reviews Archives – CULTURE MIX

Culture Representation: The documentary series “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” features a predominantly white group of people (with one Latino) discussing the case of Elizabeth Smart, who was 14 years old when she was kidnapped from her Salt Lake City home in June 2002 and found in March 2003.

Culture Clash: Police investigators and the Smart family were often at odds with each other because the police followed suspicions that turned out to be incorrect.

Culture Audience: “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime documentaries about very famous kidnapping cases about children who were found and returned home safely.

A 2003 photo of Mary Katherine Smart, Ed Smart and Elizabeth Smart in “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

So much has already been reported and said about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case—one of the most well-known and remarkable kidnapping cases of the 2000s—that yet another documentary about the case seems redundant. “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” doesn’t reveal much new information but this true crime documentary has the benefit of exclusive interviews with several members of the Smart family, including Elizabeth, her father Ed and her rarely interviewed sister Mary Katherine, who provided the crucial clues that led to finding Elizabeth and Elizabeth’s kidnappers.

Directed by Benedict Sanderson, “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” uses a lot of the same techniques that are in many other true crime documentaries: ominous music as people describe the crime and investigation; snippets of re-enactments with actors silently playing the roles of the real people involved in the case; and a “whodunit” storytelling format that reveals the perpetrators when the documentary is at least half over. The “whodunit” aspect of the documentary is dragged out and seems unnecessary because it’s common knowledge that Elizabeth Smart’s kidnappers (spouses Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Ileen Barzee) were caught and sent to prison.

In 2003, Barzee pleaded guilty to kidnapping, sexual assault and burglary. She received 15 years in prison and was released in 2018. Mitchell faced the same charges and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. In 2010, after years of delays for Mitchell’s trial, Mitchell was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Only viewers who know nothing about this case will be affected by the fake suspense that the documentary tries to build. For people already familiar with the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, the main reason to watch this documentary is to get the perspectives of Elizabeth and the other people who were involved in the case. Elizabeth and Ed each has a separate memoir about the kidnapping ordeal, and they have given numerous media interviews and spoken extensively about the case, while Mary Katherine has not.

It’s mentioned in the documentary that Lois Smart (Elizabeth and Mary Katherine’s mother) no longer wishes to publicly speak about the case because she wants to put it behind her. What the documentary doesn’t mention is that Ed and Lois got divorced in 2019, after Ed came out as gay. Based on what is shown in the documentary, Ed is still very close to Elizabeth and Mary Katherine, who do not talk about their siblings in the documentary.

Elizabeth Smart was born on November 3, 1987, in Salt Lake City, the city where she and her siblings were raised. She is one of six children born to Ed and Lois Smart, who raised the children in their Mormon faith. Elizabeth and Mary Katherine are the only sisters of their siblings. Elizabeth Smart’s name is now Elizabeth Gilmour (she married Matthew Gilmour in 2012), but she is now a professional child safety advocate and TV personality who uses her maiden name Elizabeth Smart for her career.

The Smart family, by all accounts, is a tight-knit and loving family, with no history of dysfunction or abuse. In the documentary, Ed describes Elizabeth in her childhood as “fiercely competitive, especially with her brothers. As far as her inner strength, she just had a really strong spirit.” Mary Katherine says Elizabeth was her best friend in her childhood and someone she looked up to as a role model.

The basic facts of the case have been widely reported and are repeated in the documentary: On June 5, 2002, Elizabeth was kidnapped in the early-morning hours from the bedroom that she shared with Mary Katherine, who witnessed the kidnapping but pretended to be asleep. Mary Katherine said that the kidnapper (who had a knife) was a man whose voice she recognized, but she could not immediately identify the kidnapper by name. The kidnapper told Elizabeth that if she made a sound, he would kill Elizabeth. A kitchen window screen in the house had been cut and was believed to be the way the kidnapper entered the house.

There was widespread media coverage of the kidnapping because it’s rare for a stranger to kidnap a child from inside the child’s home. Suspicion first fell on the men in the Smart family, who all had solid alibis and were eventually cleared as suspects. In the documentary, Ed mentions that the stress of being under suspicion caused him to have a mental breakdown, and his father put him in a psychiatric facility for a brief period of time.

Suspicion then shifted to Richard Ricci, a contractor who had recently done work on the Smart family house. Ricci had a long criminal record since the early 1970s, including convictions for attempted homicide, felony burglary, aggravated robbery and third-degree theft. He refused to give an alibi for the time period when Elizabeth was kidnapped. Ricci was arrested, but he insisted that he had nothing to do with the kidnapping. Mary Katherine also told police that Ricci was not the kidnapper. On August 30, 2002, Ricci died of a brain aneurysm while he was in jail for this arrest.

In the documentary, Mary Katherine says that being the only witness to the kidnapping was a terrifying and isolating experience. In the documentary, she talks about how she was afraid to go to sleep at night. And before Elizabeth was found, police told her not to talk to anyone outside of her family and law enforcement about what she witnessed because it could possibly influence her memory. Mary Katherine was left to cope on her own proverbial “lonely island,” she says. Mary Katherine also underwent hypnosis (which didn’t work) to try to help her remember the name of the man she saw kidnap Elizabeth.

And then, in October 2002, Mary Katherine says she was looking at something to do with the Olympics that year when she suddenly remembered the name of the man who had the voice of the kidnapper. The Smart family knew him as Emmanuel, but his real name was Brian David Mitchell. He was an eccentric vagrant who called himself Emmanuel David Isaiah, dressed in white robes, and preached Christianity.

Several months before Elizabeth’s kidnapping, Mitchell had done some repairs on the house for a few hours. Mary Katherine remembered that she, Elizabeth and her mother Lois met him by seeing him preaching on the street. Lois offered to give him this temporary job, which he started but never completed and didn’t go back to the home to get paid for the work that he had done.

Even though Mary Katherine had identified the kidnapper, police investigators were skeptical because Ricci (who was now deceased) was still considered to be the main suspect. Many people also were skeptical that Elizabeth was still alive. However, the Smart family, led by Ed, didn’t give up hope and took it upon themselves to spread the word in the media and in the general public that “Emmanuel” was a person of interest.

Mitchell’s brother-in-law called in a tip to the Smart family to tell them that he thought Mitchell was the kidnapper. This brother-in-law said that Mitchell matched Mary Katherine’s description of Emmanuel and Mitchell was weird enough to possibly be involved in the kidnapping. Eventually, police began to help with this search of the man who called himself Emmanuel, who was later confirmed to be Mitchell.

Perhaps the most memorable aspect of this kidnapping is that Elizabeth had been in Salt Lake City during most of her kidnapping and was hiding in plain sight. Mitchell and Barzee forced Elizabeth to wear white robes where she was completely covered, except for her eyes, when they went out in public. Barzee wore the same type of robe too. Mitchell’s robes did not cover up his face.

Before Mitchell and Barzee were identified as the kidnapping suspects, people who saw the three of them out on public assumed that trio wore the robes for religious reasons, not because one of them was kidnapped. In the rare occasions that Mitchell and Barzee allowed Elizabeth to speak to anyone, the spouses stayed close enough to Elizabeth to monitor and control what she could say. If anyone asked, the kidnapper spouses claimed that the teenage girl with them was their daughter.

Elizabeth was too afraid to reveal her true identity when they were out in public because Mitchell had threatened to kill her family if she did. Mitchell and Barzee lived in a tent in the mountainous wooded area during most of Elizabeth’s kidnapping. However, all three of them would go into the urban area of the city for food, drinks and supplies.

Elizabeth (who describes Mitchell as “looking like Rasputin”) went public years ago about how Mitchell raped her every day, multiple times a day, during her kidnapping. She says she resisted this sexual assault until it was obvious she couldn’t escape it, as long as Mitchell and Barzee kept watch over her 24 hours a day. Elizabeth was a virgin with no dating experience. Her innocence was brutally stolen from her and made her afraid of men who were strangers for many years after this trauma, Elizabeth says in the documentary. She says that even though she knows being raped wasn’t her fault, it took her a long time not to feel shame about it.

In the documentary, Elizabeth says that before Mitchell raped her for the first time, he told her: “I hereby seal you to me as my wife, as God and angels as my witnesses.” After Mitchell raped her, Elizabeth remembers: “He got up and smiled, like it was no big deal to him,” even though he saw blood running down her thighs because of this rape. “More than anything, he loved power,” Elizabeth says. “He loved feeling like he was in control.”

