of the 9/11 terrorists: Ramzi bin al-Shibh, also know as the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. Slahi vehemently denied that accusation, although he didn’t deny that he was taught Al Qaeda training in Afghanistan. In a flashback, it’s shown that Slahi believed the training he was undergoing in the 1990s was for Muslims to fight against Communism, and that Al Qaeda was on the same side as Americans.

However deeply involved in terrorism Slahi might or might not have been, or how credible he might or might not be, that wasn’t the key legal issue for Hollander and the defense team. As Hollander declares: “We have to prove that the U.S. government lacks sufficient evidence to detain him.” The defense team soon finds out that it will be an uphill battle.

On the opposite side of the case is Stuart Couch (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), a U.S. Marines veteran who was assigned as the lead prosecutor in Slahi’s case in September 2003, just one month after he joined the Office of Military Commissions. A graduate of the U.S. Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training program, Couch has a personal reason for going after 9/11 terrorists: His close friend Bruce Taylor was on the plane that crashed into the Twin Towers’ South Tower in the 9/11 attacks. At a 9/11 anniversary memorial service, Couch comforts Bruce’s widow Cathy (played by Justine Mitchell) and tells her how proud he is to be prosecuting the case so he can help get justice for Bruce.

However, during Couch’s investigation to prepare for the prosecution, he begins to question how committed he’ll be to the case when he uncovers disturbing incidents of Guantanamo Bay prisoners (including Slahi) being illegally tortured during their interrogations. These torture scenes are shown in graphic detail in the movie, including horrific beatings and waterboarding. Couch’s investigation is further complicated because of his personal connection to one of the government officials whom Couch suspects is covering up incriminating information.

That person is Neil Buckland (played by Zachary Levi), who was a former classmate of Couch’s when they were stationed at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. Buckland is portrayed as a manipulative villain who uses his past personal connection to Couch to try to cloud Couch’s judgment in the investigation. Couch considers himself to be a highly ethical person, but even he begins to wonder how much of the government’s violations he should expose when Buckland and some other government officials question Couch’s patriotism and competence.

Meanwhile, there’s a subplot of Slahi befriending a fellow Guantanamo Bay inmate known only as Inmate #241, who is originally from Marseilles, France. They never see each other because they are separated by walls. But they end up confiding in each other about their lives and what they hope to do if they’re ever released from prison. The movie portrays Inmate #241, who gives Slahi the nickname The Mauritanian, as the closest that Slahi came to having a true friend inside the prison.

At 129 minutes, “The Mauritanian” could have felt less bloated if about 15 minutes had been trimmed from the total running time. “The Mauritanian” director Macdonald keeps an even keel throughout the movie, which is part legal thriller, part prison drama. It’s not a bad movie, but it’s not an outstanding movie that will get the industry’s most prestigious awards.

All of the actors do well in their performances, particularly Rahim, who gives an authentic portrayal of the range of emotions that his character goes through in the movie. It’s a very human depiction that shows Slahi’s strengths, weaknesses and occasional flashes of humor in grim situations. Foster, Woodley, Cumberbatch and Levi are solid, but their roles are written in a fairly predictable way.

The movie falters the most in the screenplay, which was written by M.B. Traven (also known as Michael Bronner), Rory Haines and Sohrab Noshirvani. They adapted the screenplay from Slahi’s best-selling 2015 memoir “Guantanamo Diary.” There are many times in the movie that might remind viewers of how a formulaic legal procedural series is written for television, especially during the courtroom scenes.

And the dialogue can be a bit corny at times. During a government meeting for the prosecution, one of the officials says of one of the suspected terrorists: “This dude is like the Al Qaeda Forrest Gump. Everywhere you look, here’s there.”

These flaws don’t ruin the movie, because they are outweighed by how compelling the story is and by how well this talented cast portrays it. The approach of the movie isn’t so much from a political perspective but from a human rights perspective. It’s clear that the filmmakers want “The Mauritanian” to serve as a statement that no government should act as if it’s above the law when it comes to violating human rights.

