Movies with Meaning, by Brent Marchant, TGMN Movie Correspondent

The Dangers of Expendability

In a throw-away age like the one in which we live, virtually everything is vulnerable. In fact, we can become so accustomed to this way of thinking that it becomes an ingrained mindset, one in which we come to believe that anything perceived as not being expediently useful is potentially disposable. But how far are we willing to go with this? Indeed, aren’t there inherent dangers that we might take this notion a little too far, perhaps even to a point of no return? How comfortable can we truly be with this? Such are the questions raised in the outrageously brilliant new sociopolitical sci-fi satire, “Mickey 17” (web site, trailer).

In a world of the unspecified but not-too-distant future, Earth is in jeopardy of falling apart due to sustained environmental decline. Hope for tomorrow thus lies in resettling off-world on distant, unexplored, undeveloped planets. But how safe and suitable are those new locales? That’s the principal unknown that the adventurous pioneers behind these initiatives must determine. But how can they achieve that?

Thanks to advances in the technology of 3-D printing, mankind has figured out an answer – by developing the means to replicate himself in the wake of conducting hazardous (even lethal) safety experiments. In doing so, an entirely new “profession” has been developed – that of the “expendable.” The humans involved in this work are charged with determining the safety limits of new technologies and the environmental conditions of new planets, to see just how much we as a species can tolerate under these conditions and to determine what necessary alterations must be made to safely and effectively make use of these resources. And, in many of the tests involving these scenarios, death is a very real possibility. But there’s no need to worry, thanks to the advances in 3-D printing: Science has made it possible to store a person’s DNA and memories electronically, which, in turn, enables new versions of those individuals to be replicated on demand, often overnight.

With the world falling apart and future Earth-based employment prospects growing bleaker, the off-world colony development program has understandably gained in popularity, especially among those who are having trouble finding their way on a dying planet. Such is the case for working stiff Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), who, along with his longtime (though not always trustworthy) friend, Timo (Steven Yeun), signs up for off-world work. However, whatever plans these pals may have made for experiencing this adventure together are quickly dispensed with when it’s discovered that their skill sets differ markedly. Timo has capabilities that make many possibilities open to him, but Mickey doesn’t bring anything particularly special to the table. In fact, about the only position he’s qualified for is becoming an expendable. So, given his limited prospects on Earth and the promise of virtual immortality made possible by this technology, he agrees to take on this role. And it’s all well and good as long as he can get used to the idea of routinely dying and being reborn repeatedly.

Mickey’s various iterations are numbered sequentially, so, as the film’s title implies, it’s easy to guess how many go-rounds he has experienced on his new home world. In many ways, he’s seen as possessing the ideal personality for being an expendable – someone who’s docile, easily manipulated and somewhat complacent when it comes to being willing to die over and over again. Interestingly, he somehow manages to maintain this persona relatively consistently from lifetime to lifetime, too, one of the few personal attributes that the 3-D printing technology can’t absolutely guarantee from iteration to iteration. So those who know Mickey are fairly confident about what to expect from him each time he’s reborn – until one day.

While on one of his experimental missions with Timo, Mickey is trapped in an inaccessible cavern, where he’s captured by an indigenous animal species that resembles a large caterpillar, creatures colloquially known as “creepers.” Mickey is believed dead, so a new version of him is printed, Mickey 18. There’s just one catch – 17 isn’t dead, which means there are two versions of Mickey alive simultaneously, a condition declared illegal as a result of an unfortunate incident that occurred on Earth during the technology’s development. What’s more, unlike all of Mickey’s previous versions, 18’s personality is decidedly different from his predecessors: He’s aggressive, self-serving and not above doing whatever it takes to get his way. But, given that 18 and 17 are illegally alive simultaneously, each of their futures is anything but guaranteed, thereby bringing entirely new meaning to the term “expendable.”

But 17 has an ace in the hole: Before he escapes the lair of the creepers and returns to the colony and before the erroneous nature of the reports regarding his death surface, he spends some time with the creatures, an intelligent species intrigued by this mysterious human. They attempt to get to know him, and, because of his genial personality, they forge a relationship of sorts with him – one far different from their contacts with other newly arrived human visitors. This places 17 in a unique position when it comes to relations with this indigenous race. He seems to know how to communicate and get along with them, unlike anyone else. It’s an asset he can draw upon when his back is against the wall, something that’s about to happen at virtually every turn.