Mitchell, who called himself a prophet of God, used religion as his excuse for his horrific crimes. Elizabeth says that Barzee was a willing accomplice who encouraged Mitchell to harm Elizabeth. According to Elizabeth, Mitchell repeatedly told her that Elizabeth was one of seven girls he planned to kidnap and make his “wives.” Mary Katherine and her cousin Olivia were among those Mitchell said were on his list.

In June 2002, while former kidnapping suspect Ricci was in jail on suspicion for the kidnapping, there was a break-in of the home of one of Ed’s brothers, with a bedroom window screen cut in a similar manner to how the kitchen window screen was cut in Ed and Lois’ house. It was later revealed that Mitchell had broken into the house with the intent tried to kidnap Elizabeth’s cousin Jessica Wright, who was 18 at the time. Mitchell left when he heard the family’s dog barking.

Elizabeth was almost discovered when she, Mitchell and Barzee went to a public library, and a police officer (whose name is not mentioned in the documentary) asked Elizabeth to remove the part of the robe that covered her face. The cop suspected that she might be Elizabeth, who did not speak during this encounter. Instead, Mitchell convinced the police officer that it was against his family’s religion for women and girls to expose their faces in public, so the police officer backed off.

This near-discovery unnerved Mitchell, who then briefly relocated to the San Diego area with Elizabeth and Barzee. However, in the documentary, Elizabeth describes how she convinced Mitchell to move them all back to the Salt Lake City area, by appealing to his ego and saying that God was speaking to Mitchell to go back to the Salt Lake City area. The tactic worked.

On March 12, 2003, Elizabeth was rescued by police when the trio was stopped by police officers on a street in Sandy, Utah. The police had responded to calls from concerned citizens about this odd-looking trio who matched the description of Elizabeth and her suspected kidnappers. Victor Quezada, a police sergeant who was the one to get Elizabeth to identify herself, is interviewed in the documentary. He is one of the heroes in this story.

Another law enforcement officer who is interviewed in the documentary is Cory Lyman, who was a Salt Lake City police captain at the time of the kidnapping. However, Lyman didn’t finish the working on the case because he accepted a job offer to be police chief of Ketchum, Idaho, while Elizabeth was still missing. In the documentary, Lyman admits to making mistakes that affected the case, such as initially assuming that someone in the Smart family and Ricci were the most likely suspects. He describes his joy and relief when Elizabeth was found. Elizabeth and other members of the Smart family also describe in the documentary what they were feeling after Elizabeth was rescued.

Other people interviewed in the documentary are Ed’s brothers David Smart and Tom Smart; Salt Lake City police detective Cordon Parks, who interviewed Mitchell after Mitchell’s arrest; Jared Parkinson, a Salt Lake City resident who said he interacted with Mitchell when he saw Mitchell, Barzee and Elizabeth at a Salt Lake City bar; and TV journalist Nicea DeGering. The most compelling interviews are with Elizabeth, Ed and Mary Katherine, who are the biggest heroes in this story for not giving up hope and for pushing forward in ways that made a difference when law enforcement made missteps in the investigations.

The main takeaway from watching the documentary is how Elizabeth Smart is an inspiring survivor story and how important it is for a kidnapped person’s loved ones to enlist help from the public when police investigations stall or move too slowly. Although the police investigations helped in this case, the mistakes made in the investigations also caused setbacks for the case. Ed and the rest of the Smart family never gave up hope and did things responsibly to help the investigations in areas where the police were reluctant to help. “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” is also a cautionary tale for people to be more observant and pro-active about suspicious activity that could be connected to a crime and/or could save someone’s life.

Netflix premiered “Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart” on January 21, 2026.

Review: ‘Mercy’ (2026), starring Chris Pratt and Rebecca Ferguson

January 21, 2026

by Carla Hay

Kali Reis and Chris Pratt in “Mercy” (Photo by Justin Lubin/Amazon MGM Studios)

“Mercy” (2026)

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov

Culture Representation: Taking place in 2029, in Los Angeles, the sci-fi action film “Mercy” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with some African Americans, Latin people and multiracial people) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A police detective goes on trial for murdering his wife, in a society where the judge is an artificial intelligence being, and the accused is strapped to an electric chair and has 90 minutes to prove innocence during a trial, or else he will be executed.

Culture Audience: “Mercy” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and idiotic action movies full of plot holes.

Rebecca Ferguson in “Mercy” (Photo courtesy of Amazon MGM Studios)

“Mercy” is a mindless sci-fi action flick where an accused murderer has 90 minutes to prove his innocence during a trial. There’s a lot of yelling at video screens in this moronic movie. Viewers will feel like yelling at the screen too, with all the stupidity on display.

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov and written by Marco van Belle, “Mercy” takes place in Los Angeles, in 2029. The movie has a very flawed concept that in 2029, an “advanced” society has decided that human judges and human juries will be replaced by artificial intelligence (A.I.) that looks like a human judge and can only be seen on a video screen. All of the accused are guilty until proven innocent. This is not an “advanced” society. It’s a backwards society that robs people of basic legal rights.

There are no attorneys in this warped society’s trials. Instead, an accused person wakes up to being strapped and cuffed to an electric chair (unironically called the Mercy Chair), facing the A.I. judge, and having only 90 minutes to prove innocence. The accused has access to computer records, crime scene evidence and all of the accused’s digital footprint to gather as proof for the case. If the judge finds the accused guilty at the end of the 90 minutes, the accused will immediately be executed in the chair.

It’s explained in the beginning of this film that this law-and-order system was put in place because rampant unemployment and homelessness led to an increase in crimes, and this A.I.-driven trial process is supposedly a way to reduce crime and to eliminate human errors and human biases in trials. But apparently, it’s okay in this “advanced” society for the government to strap people to an electric chair and give them only 90 minutes to defend themselves in a trial where the guilty verdict always results in execution. It’s a recipe for even worse corruption and abuse in the legal system.

A police detective named Chris Raven (played by Chris Pratt), who was an early advocate for this so-called Mercy legal system, now finds himself at the wrong end of it. Chris wakes up to find himself bound and handcuffed to the Mercy Chair. He is told by presiding A.I. official Judge Maddox (played by Rebecca Ferguson) that he’s been accused of murdering his estranged wife Nicole Raven (played by Annabelle Wallis), who was brutally stabbed to death in their home. Chris doesn’t have an alibi, and he vehemently denies he committed this murder.

The rest of the movie shows Chris’s frantic 90-minute race-against-time to prove his innocence. There’s also some nonsense about Judge Maddox having to be at least 92% sure that Chris is guilty, in order to find him guilty. If Chris’s defense for himself causes Judge Maddox’s certainty of his guilt to fall below the 92% threshold (which is seen on a video monitor), then he will not be executed. It goes without saying that the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” means nothing in this very unjust trial.

Judge Maddox is supposed to be perfect and impartial. But you already know she really isn’t perfect and impartial, because anyone with common sense knows that A.I. can be programmed by humans to have biases. In addition, A.I. can’t fully account for things that are based on human emotions and human psychological nuances.

It’s obvious from the beginning of the film that Chris has been framed by the real killer or killers. Because Chris is restrained by the chair for most of the movie, most of the story is about Chris reacting to lot of “playback” video footage and to phone calls that he can make during this ludicrous trial. Expect to see a lot of Chris in an empty room, as he shouts at video screens.

Among the people in Chris’ life whom he reaches out to for help are his tough police colleage Jacqueline “Jaq” Diallo (played by Kali Reis); his supportive Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor Rob Nelson (played by Chris Sullivan); and Chris’ rebellious 16-year-old Britt Raven (played by Kylie Rogers), who doesn’t know what to believe because Chris and Nicole (who were married for 20 years) had a bad marriage, due to Chris’ alcoholism and anger issues. There are also backstories about Chris’ former cop partner Ray Vale (played by Kenneth Choi) being murdered and a vagrant named David Webb (played by Ross John Gosla, also known as Ross Gosla), who was the first person executed in the Mercy legal system.

Of course, when Chris gets access to technology data and surveillance footage that he needs as evidence, he finds out secrets that affect his case. These secrets are not shocking. Most of the secrets are easy to predict. In fact, all the screaming and yelling are just time-wasting distractions to all of the movie’s plot holes and formulaic storylines.

None of the acting in “Mercy” is that special. Some of the performances (particularly from Pratt) are laughably corny and are made worse by the atrocious dialogue, which gets sanctimoniously preachy. The preachiness is an unnecessary pretension for a movie with such a low-quality screenplay. This movie is the very definition of “lack of self-awareness.”