STX released “The Mauritanian” in select U.S. cinemas on February 12, 2021. The movie’s VOD release date is March 2, 2021. Universal Pictures Home Entertainment will release “The Mauritanian” on digital on April 20, 2021, and on Blu-ray and DVD on May 11, 2021.

Review: ‘A Writer’s Odyssey,’ starring Lei Jiayin, Yang Mi and Dong Zijiang

February 18, 2021

by Carla Hay

Lei Jiayin in “A Writer’s Odyssey” (Photo courtesy of CMC Pictures)

“A Writer’s Odyssey”

Directed by Lu Yang

Mandarin with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in China, the fantasy/action film “A Writer’s Odyssey” features an all-Asian cast representing the middle-class, wealthy and criminal underground.

Culture Clash: A desperate man, who’s been searching for his missing daughter for the past six years, gets caught up in a murder plot and an alternate world that are connected to what a young novelist is writing for his latest book.

Culture Audience: “A Writer’s Odyssey” will appeal primarily to people who like immersive, eye-catching action films that have twist-filled plot developments.

Yang Mi in “A Writer’s Odyssey” (Photo courtesy of CMC Pictures)

It’s not just the graphic violence that makes the fantasy/action film “A Writer’s Odyssey” geared to adults. At the core of a movie is a time-traveling mystery that is wrapped up and eventually unraveled in layers, making it a somewhat convoluted story that very young children will have a hard time understanding. But the movie is worth a watch for anyone who’s up for a story that examines issues of grief and revenge, while taking viewers on a frenetic ride in this otherworldly enigma.

To fully understand “A Writer’s Odyssey” (directed by Yang Lu), it helps to know in advance that the movie switches back and forth between two different worlds. In the “real world,” a disillusioned and bitter man named Guan Ning has been on an unrelenting quest to find his daughter Tangerine, who disappeared six years earlier when she was 6 years old. Meanwhile, a young author named Kongwen Lu (played by Dong Zijian) has been writing the latest book in his fantasy novel series, which follows a heroic teenager who is also named Kongwen.

Kongwen Lu’s writing come to life in the movie, and it’s all presented as an “alternate world,” where monsters exist, there are armies of robot-looking mutants, and humans look and act like warriors—or at least potential warriors. In this “alternate world,” whatever Kongwen Lu writes happens on screen. But there comes a point in the movie where what happens in the “alternate world” has an effect on people in the “real world” and vice versa.

“A Writer’s Odyssey” opens up with a thrilling action scene that introduces Guan Ning as the protagonist who finds himself unexpectedly caught between these two worlds. He’s lying in wait in a mountainous area and throws a rock at the windowshield of a freight truck driving below on a winding road. The rock breaks the window, which causes the truck to crash. There are two men sitting in the front of the truck, and they suffer minor injuries.

While the driver is briefly unconscious, Guan Ning shouts to the other man about his missing daughter Tangerine: “Six years ago in Liaoyuan, you kidnapped her. Where is she?” Guan Ning and the thug end up fighting. The driver then regains his consciousness and hits Guan Ning with a pipe.

Guan Ning runs to the back of the truck, opens the door, and sees several children locked in cages, but Tangerine is not one of them. The kids in the cages all look to be about 6 to 8 years old, while Tangerine would be about 12. And the next thing you know, police arrive, the two thugs run off, and Guan Ning is arrested for suspected kidnapping and child trafficking. He protests and says he’s an innocent father who’s looking for his daughter.

In another big fight scene, Guan Ning manages to escape from the back of the police squad car. He runs to the nearest car on the street. It’s a black car that has a mysterious woman dressed in black leather in the driver’s seat. Even though Guan Ning has never met her before, she knows who he is. Her name is Tu Ling (played by Yang Mi), and she tells Guan Ning: “You’re our valued business partner.”

Tu Ling also tells Guan Ning that she knows that his life revolves around finding his missing daughter. She comments that she also knows that he used to be a banker, but after Tangerine disappeared, he quit his job, sold his house, and divorced his wife. Guan Ning is suspicious of Tu Ling, who offers to hide Guan Ning from the police if he will do some favors for her.