Because “Mercy” is supposed to be an action film, you already know that at some point in the movie, Chris is going to be able to get out of that electric chair. “Mercy” is just a jumbled and incoherent countdown to when a big “reveal” with a plot twist happens in the movie’s climax. There’s no getting around the brain-dead plot that someone strapped to a chair is supposed to defend himself during a trial judged by artificial intelligence. Hapless and hotheaded Chris can’t even get up to use a restroom during this pathetic excuse for a trial.

“Mercy” was filmed in IMAX and is being released in IMAX theaters, with 3-D as an option. The movie’s unremarkable action scenes are not good enough to recommend seeing on an IMAX screen. The 3-D is also unnecessary and does nothing to enhance the quality of the movie. In other words, “Mercy” is a waste of the IMAX and 3-D formats and just makes the awfulness of the movie look larger and more in your face. It’s also not worth seeing on a smaller screen either, unless you want your intelligence insulted by a movie that makes humans and artificial intelligence look equally foolish.

Amazon MGM Studios will release “Mercy” in U.S. cinemas on January 23, 2026. A sneak preview of the movie was shown in U.S. cinemas on January 19, 2026.

Review: ‘Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger’ starring James Holland

January 19, 2026

by Carla Hay

“Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger”

Culture Representation: The documentary series “Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger” features a predominantly white group of people who are featured in true crime cases that involved investigations by Texas ranger James Holland.

Culture Clash: Holland has been able to get difficult confessions from various criminals.

Culture Audience: “Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime documentaries that feature video footage of criminal confessions.

“Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger” is yet another true crime show in a long list of true crime shows where a detective on numerous criminal cases is the show’s host/star, who talks about a different case per episode. Investigation Discovery has been offering these types of shows for many years, most notably with retired Colorado police detective Joe Kenda.

“Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger,” with each episode centering on Texas ranger James Holland talking about his most notable cases, tends to get repetitive in stating that he is self-admittedly smug and arrogant However, the video confessions are compelling to watch. The show’s pacing is a little too slow, but viewer interest can be maintained based on the types of cases that are covered in the series.

The series premiere episode—titled “Pathologically Evil” and directed by Alexis Robie—examines the complicated case of serial killer William Reece, a former truck driver who was born on July 1, 1959, in Oklahoma. Reece is serving three life sentences for murders that he committed in 1997. He targeted young women and girls as his victims. Before he was convicted of murder, he served time in prison for two 1986 rapes and a 1997 kidnapping.

In 2021, Reece was convicted of the murder of 19-year-old Tiffany Johnston, who went missing in Bethany, Oklahoma. In 2022, he was convicted of the murders of 12-year-old Laura Smither, who went missing in Friendswood, Texas; 20-year-old Kelly Cox, who went missing in Denton, Texas; and Jessica Cain, who went missing in Tiki Island, Texas. Reece pleaded guilty to the murders of Smither, Cox and Cain and pleaded not guilty to the murder of Johnston because he claims he killed Johnston in self-defense.

Laura Smither’s mother Gay Smither is interviewed in the episode. She vividly describes the agony of losing Laura, who disappeared when she went out for a morning jog. Tiffany Johnston’s mother Kathy Dobry talks about how Johnston was last seen at a car wash. Both mothers describe their daughters as vibrant, lovable people whose lives were cruelly taken away from them.

Because “Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger” is a show about confessions that led to criminal convictions, the prime suspects are revealed early on in the show’s episode. The episode about serial killer Reece gives a summary of each of his victims’ disappearances and how their bodies were found. DNA evidence was the main reason why Reece became a prime suspect. In his confessions, Reece admitted that he also sexually assaulted his victims, but he made it sound like his victims instigated some kind of conflict with him first. Investigators involved in the case say that in reality, Reece most likely was a predator to his victims, with the intention to harm them.

Holland’s long interviews of Reece in 2016 are credited with being the catalyst for Reece confessing to murders where the bodies had not been found yet, but Reece told in his confessions where the bodies were. Reece was interviewed by Holland at the Department of Corrections in Huntsville, Texas. Holland (whose nicknames are Jim or Jimmy) explains that his strategy in his interviews with Reece was to act like a know-it-all expert and to make Reece feel like he was on the same intelligence level.

Holland showed sympathy to Reece in the interrogations, but Holland said this sympathy was an all act to get Reece to confess. It’s a controversial tactic for police investigators to establish a friendly rapport with someone suspected of being a serial killer, but Holland said it was a performance that worked for him in this situation. Holland freely admits that he did most of the talking during these interviews, in contrast to many other investigators who use a technique where the goal is for the person being interviewed to do most of the talking.

This episode of “Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger” has an exclusive interview with Reece’s second ex-wife Ronda Keller. It’s her first TV interview that she’s done about Reece. Keller married Reece in 1984, two years after his Reece’s first ex-wife divorced him for the second time. It’s not mentioned in the documentary when Keller divorced Reece. In her interview, Keller describes Reece (whom she married in 1984) as a very convincing liar and someone who knew how to charm women before they could see his nasty side.

She gives an example: On their first date, Keller says that Reece took her to a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant, where he flirted with a female employee and got a free meal out of this flirtation. “That should’ve been a sign,” Keller says about any early red flags in their relationship.

The episode also has a 1997 hand-held video of Reece flirting with two teenage girls (whose faces are blurred out to protect their privacy) at a place called the Busy Bee Cafe. He convinces one of the girls, who looks like she’s about 15 to 17 years old, to sit on his lap, and he lightly puts his hands around his neck. It’s creepy to see this video footage, considering that Reece later admitted he used strangulation as one way to murder.

Also interviewed in this episode are Steve Jeter, a retired Texas Ranger; Jack Roady, district attorney of Galveston County in Texas; and Ryan Stephenson, retired assistant district attorney of Oklahoma County in Oklahoma. Jeter describes Holland as a “maverick” interrogator but also one of the most arrogant people’s he’s ever met. However, Jeter says he respects Holland as a law enforcement officer who’s accomplished things that others couldn’t do.

There might be a little bit of personal friction between Jeter and Holland because Jeter was sidelined in the interviews with Reece. Holland says when he first started to interview Reece, Jeter was in the room too. In order to get Jeter to leave the room, Holland admits he started calling Jeter a “pretty boy,” which Holland said was a way for Reece to warm up to Holland for being a bully to Jeter. The tactic worked because Jeter ended up letting Holland take over the interview that resulted in Reece’s confessions.

Holland makes this remark toward the end of the episode about getting the confessions from Reece: “I know what I brought in that room were things Reece had never seen before. The job of a ranger, I believe, is to stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves.”

As a storyteller, Holland’s self-congratulatory style might not be to everyone’s taste. He doesn’t really care if he comes across as likable, but he does seem to care about being perceived as one of the best Texas Rangers ever. At the very least, if people watch “Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger,” they’ll probably see confession videos where Holland goes up against a criminal whose ego might be as huge as his.

Investigation Discovery premiered “Killer Confessions: Case Files of a Texas Ranger” on January 13, 2026.

Review: ‘Harlan Coben’s Final Twist,’ starring Harlan Coben

January 19, 2026

by Carla Hay

“Harlan Coben’s Final Twist”

Culture Representation: The documentary series “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” features a predominantly white group of people who are featured in true crime cases that are examined by mystery book author Harlan Coben.

Culture Clash: Various people commit crimes and are caught by law enforcement.

Culture Audience: “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in true crime docuseries with celebrity hosts.

“Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” is a reliably solid true crime docuseries that doesn’t do anything groundbreaking in its presentation of a different case per episode. Harlan Coben’s narration is a little stiff, but it’s not awkward. Coben, who is a best-selling author of mystery novels, is the show’s host and an executive producer of the series. He does not conduct the interviews that are featured on the show.

Jeff Zimbalist of All Rise Films is the showrunner, as well as an executive producer, of “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist.” Each case spotlights crimes involving residents of the United States. Each episode features interviews with people who know the crime victims and/or the accused; law enforcement officials; and anyone else who was directly involved in the case. There are some re-enactments with actors, but these scenes are short are not exploitative. As the show’s title implies, there’s a “final twist” in each case that was not expected by many people in the general public who were following the case.

The series premiere episode, titled “Billy and Billie Jean,” is about the murders of 36-year-old Billy Payne and his 23-year-old fiancée Billie Jean Hayworth, who were shot to death in their home in Mountain City, Tennessee, on January 31, 2012. The couple’s son Tyler, who was 6 or 7 months old at the time, was found uninjured in Hayworth’s arms. Payne and Hayworth were both shot in the head, while Payne also had his throat slit. There were no sign of an intrusion. No items were stolen from the home.

Although the couple’s friends and family told police investigators that Payne and Hayworth were friendly and didn’t cause problems, the investigation quickly uncovered that Payne and Hayworth were involved in a prolonged and bitter online feud with a woman in her early 30s named Jenelle Potter, who accused Payne and Hayworth of stalking and bullying her online for several months. Payne and Hayworth denied all of her accusations before the couple got brutally murdered.

This case has gotten a lot of media attention, but the full results of the case won’t be revealed in this review, in case people want to see this show episode to find out. However, it’s enough to say that other people who got personally involved in the feud were Jenelle’s father Marvin “Buddy” Potter, Jenelle’s mother Barbara Potter, and Jenelle’s boyfriend Jamie Lynn Curd, who also happened to be Payne’s cousin. Chris Tjaden, a former cop whom Jenelle knew when they went to the same high school, is also a name that frequently came up in the investigation.

Family members and friends of the victims who are interviewed in “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” are not identified by their last names. A woman named Sarah (who is described as a friend of Hayworth) and Billy’s sister Tracy are each interviewed in this episode. They both describe Jenelle as a weird loner, who was sheltered by her overprotective parents. Jenelle had an obvious crush on Billy, who deliberately played matchmaker with Jenelle and his cousin Curd, with the hope that Jenelle would lose interest in Billy.

Other people interviewed in the episode are cybersecurity special agent Mike Hannon, prosecuting attorney Dennis Brooks and attorney Cameron Hyder. “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” doesn’t get overstuffed with interviews and has a format that is similar to “48 Hours” and “Dateline,” except that “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” does not have news correspondents conducting interviews on camera for the show. The final twist in this case is that many people feel that justice was not fully served for the person who set these murders into motion.

CBS premiered “Harlan Coben’s Final Twist” on January 7, 2026.

Review: ‘Anaganaga Oka Raju,’ starring Naveen Polishetty and Meenakshi Chaudhary

January 20, 2026

by Carla Hay

“Anaganaga Oka Raju”

Directed by Maari

Telugu with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in the fictional Indian cities of Gouravapuram and Peddapalem, the comedy film “Anaganaga Oka Raju” features a predominantly Asian cast of characters (with a few white people) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A political dynasty heir, who feels he is entitled to be rich, sets outo marry a wealthy woman and launches a campaign to become president of his municipality.

Culture Audience: “Anaganaga Oka Raju” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and formulaic comedies that drag on for too long.

Tarak Ponnappa (center) in “Anaganaga Oka Raju” (Photo courtesy of Sithara Entertainments)

“Anaganaga Oka Raju” is yet another overly long movie (its total running time is 147 minutes) that’s stretched out to very irritating lengths, in order to pad out its very flimsy plot. This scatter-brained comedy wants to be two movies in one and doesn’t creatively succeed with either story about marriage and politics. The wealth-obsessed protagonist learns predictable life lessons.

Directed by Maari (who co-wrote the movie’s screenplay with Naveen Polishetty and
Chinmay), “Anaganaga Oka Raju” takes place in the fictional Indian cities of Gouravapuram and Paddapalem. The movie was filmed mostly in the East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh, India. “Anaganaga Oka Raju” translates to “Once Upon a Time, There Was a King” in Telugu.

“Anaganaga Oka Raju” begins in Gouravapuram, where a man in his mid-30s named Raju (played by Naveen Polishetty) dreams of having an affluent life of leisure. Raju’s wealthy grandfather was Gouravapuram Zamindar Gokaraju, a “revolutionary and reformist,” who gave all of his wealth away in his will. Raju has a lot of resentment that he couldn’t inherit any of this wealth. He’s determined to become rich by any means necessary.

The first half of the movie shows Raju scheming to marry a wealthy woman. He meets an attractive and friendly heiress named Charulata (played by Meenakshi Chaudhary) and is instantly smitten with her. Raju comes up with various ways to get Charulata to fall in love with him.

For example, when Raju finds out that Charulata adores dogs, he stages a scenario in front of Charulata so that it looks like he saved a dog from drowning. Charulata is impressed and introduces herself to Raju. They have a whirlwind courtship.

It’s already revealed in the movie’s trailer that Raju and Charulata get married. Charulata is from Paddapalem, which is where she and Raju live after they get married. Something happens during their relationship that motivates Raju to find another way to get rich as soon as he can.

The second half of the movie is about Raju launching a career as a politician as a way to accumulate wealth. He runs for president of Paddapalem. His opponent in this race is Erribabu (played by Tarak Ponnappa), who is about the same age as Raju. Erribabu is stereotypically corrupt and egotistical. Raju uses the same political strategy that his grandfather used, by having an image and campaign advocating for underrepresented and overlooked people.

Charulata’s father is Pedapalem Bhupathi Raju (played by Rao Ramesh), who has mixed feelings about Raju, which leads to a few minor conflicts. Raju’s father-in-law is one of several underdeveloped characters in the movie. Raju has four male sidekick friends, who are by his side so often, it’s almost creepy. However, the movie never shows or tells anything meaningful about these friends, and viewers won’t be able to find out anything about these friends’ individual personalities.

“Anaganaga Oka Raju” gallops along at a manic speed during the first third of the film, it slows down considerably in the middle of the film, and then the pace picks up again during the last third of the movie. The cast members, particularly Polishetty, strain to be hilarious. That’s because most of the movie’s dialogue and gag set-ups are very stale and corny. The song-and-dance numbers are forgettable. The action scenes are unremarkable.

J. Yuvraj’s cinematography and Mickey J. Meyer’s music score are of two the few areas of “Anaganaga Oka Raju” that don’t fail in the movie’s efforts to have a vibrant and freewheeling tone. However, the movie’s uneven pacing and the bloated editing drag everything down. Certain filmmakers need to learn that making a movie much longer than it needs to be won’t make viewers feel like they’re getting their money’s worth if they’ve paid to watch the movie. It actually makes viewers annoyed that they’ve wasted time watching a lightweight story that’s been turned into an inflated mess.

Sithara Entertainments released “Anaganaga Oka Raju” in select U.S. cinemas on January 16, 2026. The movie was released in India on Janaury 14, 2026.

Review: ‘Icefall’ (2025), starring Joel Kinnaman, Cara Jade Myers, Martin Sensmeier, DeVaughn Nixon, Frida Gustavsson, Oliver Trevena, Will Fletcher, Danny Huston and Graham Greene

January 19, 2026

by Carla Hay

Joel Kinnaman and Cara Jade Myers in “Icefall” (Photo courtesy of Aura Entertainment)

“Icefall” (2025)

Directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky

Some language in Niitsíʼpowahsin with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in Montana, the action film “Icefall” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with some Native Americans and a few African Americans) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A poacher and a game preserve warden become unlikely allies after the poacher finds $20 million in stolen cash, and they are both hunted by the criminals who are looking for the cash.

Culture Audience: “Icefall” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and subpar action movies that have gritty violence and hokey dialogue.

Danny Huston and Frida Gustavsson in “Icefall” (Photo courtesy of Aura Entertainment)

In the low-quality action flick “Icefall,” a cave-dwelling poacher is hunted by criminals because he found $20 million of their stolen cash. You can easily predict who will live and who will die, long before the movie ends, based on who has unbelievable luck and who makes the stupidest decisions. There are moments of suspense in some of the chase scenes, but most of the other scenes look too fake to be credible.

Directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky, “Icefall” was written by Steve Isles and George Mahaffey. The movie takes place in Montana. “Icefall” was actually filmed in Bulgaria. One of the main characters in “Icefall” is a game preserve warden, who happens to be Native American from the Blackfoot tribe. The movie awkwardly tries to incorporate Blackfoot culture into the movie in a way that looks more forced than organic to the story.

“Icefall” begins by showing the robbery that resulted in the $20 million in cash being stolen. Six thieves invade a pawn shop, where they tie up almost all the employees, and then shoot off the left ear of one of the employees, to force her to tell them the combination to the safe with the cash. After stealing the cash, the thieves lock all the employees in the safe room and blow it up.

Who are these ruthless criminals? You won’t learn much about them during the entire story, except that they work for a mysterious wealthy mogul named Rhodes (played by Danny Huston), who has other people do the dirty work for him unless he feels it’s absolutely necessary to get involved himself. The thieves gather in a hangar-sized warehouse for the next step of the plan: transporting the cash by plane to an unnamed location.