Guan Ning is reluctant, but then Guan Ning says that she has information that could lead to him finding his daughter. And so, Guan Ning goes with Tu Ling, who takes him further down a rabbit hole of secrets and lies. It’s enough to say that whenever a mysterious stranger makes an offer that’s too good to be true, it usually is.

Tu Ling has a ruthless boss named Li Mu who has a murderous agenda that’s eventually revealed. Meanwhile, the alternate world created by Kongwen Lu begins to collide more with the real world until it becomes obvious that there’s a power struggle going on that involves the supernatural. Meanwhile, Guan Ning is forced to make a decision that could mean the difference between sparing someone’s life and Guan Ning getting killed, or killing someone else and saving his own life.

All of the actors do moderately good jobs in their performances, but Lei Jiayin has to show the widest range of emotions. There are some predictable flashback scenes of Guan Ningin in happier times with Tangerine, with these scenes blatantly tugging at viewers’ heartstrings. The mystery behind her disappearance isn’t handled in a completely predictable way, which makes “A Writer’s Odyssey” more than a typical fantasy/action flick.

“A Writer’s Odyssey” is based on Xuetao Shuang’s book “Assassinate a Novelist.” There are seven people credited with writing the movie’s screenplay: Xuetao Shuang, director Yang Lu, Shu Chen, Xiaocao Liu, Haiyan Qin, Lu Yang and Yang Yu. With all these screenwriters for the movie, the plot sometimes seems overstuffed with ideas and bloated by “too many cooks in the kitchen” syndrome. And the total running time for the movie (130 minutes) is a little too long.

It’s obvious that a great deal of this movie’s budget was spent on visual effects, which are intricate and sometimes stunning but won’t be winning any awards. The violence is often bloody and cruel, while the choreography works very well in most of the action scenes. At times, “A Writer’s Odyssey” looks like a big-budget video game, but the movie has more humanity than a video game in handling the mystery at the center of the story. Underneath the brutal fight scenes and dazzling visual effects is a story of how a parent’s love for a child can lead someone to go to extreme and desperate actions.

CMC Pictures released “A Writer’s Odyssey” in select U.S. cinemas on February 12, 2021, the same day that it was also released in mainland China, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Singapore.

Review: ‘French Exit,’ starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Lucas Hedges

February 18, 2021

by Carla Hay

Michelle Pfeiffer and Lucas Hedges in “French Exit” (Photo by Tobias Datum/Sony Pictures Classics)

“French Exit”

Directed by Azazel Jacobs

Culture Representation: Taking place in New York City and Paris, the comedy/drama “French Exit” features an almost all-white cast of characters (with one black person and one Asian person) representing the wealthy, middle-class and working-class.

Culture Clash: An American socialite widow and her young adult son relocate from New York City to Paris after she loses her fortune.

Culture Audience: “French Exit” will appeal primarily to fans of star Michelle Pfeiffer and to people who like stories about drastic life changes, but the movie’s abrupt shift from realism into becoming a wacky supernatural story might annoy some viewers.

Pictured from left to right (in front) Danielle Macdonald, Valerie Mahaffey and Imogen Poots; (in back) Isaach de Bankolé, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Coyne in “French Exit” (Photo by Lou Scamble/Sony Pictures Classics)

The comedy/drama film “French Exit” starts out as a straightforward story about two Americans who’ve relocated to Paris, but then takes a bizarre turn that involves a psychic, a missing cat and a plot that becomes about reincarnation. Despite impressive performances from co-stars Michelle Pfeiffer and Lucas Hedges, “French Exit” is a messy, uneven film that tries to be too quirky for its own good. The characters in the movie act more and more ridiculous until the story reaches a very uninspired and tepid conclusion.

Directed by Azazel Jacobs and written by Patrick DeWitt (who adapted the screenplay from his 2018 novel of the same name), “French Exit” begins with a flashback scene of the story’s two main characters. Haughty socialite Frances Price (played by Pfeiffer) and her 12-year-old son Malcolm (played by Eddie Holland) hastily leave the boarding school where Frances has arrived to withdraw his enrollment. Frances has taken Malcolm back home to live with her in their spacious New York City townhouse.