The criminals who are part of this major heist are Drake (played by DeVaughn Nixon), Ellis (played by Will Fletcher), Pen (played by Martin Sensmeier), Carl (played by Bashar Ramal), Sirena (played by Frida Gustavsson) and Dax (played by Oliver Trevena). Dax and Sirena are a couple. Drake is the chief henchman in charge of this team that does the dirty work.

Carl has been tasked with flying the small private plane to transport the cash. He will be flying by himself. It’s the first sign that these thieves aren’t as smart as they think they are because Carl could easily steal all the cash for himself, and there would be nobody on the plane to stop him. At any rate, this possibility won’t become an issue because the plane’s engine malfunctions, causing the plane to crash in a rural area of Red Rock, Montana. Carl dies in the crash.

Five months later, during a bitterly cold and icy winter, longtime poacher Harlan Fanshaw (played by Joel Kinnaman) sets out from the cave where he lives to look for food. Harlan is an Afghanistan War veteran who lives by himself in an isolated area of Red Rock. It’s later revealed in the story why Harlan chose to have this secluded life.

While walking on an ice-covered lake, Harlan finds the body of Carl trapped underneath the ice. When he breaks the ice to retrieve the body, Harlan also sees the suitcase filled with the $20 million cash. It must’ve been a waterproof suitcase because the cash is perfectly preserved. Harlan instinctively knows that this cash is probably stolen. He decides to take the cash back to his cave and waits to see what happens.

But there would be no “Icefall” movie if the inevitable didn’t happen: The thieves come looking for that cash. It’s never explained why it took them five months to figure out to look for the cash in Red Rock, Montana. Black box information on planes can be retrieved a lot sooner than that, but the movie never shows if the plane that crashed had a traceable device. Viewers are supposed to believe that somehow, the criminals found out the general area where the plane crashed and went looking for the cash in the Red Rock area.

Meanwhile, a game preserve warden named Ani Bayawala (played by Cara Jade Myers), who works for Montana’s Rock County, is very familiar with Harlan because they’ve had several run-ins in the past because of his poaching. Ani is a very “by the book” warden who works closely with a county sheriff named Raleigh (played by Trevor Van Uden), who is condescending to Ani. Raleigh is more willing to bend the rules and doesn’t want to alienate tourists that the area depends on for the area’s economy.

Ani is a single mother to an underage son named Tim, who is ill with a fever and has to stay home to recover. A woman named Carol (played by Joyce Grey-Carter), who is from the same Blackfoot tribe, used to take care of Ani when Ani was a child. Carol is looking after Tim while Ani is working. Ani doesn’t have a work partner and usually does patrols by herself.

Ani encounters Harlan on the ice, in an area that is supposed to be off-limits. Harlan says he’s looking for his wife. Ani sees that Harlan has the suitcase full of cash. He tells her that he found the cash, but she doesn’t believe him. She tells Harlan that she has to detain him and take him to the sheriff’s office for an investigation. Ani places Harlan in handcuffs and puts him in the back of her vehicle.

On the way back to the sheriff’s office, Ani stops to help a stranded driver on the ice. But then, all of a sudden, here come the criminals. Drake, Pen, Ellis and Sirena drive up in a Chevy SUV. The stranded driver starts a shootout, which leaves the driver dead and Drake shot in a shoulder.

Ani and Harlan escape in Ani’s patrol car. The suitcase of cash falls in the ice. Ani calls Sheriff Raleigh to report what happened and asks him to send help. The SUV has a flat tire from the shootout, but the criminals replace it with a spare tire. But then, the SUV sinks in the lake when the ice cracks.

Ellis almost dies in the water, but his three cohorts are able to pull him out of the SUV. They call to get help from their colleague Drake, who shows up later with his own car. The rest of the movie is about the criminals trying to find Ani and Harlan. And what about the suitcase full of cash? The criminals try to find that too.

It’s all a cluttered and jumbled mess. Observant viewers will be wondering during the ridiculous chase scenes, “Didn’t Ani call for help from the sheriff’s office a while ago? What’s taking the sheriff so long to send help?” That question is somewhat answered in the movie, but it’s not very plausible.

In between the shootouts and chase scenes, “Icefall” eventually reveals Harlan’s backstory. Someone who knows Harlan well but doesn’t like him is a respected Blackfoot tribe elder named Oz (played by Graham Greene), who has a personal grudge against Harlan, for reasons that are explained in the movie. (Greene died in September 2025. “Icefall” is one of the last movies that he did.)

The acting performances are adequate, but “Icefall” has such a ridiculous plot, these performances can’t help the atrocious screenplay and sloppy directing. Kinnaman and Huston, who are the most well-known members of the cast, are doing more of the same types of characters they’ve done before in so many other movies: Kinnaman is the troubled protagonist with a shady past, while Huston is a scowling villain. The ending of “Icefall” is so corny, it diminishes all the vicious and bloody violence that came before it, making the movie an uneven and unremarkable dud that is easily forgotten.

Aura Entertainment released “Icefall” in select U.S. cinemas, on digital and VOD on November 4, 2025.

Review: ‘Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu,’ starring Chiranjeevi, Venkatesh, Nayanthara and Catherine Tresa

January 18, 2026

by Carla Hay

“Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu”

Directed by Anil Ravipudi

Telugu with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in India, the action comedy film “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” features a predominantly Asian cast of characters (with a few white people) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A national security officer with an anger management problem has conflicts with his rich estranged wife and the wealthy mining mogul who becomes her fiancé.

Culture Audience: “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and long-winded and repetitive action comedies.

Nayanthara and Chiranjeevi in “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” (Photo courtesy of Sarigama Cinemas)

“Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” is the type of movie that didn’t need to be 156 minutes long. This mindless and long-winded action comedy, which has an obnoxious national security officer for a protagonist, quickly becomes a repetitive bore. The movie heinously tries to make child abuse look like slapstick comedy.

Written and directed by Anil Ravipudi, “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” takes place in various cities in India, where the movie was filmed. “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” translates to “Our Mr. Shankara Vara Prasad” in Telugu. Shankara Vara Prasad is the name of the movie’s main protagonist.

In “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu,” Shankara Vara Prasad (played by Chiranjeevi) is a national security officer who has held various positions in law enforcement in India. In the beginning of the movie, he is described as “cutthroat” and “stonheaded.” Shankara also has a nasty temper, which gets him into trouble in all aspects of his life. Shankara lives with his unnamed single mother (played by Zarina Wahab) absolutely adores him and thinks he can do no wrong.

When the movie begins, Shankara has been working for the past five years as the chief security officer for union home minister Nitin Sharma (played by Sharat Saxena), a member of parliament (MP) who overlooks Shankara’s flaws because Shankara is supposed to be the “best” security officer available. Nitin is the person who recommends Shankara for a very different job that Shankara has for about one-third of the movie.

While Shankara is a national security officer, he leads a team of four other security officers, who follow him around like loyal pets. Jwala (played by Catherine Tresa), Narayana (played by Harsha Vardhan) and Mustafa (played by Abhinav Gomatam) are the only three of these four sidekicks who speak in the movie. Jwala has the most dialogue, and her role is mainly to be the sidekick who praises Shankara the most.

One day, numerous thugs kidnap Nitin, Shankara and Shankara’s sidekicks. Shankara unrealistically defeats all of these criminals by himself through fake-looking stunt fighting and gun shootouts. Nitin is so grateful, he tells Shankara: “I love you, Prasad. You are like my family.”

This comment triggers Shankara to tell Natin his sob story about how he lost his wife and kids in a bitter breakup that happened six years ago. Shankara and his wife are separated but not officially divorced. The movie then goes into a long flashback mode to show how this marriage and separation happened. It’s supposed to make Shankara look more sympathetic, but it really exposes him as an abusive jerk.

Shankara’s estranged wife is Sasirekha, nicknamed Sasi (played by Nayanthara), who is the daughter of a wealthy business mogul named G.V.R. (played by Sachin Khedekar), who never approved of Shankara because G.V.R. wanted Sasirekha to marry a man who is on the same socioeconomic level or higher as she is. Sasirekha was supposed to marry someone else in an arranged marriage, but she ditched her groom at the wedding before taking any marriage vows, and she ran off with Shankara instead, who was a guest at the wedding. Yes, it’s that type of movie.

Sasirekha works in G.V.R.’s company as a high-ranking executive. After she and Shankara got married, G.V.R. hired Shankara to work at the company in a sales position. But G.V.R. had an ulterior motive: He made Sasirekha do a lot of traveling for her work, knowing that her time away from Shankara would put a strain on their marriage. This manipulative scheme works. Sasirekha and Shankara have an increasing number of arguments with each other because he thinks that she’s neglecting him and her home responsibilities.

During the time that Shankara and Sasirekha’s marriage reached a breaking point, they were the parents of two children under the age of 5 years old: daughter Nikki (the older child) and son Vikki. Shankara figures out that G.V.R. purposedly made Sasirekha spent a lot of time far away from home, in order to ruin the marriage. Shankara gets into a heated argument with G.V.R. in front of several employees at the office. This argument culminates with Shankara slapping G.V.R. hard in the face.

Sasirekha is horrified and demands that Shankara make an apology to G.V.R. on another day. This apology meeting also takes place at the same office, with many employees watching in the background. Instead of giving an apology, Shankara gets even angrier. He ends up slapping G.V.R. and Sasirekha hard in their faces. This abuse is the last straw for Sasirekha, who breaks up with Shankara and files a restraining order against him.

As part of the separation agreement, Sasirekha gets full custody of Nikki and Vikki, who are not allowed any contact with Shankara. As the kids grow up and are able to understand what happened to their parents’ broken marriage, Nikki (played by Khushi Soni) and Vikki (Ooha Reddy) are told that Shankara is a violent loser who doesn’t care about them. In other words, the kids are taught to fear and hate Shankara.

Here’s where the movie starts to get really stupid: Shankara tells Nitin that Nikki and Vikki currently attend a boarding school, where Shankara hopes to sneak in to see them. Nitin suggests that Shankara should instead get a job as a teacher at the school. Shankara easily gets a job as a physical education teacher at the boarding school because Nitin sent a letter of recommendation to the school’s principal (played by Vadlamani Srinivas), who is skeptical about hiring Shankara due to his lack of experience as a schoolteacher, but the principal is swayed by this recommendation letter from this influential politician.

The boarding school scenes are excruciatingly bad, as all of the cast members strain to be comical in very unfunny scenarios. Nikki (who is bossy and angry) and Vikki (who is passive and easily charmed by getting junk food as gifts) haven’t seen Shankara since they were too young to remember him, which is why they don’t know at first that this new teacher is really their father. Shankara doesn’t use any disguises, although this part of the movie uses lot of the same ideas from the 1993 movie “Mrs. Doubtfire,” a far superior comedy about a divorced dad who disguises himself as a female housekeeper/nanny to be closer to his kids.

Nikki is about 10 or 11 years old, while Vikki is about 6 or 7. It’s hard to believe that these kids wouldn’t use the Internet to find out what their own father looks like, out of curiosity. We’re supposed to believe that Nikki and Vikki have been so brainwashed to hate their father, they don’t care to know what he looks like. The movie also wants viewers to assume that somehow, Sasirekha was able to keep all photos of Shankara away from the kids. Shankara looks exactly the same when he starts working for the school as he did when he Sasirekha broke up.

A few of the scenes with the boarding school students involve kids getting assaulted by adults, who slap children in the face or punch the kids in other areas of their bodies. The filmmakers of this garbage movie want viewers to laugh at this child abuse. There’s also an awful sequence where Shankara has conflicts with a bratty student named Sugunesh, whose main purpose in the movie is to be fat-shamed when he becomes a nuisance to Shankara. It’s disgusting filmmaking that shouldn’t be condoned.

Of course, Shankara’s plans to go “undercover” in this boarding school inevitably fall apart, as Sasirekha, Nikki and Vikki find out about Shankara’s ridiculous scheme. “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” then has a bloated and very irritating stretch of the movie about Shankara having a rivalry with Sasirekha’s arrogant fiancé Venky Gowda (played by Venkatesh), a wealthy mining mogul who used to be Shankara’s colleague in law enforcement. There’s also an idiotic subplot about a revenge scheme involving a kidnapping and attempted murder. Sudev Nair has a supporting role as a police inspector named Virendra Panda.

“Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” is an example of how certain movies glorify toxic abusers, who think they can redeem themselves just by killing people who are considered more dangerous. It’s an awful way to make movies, especially when these types of films are just overblown junkpiles of exploitative violence, atrocious dialogue and horrendous acting performances. Cutesy song-and-dance numbers that are thrown into the mix do not erase the cinematic stink of these types of putrid movies.

Sarigama Cinemas released “Mana ShankaraVaraPrasad Garu” in U.S. cinemas on January 16, 2026. The movie was released in India on January 12, 2026.

Review: ‘Call Me Mother’ (2025), starring Vice Ganda and Nadine Lustre

January 17, 2026

by Carla Hay

Vice Ganda and Lucas Andalio in “Call Me Mother” (Photo courtesy of Star Cinema)

“Call Me Mother” (2025)

Directed by Jun Robles Lana

Tagalog with subtitles

Culture Representation: Taking place in the Philippines, in 2025 (with some flashbacks to 2015), the comedy/drama film “Call Me Mother” features a predominantly Filipino cast of characters (with a few white people) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A transgender woman, who has been a longtime coach for beauty pageant contestants, is the legal guardian of a 10 year-old boy whom she has raised since he was a baby, but her plans to legally adopted him become threatened when his wealthy biological mother comes back into his life.

Culture Audience: “Call Me Mother” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and are interested in movies about transgender people who want to become adoptive parents.

Vice Ganda, Lucas Andalio and Nadine Lustre in “Call Me Mother” (Photo courtesy of Star Cinema)

“Call Me Mother” has some overwrought melodrama, but the movie has plenty of charm, thanks to a charismatic performance from Vice Ganda. It’s a bittersweet story of a transgender mother’s quest to adopt a 10-year-old boy whom she’s raised since his infancy. The movie has some very broad comedy, but it remains respectful of a sensitive topic: transgender people who want to become adoptive parents.

Directed by Jun Robles Lana, “Call Me Mother” was co-written by Lana, Daisy G. Cayanan
and Daniel S. Saniana. The movie takes place in the Philippines, primarily in the city of Pasic. “Call Me Mother” was filmed on location in the Philippines. Most of the story’s timeline is in 2025, but there are some flashbacks to 2015.

“Call Me Mother” begins in 2015, when Twinkelito “Twinkle” Paoros de Guzman, also known as Twinkelito “Twinkle” Paoros Reyes (played by Ganda) is shown doing what she loves to do the most as a job: being a coach for beauty pageant contestants. Twinkle (who is in her late 40s) lives openly as a transgender woman. She has to be one of the luckiest transgender women in the world because the movie somewhat unrealistically shows that everyone whom Twinkle interacts with is completely accepting of her being transgender.

Twinkle is a strict and demanding coach, but she truly cares about the women whom she coaches. Twinkle also has a fun-loving side to her when she’s not working. One of the women whom Twinkle coaches is Mara de Jesus (played by Nadine Lustre), who has what it takes to be a winning contestant for the televised Miss Uniworld Pageant, which has various contestants representing various major cities in the Philippines. Mara comes from a wealthy family and has a domineering mother named Mila (played by Carmi Martin), who expects Mara to be perfect.

“Call Me Mother” doesn’t waste a lot of time before showing Twinkle becoming a mother. It happens when Twinkle’s own mother dies, and Twinkle becomes the guardian for the baby son named Angelo (played by (played by Jarren Aquino), who had been recently adopted by Twinkle’s single mother. Nothing else is really told about Twinkle’s personal experiences before this story takes place. For example, there is no mention of when Twinkle came out as transgender, and there is no mention of her having any romances.

Twinkle treats Angelo as if he were her own biological son. But there’s a major complication to Angelo’s adoption story. Angelo is really the biological son of Mara. (This is not spoiler information because it’s revealed in the movie’s trailer.) Mara got pregnant and gave birth to Angelo when she was 18. The biological father of Angelo is not mentioned at all.

A flashback shows Mara was in her first trimester of her pregnancy when she competed in the 2015 Miss Uniworld Pageant. She kept her pregnancy a secret from everyone except the people closest to her. During the pageant’s interview segment on stage, Mara was asked if she had to choose between having a child or having a career, which would she choose? Mara was so flustered by this question, she fainted before she gave an answer. This fainting caused her to lose in the pageant.

Mila was furious that Mara was pregnant and demanded that Mara give baby Angelo up for adoption. Mila decided that Twinkle’s single mother, the housekeeper for the de Guzman family, would be the person to take care of Angelo, after Twinkle’s mother offers to adopt Angelo. Mila thinks if Mara kept the child, then it would tarnish Mara’s reputation and ruin Mara’s chances of becoming a successful beauty pageant contestant.