The next time that viewers see Frances and Malcolm (played by Hedges), it’s now 12 years later. Frances’ husband Franklin (who was Malcolm’s father) has been dead for 12 years, and Frances has run out of the money that she inherited. She’s also been told that the house is in foreclosure and she’s going to be locked out of her home in a matter of weeks. It’s implied that either Franklin left behind a lot of debts that Frances (who is now 60 years old) could not pay and/or that Frances racked up a lot of debts on her own after Frank’s death. At one point in the movie, Frances says she’s never worked a day in her life and she has no intention of ever doing so.

After Frances gets over the shock and denial that she’s no longer wealthy and is about to be homeless, she takes her accountant’s advice to sell all of her jewelry, artwork and many other possessions, in order to get enough cash for the near future. Frances has almost no friends, but she has the good luck of having a socialite confidante named Joan (played by Susan Coyne), who generously offers her unused Paris apartment as a place for Frances and Malcolm to stay.

Frances accepts the offer, even though her pride is wounded by having to take this charitable handout. Frances is so broke that she can’t afford to pay the $600 salary that she owes to her maid Sylvia (played by Christine Lan), who demands to be paid in cash because Sylvia’s most recent paycheck from Frances was returned due to insufficient funds. Frances doesn’t have the cash, but Malcolm does, so he pays the $600 that’s owed. Sylvia isn’t going to be working for Frances for much longer anyway, because Frances has told Malcolm that they could be living in Paris “perhaps for the rest of our lives.”

Meanwhile, Malcolm is dealing with some problems in his love life. He has an on-again/off-again girlfriend named Susan (played by Imogen Poots), who’s slightly older and more emotionally mature than he is. Malcolm and Susan are secretly engaged, but he’s been afraid to tell his mother Frances. In fact, Malcolm tells Frances one day over breakfast that he and Susan are in a “holding pattern,” as in, his relationship with Susan is now on pause.

It becomes very obvious early on in the movie that Frances and Malcolm have a very co-dependent relationship. Frances is the type of domineering mother who probably doesn’t approve of anything that would result in Malcolm getting his own place and starting his own independent life. Just like his mother, Malcolm is somewhat of a loner. Unlike his mother, Malcolm is tactful when dealing with people and he doesn’t have a snobbish attitude.

Franklin is never seen in the movie in flashbacks, but his presence looms large over Frances and Malcolm, who talk about him often in this story. His voice is heard later in the movie, with Tracy Letts as the voice of Franklin. Based on what Frances and Malcolm say, Franklin was an emotionally distant and often-cruel husband and father. Frances mentions that her marriage to Franklin started off happy, but then it turned into a love/hate relationship.

Malcolm, who was never close to Franklin, only started to bond with Frances after she took Malcolm away from the boarding school. It’s implied that Frances only did so after Franklin died and she was lonely and needed someone else in the house to live with her. Malcolm is a socially awkward lost soul who clings to his mother for love but knows that his relationship with her can be very unhealthy.

Susan has been pressuring Malcolm to tell Frances that they are engaged, but he keeps postponing telling Frances this news. Malcolm and Susan are on the verge of breaking up when he tells Susan that he and his mother are moving to Paris the next day. Shocked and dismayed, Susan breaks up with Malcolm because she says there’s no point in continuing in the relationship if he’s going to live so far away. She also feels disrespected that Malcolm was keeping their engagement a secret from his mother.

And so, Frances and Malcolm pack up the modest number of their remaining possessions, including their black cat Small Frank, and head to Paris on a cruise ship. Before the trip, Frances converted all of their cash into euros to carry with her. And it’s a stash that gets smaller as the story continues.

During this journey across the Atlantic Ocean, Malcolm meets a woman who calls herself Madeleine the Medium (played by Danielle Macdonald), who works as a fortune teller on the ship. Frances first sees Madeleine giving bad news to an elderly woman, who is sobbing because Madeleine predicted that the woman would die soon. Malcolm is intrigued by Madeleine, and when he sees Madeleine alone at the ship’s bar one night, he strikes up a conversation with her.