In 2025, Angelo (played by Lucas Andalio) is a vivacious and sensitive child. He is very attached to Twinkle, who is an adoring and attentive mother. Twinkle’s work as a beauty pageant coach doesn’t pay enough for a family of two, and the job demands too much of her time as a single parent. She has “retired” from this type of work and now has a job in retail sales at a store that sells beauty products.

Twinkle has promised Angelo that she will take him to Disneyland in Hong Kong. But in order to do that, they need passports. And in order to get the passport, Angelo has to be legally adopted. Twinkle takes the necessary steps to start the adoption process, with help from an adoption social worker officer named Mutya (played by Chanda Romero), who is friendly and professional.

Mara is now a famous fashion model/humanitarian who is engaged to marry a wealthy heir named Anton Villeneuve (played by River Joseph), who knows that Mara gave a son up for adoption in 2015. Anton has kept this secret, which very few people know outside of their family. Anton is also very loving and supportive of Mara in whatever decisions she makes.

Angelo knows he’s not Twinkle’s biological son, but Twinkle and Mutya avoid telling Angelo direct answers when he asks for details about his biological family. Twinkle and Mutya say that Angelo will be told the details when the time is right. Angelo accept this response, but you just know that “Call Me Your Mother” is the type of movie where Angelo will find out the truth in a way that will upset him.

Twinkle needs Mara to sign off on this formal adoption. And it just so happens that Mara wants something from Twinkle: Mara wants Twinkle to be her coach for Mara’s beauty pageant “comeback.” Mara wants to compete in the 2025 Miss Uniworld Pageant to “redeem” herself and win the pageant that she thought she would’ve won in 2015, if she hadn’t fainted on stage.

Twinkle agrees to be Mara’s coach under three conditions: (1) Twinkle wants a big salary raise from the most recent time that she was a coach. Mara agrees to pay four times the amount of Mara’s previous coach salary. (2) Mara has to stay away from Angelo. (3) Mara has to sign the necessary documents to allow Twinkle to legally adopt Angelo.

Mara agrees to these terms. But in a movie like “Call Me Mother,” it isn’t long before she breaks one of the rules. She doesn’t do it on purpose though. Mara ends up meeting Angelo by chance when she sees him outside Twinkle’s house and prevents an unnamed teenage bully (played by Bon Lentejas) from stealing Angelo’s computer tablet. In the tussle that ensues, the tablet falls on the ground and breaks.

Twinkle comes out of the house and sees what happens right at the moment that Mara tells a sobbing Angelo that Mara can buy a new tablet for Angelo, and Angelo hugs Mara. This interaction infuriates Twinkle, who mistakenly thinks that Mara deliberately set up this meeting with Angelo and is trying to buy Angelo’s love. An argument ensues in front of a confused Angelo, who doesn’t know that Mara is his biological mother.

Mara explains to Twinkle that she went to Twinkle’s house because she left her phone inside the house and came to retrieve the phone. Twinkle accepts this excuse but feels very annoyed and anxious that Angelo has now met Mara, and Angelo seems to like Mara a lot. Angelo will also be seeing more of Mara, now that Twinkle is coaching Mara again. For now, Twinkle and Mara act like Mara is a friend of the family.

“Call Me Mother” takes the issue of adoption seriously, but it tends to erase or ignore the hateful bigotry that transgender people experience in everyday life. Not once does Twinkle’s transgender identity become an obstacle to her adoption plan. Even in the most politically progressive nations, transgender people adopting through a social services agency can be controversial. Twinkle also doesn’t experience any discrimination for being transgender from any strangers either.

The biggest prejudice depicted in the film has to do with socioeconomic status. Much of the conflict in the story is about Twinkle being insecure and jealous that Mara can buy and do things for Angelo that Twinkle can’t afford. Mara starts to have an increasing maternal affection for Angelo, so Twinkle is understandably paranoid that Mara will change her mind about signing over her parental rights to Twinkle.

An inevitable rivalry develops between Twinkle and Mara over Angelo. This rivalry is the source of the movie’s scenes that are the most comedic and the most melodramatic. After a while, privileged Mara noticeably acts like Angelo would be better off in a home with a higher income, while Twinkle feels a lot of resentment about Mara giving gifts to Angelo as a way to get closer to Angelo.

“Call Me Mother” has a compelling story about how the definition of “family” can mean different things to different people, but the movie leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Twinkle and Angelo live in a household with five people in their 20s, including Twinkle’s brother Marco (played by Brent Manalo) and Marco’s girlfriend Bea (played by Mika Salamanca). The other housemates are named Ria (played by Shuvee Etrata), Mayet (played by Klarisse de Guzman) and Vince (played by Esnyr Ranollo), who is the housemate who stands out the most because he’s a flamboyant drag queen or transgender woman.

It’s never really explained why Twinkle is in this living situation with all these people, but she acts like a “house mother” to all of them. Vince seems to be involved in helping Twinkle with some of her pageant coaching. But whatever these other housemates are doing with their lives remains a mystery in the movie. Do any of these housemates have jobs? Are any of them students? Are any of them unemployed? Don’t expect answers to those questions. These housemates are mostly seen hanging out in the house and giving emotional support to Twinkle.

Twinkle has friends close to her own age, but very little is told about these friends except that they are transgender women. Mama M (played by John “Sweet” Lapus) is Twinkle’s best friend and is the pal most likely to give advice to Twinkle. It’s implied that Twinkle and Mama M helped each other a lot when they began living openly as transgender women. Twinkle’s other close friend is Dorothy (played by MC Muah), who is mostly in the story as comic relief.

Another transgender woman in the movie is Diosdado “Ms. J” Patumbong (played by Iyah Minah), who is Mara’s personal assistant/bodyguard. Ms. J mentions early on in the movie that she recently had her gender surgery. And that’s all the movie really tells about Ms. J because she’s another supporting character with a vague personal life. Ms. J is friendly with Twinkle, but things get awkward for Ms. J when Mara starts to compete with Twinkle over Angelo.

Andalio is adorable as Angelo and gives a talented performance. Viewers should be prepared to see him do a lot of gut-wrenching crying and wailing. It seems like Angelo spends at least half of his screen time crying or being on the verge of crying. And who can blame him? Angelo experiences a lot of deception and betrayal from adults who are only thinking of themselves and their own egos.

It would be too easy to put Mara in the role of “villain,” but “Call Me Mother” doesn’t have that judgmental attitude. Instead, the movie is empathetic about Mara’s feelings of guilt and doubt about making the decision to give Angelo to someone else to raise. And to be fair, it’s implied that Mara made this decision mostly because of enormous pressure from her mother because Mara initially wanted to raise Angelo herself. Lustre adeptly portrays Mara as someone who is much more complicated than being a “spoiled princess” type.

The glue that holds “Call Me Mother” together, when it could easily fall apart, is how director Lana skillfully balances the movie’s comedy and the drama. Ganda’s acting as Twinkle can get a little too hammy in the scenes intended to make people laugh, but Ganda’s overall performance shows a convincing range in all the emotions that Twinkle has in the movie. “Call Me Mother” doesn’t make Twinkle a saintly parent. Twinkle makes some bad mistakes, but she’s wiling to admit when she’s wrong and learn from these mistakes.

When there are movies about biological parents who want custody of kids who were primarily raised by other people, these movies can often have hokey and unrealistic endings. “Call Me Mother” has moments of unabashed sentimentality, but it has a clear-eyed view of how an adoption process like the one shown in this movie can be painful for everyone because difficult decisions need to be made. The movie has a meaningful message that it’s up to the adults involved in the situation to truly do what is in the best interest of the children, who are often the ones who suffer the most.

Star Cinema released “Call Me Mother” in select U.S. cinemas on January 9, 2026. The movie was released in the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand on December 25, 2025.

Review: ’28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,’ starring Ralph Fiennes, Jack O’Connell, Alfie Williams, Erin Kellyman and Chi Lewis-Parry

January 16, 2026

by Carla Hay

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple”

Directed by Nia DaCosta

Culture Representation: Taking place in England, in the year 2030, the horror film “28 Years Later” (the fourth film in the “28” horror series) features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few Asians and black people) who are uninfected survivors and zombies in a post-apocalyptic world.

Culture Clash: A 12-year-boy is kidnapped by a serial killer cult that expects him to murder people, and the cult eventually encounters a mysterious doctor who has been trying to find a cure for the virus that caused the zombie apocalypse.

Culture Audience: “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners, the “28” zombie movie franchise, and horror movies that adeptly mix social commentary with terror scenes.

Chi Lewis-Parry and Ralph Fiennes in “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” (Photo by Miya Mizuno/Columbia Pictures)

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” is a rare sequel that is more innovative than its predecessor. Ralph Fiennes and Jack O’Connell give performances that make this unhinged movie an instant horror classic. There’s also some subversive comedy mixed in with all the bloody gore. The movie isn’t perfect though. People need to see 2025’s “28 Years Later” (which was filmed back-to-back with this sequel) to really understand everything in “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.”

Directed by Nia DaCosta and written by Alex Garland, “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” is the fourth movie in the zombie apocalypse franchise that began with 2002’s “28 Days Later” (directed by Danny Boyle and written by Garland); continued with 2007’s “28 Weeks Later”(directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who co-wrote the screenplay with Rowan Joffé, E.L. Lavigne and Jesus Olmo); and jumped forward to the year 2030 for “28 Years Later,” directed by Boyle and written by Garland. The movie franchise follows a group of people living in the United Kingdom during a zombie apocalypse, which began in 2002, because of a virus (called the Rage Virus) that quickly spread through infected lab animals. The movies in the franchise are filmed on location in the United Kingdom.

In this zombie apocalypse, the people become zombies within minutes of being infected through bodily fluids. The zombies can run quickly and have superhuman strength. In “28 Years Later,” the British Isles are under strict quarantine, while continental Europe has the virus contained. This infected area has had no Internet service or phone service in the years since the outbreak. At the end of “28 Years Later,” (spoiler alert), a 12-year-old boy named Spike (played by Alfie Williams) has left his estranged widower father Jamie (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) in the Scottish Highlands to live on his own in the Scottish mainland. Spike is then kidnapped by a small cult of murderers.

The cult leader is a deranged fanatic in his mid-30s named Sir Jimmy Crystal (played by O’Connell), who styles himself like deceased media personality/accused pedophile Jimmy Savile (wigs of messy platinum blonde hair, track suits, bad teeth), and he expects his followers (who are all adolescents and young adults) to do the same. “28 Years Later” ends on the cliffhanger of Spike being kidnapped by Sir Jimmy’s cult. “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” shows what happens when Spike is a captive of this cult.

Sir Jimmy’s cult is based in northeast England, where “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” takes place. All of Sir Jimmy’s followers have been given new names by him, with their first names being Jimmy or a variation of Jimmy. The followers call themselves the Fingers. They are also sometimes called the Jimmies.

In the beginning of “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” Jimmy’s followers are Jimmy Shite (played by Connor Newall), Jimmy Jones (played by Maura Bird), Jimmy Snake (played by Ghazi Al Ruffai), Jimmy Jimmy (played by Robert Rhodes), Jimmy Fox (played by Sam Locke), Jimmima (played by Emma Laird) and Jimmy Ink (played by Erin Kellyman). Sir Jimmy uses religion to preach to and control his cult. When Sir Jimmy was 8 years old, his minister father died during the first Rage Virus outbreak and told Sir Jimmy that this zombie apocalypse was part of the Judgment Day that’s taught in Judeo-Christian religions.

Jimmy has brainwashed his followers to believe that he is the son of Satan and forces his followers to commit barbaric acts of torture and murder on uninfected human survivors. The cult members also kill zombies, but they get more pleasure out of killing uninfected survivors. Spike has to go through a cult initiation process of torturing and murdering innocent people, in order to prevent the cult from killing Spike. Spike is terrified and reluctant to participate in the cult’s brutal crimes. Jimmy Ink shows empathy to Spike and is the only one in the cult who is most likely to become Spike’s friend.

Meanwhile, an eccentric loner named Dr. Ian Kelson (played by Fiennes) has been working for years to find a cure for the virus. Dr. Kelson is a physician who lives in a remote place that he calls the Bone Temple, because he has a collection of obelisk-shaped mounds comprised of human skulls, as well as upright beams made out of human bones. All of these bones are his monuments made in memoriam of people who died for various reasons. Dr. Kelson lives in an isolated area.

In “28 Years Later,” Spike and his mother Isla (played by Jodie Comer) met Dr. Kelson when they sought out alternative medical treatment for Isla’s cancer. Isla’s death is one of the most emotionally moving parts of “28 Years Later.” That’s why it’s important to know the context in which she died and how Spike and Dr. Kelson met when they encounter each other again in “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.”

Another character from “28 Years Later” who makes his return in “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” is a 6’9″-tall zombie whom Dr. Kelson has named Samson (played by Chi Lewis-Parry) because of the zombie’s height and long hair. This “alpha male” zombie was the most vicious one shown in “28 Years Later.” However, in “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” Dr. Kelson is able to slowly gain Samson’s trust and tame Samson with a drug mixture that includes morphine, so that Dr. Kelson can experiment on Samson to find a cure for the virus. An unlikely friendship bond develops between Samson and Dr. Kelson.

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” goes back and forth between showing what Sir Jimmy and his cult are doing and showing what Dr. Kelson and Samson are doing, until the worlds collide because of Spike. The movie has some hilarious quirks, such as showing that Dr. Kelson is a big fan of Duran Duran. In his cluttered home, he has Duran Duran’s 1982 “Rio” album on display. He plays Duran Duran vinyl records on a turntable. And he’s shown singing and dancing along to Duran Duran songs such as “Girls on Film,” “Rio” and “Ordinary World.” Dr. Kelson also dances with Samson, with Duran Duran music playing.

Dr. Kelson’s taste in music from the 1980s and 1990s is also shown in the movie’s most memorable scene, where Iron Maiden’s 1982 song “Number of the Beast” is playing. Sir Jimmy also has a thing for nostalgia. He talks fondly about the Teletubbies, the fictional creature stars of the 1998 to 2001 children’s TV show of the same name. People who saw “28 Years Later” might remember that Sir Jimmy was watching the “Teletubbies” TV show with his siblings when the zombie outbreak hit their community.

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” director DaCosta made the confident decision to change the department heads for several technical areas (such as production design, cinematography, music and editing) to people who did not work on “28 Years Later.” These changes give “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” a fresh approach, instead of falling into the sequel trap of re-using the same techniques in telling the continuation of the story. One of the movie’s technical highlights is composer Hildur Guðnadóttir’s foreboding score music, which is a superb complement to the well-known soundtrack songs.

Credit should also be given to Garland for crafting a screenplay that’s a departure from the usual compilation of “human versus zombie battles” that tend to be the format of most zombie films. In “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple,” the biggest villains aren’t the zombies but are humans. “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” also has an interesting way of incorporating religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) into the story. Dr. Kelson is an atheist, Sir Jimmy is a satanist, and things that are taught in Christianity are part of the plot.

Spike’s backstory is already shown in “28 Years Later,” so “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” doesn’t spend a lot of time rehashing it, although the movie does have some flashbacks or references to what happened in “28 Years Later.” What the movie does that’s most unexpected is show a few details about who Samson was before he became infected. It’s a hint of a possible storyline in a sequel.

“28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” drags a little bit in the middle of the movie that shows a Sir Jimmy and the Fingers doing a home invasion of a farm inhabited by six people: a man in his 20s named Tom (played by Louis Ashbourne Serkis); his pregnant partner Cathy (played by Mirren Mack); a middle-aged man named Jonno (played by Gordon Alexander); an elderly man named George (played by David Sterne); a man in his 30s named Matthew (played by Elliot Benn); and a middle-aged woman named Jane Ji (played by Lynne Anne Rodgers). All of these six inhabitants except one are kidnapped by Jimmy and his cult and taken to another location.

If “28 Years Later” was about Spike’s family problems during this zombie apocalypse, then “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” is about contrasting and ultimately conflicting lifestyles of two different “families”: Sir Jimmy and his cult versus Dr. Kelson and his new-found companion Samson. These two factions have different agendas (healing versus harming), and both want Spike on their side. It’s a battle of wits and psychological manipulation, more than physical strength.

Fiennes gives a masterful performance as Dr. Kelson, whose mysterious image from “28 Years Later” slowly reveals that he is actually a deeply complex person who cares about the future of humanity and had a family of own before the zombie apocalypse. (That story is hinted at in photos that he keeps on display in his home.) O’Connell is a scene stealer in his own right and makes Jimmy completely unpredictable, even when his intentions seem to be transparent. “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” has a widely reported cameo appearance from “28 Days Later” star Cillian Murphy, who is in the last 10 minutes of “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple.” This appearance announces that Murphy’s Jim character is alive and well and should be a vital part of a sequel in this franchise, which now stands as one of the best zombie franchises in cinema history.

Columbia Pictures released “28 Years Later: The Bone Temple” in U.S. cinemas on January 16, 2026.