At first, Madeleine is standoffish, but eventually she warms up to Malcolm, and they end up having a sexual tryst. She spends the night in the cabin that Malcolm shares with Frances. And the next morning, Frances seems unbothered by this overnight guest because she assumes that Madeleine is just a one-night stand.

And then, things get weird. At the ship’s bar, Malcolm meets a very drunk elderly man named Boris Maurus (played by Vlasta Vrana), who’s the ship’s doctor. Boris chuckles as he tells Malcolm that he wants to show Malcolm something on the ship. Where does Boris takes Malcolm? To the ship’s morgue. Boris explains to Malcolm that it’s not unusual for people to die on a cruise ship, but cruises never advertise this fact.

Boris also points out a recently deceased woman among the bodies and says that Madeleine had predicted that this woman would die. It’s the same woman whom Frances had seen sobbing during a fortune-telling session with Madeleine. Malcolm is predictably uncomfortable with being in the morgue, but he’s too polite to scold Boris for bringing him there. And so, Malcolm gives an awkward thank you to Boris and then makes a hasty exit. The main purpose of this scene, except for being morbid and creepy, is that it lets viewers know that maybe Madeleine’s psychic abilities are real.

When Frances and Malcolm arrive in Paris, there’s a somewhat comical scene of them illegally smuggling in Small Frank through customs. (Frances gave the cat a tranquilizer that rendered the cat unconscious, so she’s able to hide the cat in her travel bag.) After Frances and Malcolm settle into Joan’s apartment, they mostly keep to themselves, simply because they don’t know anyone in the area. It’s not the first time Frances has been to Paris, but the last time she was there was when she was on a trip with Franklin in happier times.

Malcolm gets lonely, so he calls Susan to invite her to visit him in Paris. He’s hurt and surprised to find out that she’s gotten back together with a boyfriend named Tom (played by Daniel di Tomasso), whom she dated when Susan and Tom were in college. Susan drops hints that it’s a rebound relationship on her part because she doesn’t want to be alone and because Tom is very much in love with her.

Malcolm reacts as if Susan has been cheating on him, by telling her that he still thinks of Susan as fiancée. It’s a hypocritical reaction, considering that Malcolm was acting very single and available when he hooked up with Madeleine. Malcolm also doesn’t tell Susan about Madeleine in this conversation. Susan is annoyed by Malcolm’s possessiveness, and she asks Malcolm not to contact her again.

When Malcolm and Frances first arrive in Paris, the movie drags a little in showing how bored and lonely they are. In one scene, Frances and Malcolm have lunch together in a fairly empty café. When they’re ready to leave, Malcolm asks the waiter to get the bill for the meal. The waiter rudely tells Malcolm to wait.

Malcolm and Frances watch as the waiter casually jokes around with a co-worker, as if he’s on a break and doesn’t need to attend to any customers. Frances gets visibly annoyed and then calmly puts some perfume on the small vase of flowers on the table, and then sets the flowers on fire. That definitely gets the waiter’s attention, and the horrified waiter can’t believe what he’s seeing. The waiter tells Frances that she’s crazy, as he and other employees rush to put out the fire, while Frances and Malcolm just sit there and smirk.

It’s a very unrealistic “only in a movie moment” (and there will be more to come as the story goes downhill), because in the real world, causing arson in a restaurant can get someone arrested. Perhaps this arson scene was supposed to make Frances look like a “badass” who doesn’t put up with anyone disrespecting her son. But it just makes her look mean-spirited and mentally unstable, with Malcolm as her enabler.

Malcolm and Frances soon meet someone who comes into their lives as a possible friend. Frances shows Malcolm a house party invitation from another American in Paris named Madame Renard (played by Valerie Mahaffey), a widow who used to run in the same New York City social circles as Frances. Malcolm and Frances go to the party at Madame Renard’s home and find out that they are the only guests.

It turns out that Madame Renard only invited the two of them to this party. Madame Renard confesses to Frances and Malcolm that she’s been lonely since her husband died and was hoping that she could become friends with Frances. Madame Renard gives effusive compliments to Frances and says that she’s always admired Frances from afar.

Even though it’s obvious that Madame Renard is feeling very emotionally vulnerable, Frances callously tells Madame Renard in a disgusted tone of voice that she’s not interested in being her friend and isn’t looking for any friends. Madame Renard looks crushed and embarrassed, while Malcolm makes a sincere apology for the way his mother is behaving.

Despite being insulted in her own home, Madame Renard invites Frances and Malcolm to stay for dinner. Frances eventually makes an apology to Madame Renard for being so rude, and makes the excuse that she’s going through a difficult time too. Madame Renard accepts the apology and she ends up spending more time with Frances and Malcolm.

Some viewers will have a hard time connecting to Frances and Malcolm, which is why “French Exit” isn’t the charming oddball movie that it wants to be. Frances is emotionally cold, usually selfish, and really isn’t that great of a mother. She also doesn’t seem to have any talent for anything. And she’s definitely not very smart, considering she had a lot of privileged advantages and yet ended up in this awful predicament at this stage in her life.

At one point in the movie, Frances declares: “My plan was to die before the money ran out.” It tells you a lot about how short-sighted, boring and empty her life is if all she has to show for it is an emotionally stunted son and a fortune she’s squandered (money that was earned by someone else, since Frances has never worked), thereby leaving her son’s future uncertain too. Most socialites at least have some hobbies, but Frances doesn’t seem to have any interests other than trying to be the center of attention and getting what she wants.

Malcolm is a man-child who’s fairly articulate and has good manners, but he’s completely sheltered from a lot of reality and wants to live in the same psychological “bubble” that Frances tries to use to shield herself from life’s harshest problems. He also doesn’t seem willing or concerned about finding a job to help with their financial problems. Frances is close to retirement age and has no job skills. But there’s no excuse for Malcolm, who’s young and healthy, for him not to try and find work. Is he really that lazy and incapable of problem solving? Apparently so.

An example of how socially clueless Malcolm can be is in the scene in New York when Malcolm told Susan that he was moving to Paris. He brought flowers to their lunch date, even though he probably knew that Susan would break up with him. Susan sees the absurdity of this romantic gesture and chastises Malcolm for bringing flowers to this date. It’s almost as if he thinks a gift of flowers could erase the bad news that he was moving to Paris.

However, Malcolm has a sympathetic side when viewers find out how much his parents neglected him when he was a child. There’s a scene that shows how deep Malcolm’s emotional wounds run in feeling unloved by his father. It explains why Malcolm can’t quite tear himself away from Frances, because he’s trying to get the unconditional love and approval from her that he didn’t get from his father. As toxic as his mother’s love can be, Malcolm thinks it’s better than nothing.

The filmmakers clearly didn’t want “French Exit” to be a typical mother/son movie, but in trying to buck convention too much, the movie falls off the rails. In the last third of “French Exit,” the movie then turns into a silly indulgence of séances and people who don’t know each other conveniently showing up in the same place in a short period of time to continue the absurdity. There’s also a private investigator named Julius (played by Isaach De Bankolé) who comes into the picture, for reasons that are explained in the movie.

The cinematography, costume design and production design make the movie look very stylish. (“French Exit” was actually filmed in Montreal.) But the music of “French Exit” is a weird mix of sitcom schlock in some scenes and classical elegance in other scenes. It’s an example of the wildly contrasting tones in this movie, which seems like it got weirder and weirder to distract viewers from the fact that Frances and Malcolm have very aimless lives. Paris is one of the most exciting and fascinating cities in the world, but this miserable mother and son of “French Exit” have such hollow lives that their boredom comes at the expense of making Paris and this movie look like mindless gimmicks.

Sony Pictures Classics released “French Exit” in select U.S. virtual cinemas in New York City and Los Angeles on February 12, 2021. The movie expands to more cities across the U.S. on April 2, 2021.

Copyright 2017-2024 Culture Mix
CULTURE MIX