Needless to say, matters become increasingly complicated at this point. With 17 back from the dead, so to speak, the two Mickeys struggle to stay alive at a time when neither of them should be – and under conditions in which they don’t fully trust one another, either. At the same time, they must also contend with a variety of new challenges, including the following:

• The two Mickeys wrestle with managing their affections for Nasha (Naomi Ackie), a bad-ass security officer who initially entices 17 into a tender, clandestine but prohibited sexual relationship – a bad enough offense in itself – but who is now also drawn to the passionate, lustful advances of his newly created and more “energized” counterpart. Indeed, who will emerge as the victor in this battle of amorous wits?
• Timo’s black market dealings in an illicit substance frequently land him in trouble with all manner of nefarious types, and these dangerous encounters eventually rub off on 17, a classic case of guilt by association that repeatedly places him in unnecessary jeopardy. It’s an echo of experiences not unlike what they underwent together back on Earth, incidents that once again spotlight the questionable nature of this so-called friendship.
• The dim-witted, narcissistic “brainchild” behind the colonization program, former Congressman Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo), takes an interest in 17 for a variety of reasons. For instance, he sees the pliable expendable as someone who can be exploited as a dutiful ally to promote the would-be cultist’s questionable sociopolitical and pseudo-spiritual agenda. He’s also intrigued by 17’s relationship with the creepers, knowledge that he hopes to tap in devising a plan for the natives’ eventual “disposition.” Marshall is staunchly supported in these efforts by his partner in crime, his vain, self-absorbed trophy wife, Yifa (Toni Collette). This clueless but devious Lady MacBeth clone does whatever she can to consolidate her husband’s power and her own standing – that is, when she’s not obsessively trying to develop new cooking sauces (yes, you read that right).

So how do all these influences come together? As unlikely as it might sound, they all ultimately do, and they collectively shine a bright light on the question of expendability in myriad ways. It gives viewers much to ponder in that regard, a modern fable with ramifications at which we should all take a good, hard look, particularly in light of current conditions that, if left unchecked, just might land us in circumstances not unlike those depicted here. If we hope to avoid such an outcome, we need to look inward, given that this is where these dubious issues get their start. And, in particular, that means taking stock of our beliefs.

Why beliefs? It’s because of the key role they play in the manifestation of our circumstances and experiences. This principle essentially applies in all collective and personal circumstances, but it’s particularly important in scenarios like this one, where beliefs are mutually employed to establish an overarching character for the nature of the existence that unfolds in this story (namely, the creation of an innately disposable society, a concept that’s apparently widely accepted unquestioningly by its constituents). It’s unclear whether anyone participating in this pursuit has heard of the school of thought behind any of this, though, based on what’s transpiring here, it would seem that there’s either a complete lack of knowledge about it or a willful ignorance that enables such a callous disregard of the elements and individuals in the resulting materialized existence.

Some would call that a rather damning assessment, but they’d be correct about that. If you doubt that, consider, for example, what the inhabitants of Earth did to their planet that necessitated the off-world migration depicted here. To compound matters, consider the treatment accorded the expendables – fellow human beings – in their efforts to determine the viability of such a now-necessary exodus. And then there’s the disdainful handling of the creeper population – the indigenous population of this new world – who are looked upon as something that can potentially be eradicated as easily as a call to one’s friendly neighborhood exterminator.

Such insensitive outlooks fly in the face of the very act of creation. Casually and willingly believing that these materializations can readily be viewed as inherently throw-away commodities goes against the spirit of our intrinsic ability to bring into being what we will, arguably an uncaring take on one of our sacred birthrights. Is this what we really want for our existence?

This kind of thinking raises serious questions about consequences and responsibility when it comes to what we seek to create. Our own worldly experience to date should have already shown us this, but, just in case we haven’t been paying adequate attention, films like this shove it squarely in our faces in hopes that we’ll wake up and see what’s going on around us. It’s a theme that has become increasingly more prevalent in movies these days, as seen in recent releases like this, the animated features “Flow” and “The Wild Robot” (both from 2024), and the sci-fi thriller “The Assessment” (2025), among others. Indeed, if reality itself doesn’t sufficiently capture our awareness in this regard, then perhaps these contemporary cinematic fables will.

The foregoing discussion might suggest that these considerations are primarily driven by beliefs tied to group manifestations, but that’s by no means the case. Belief concerns are just as applicable at the individual level, and that’s apparent in the actions and underlying intents of several characters in this film, most particularly the two Mickeys and Mr. and Mrs. Marshall.

Mickey 17, for example, believes in carrying out his work in a conscientious and dutiful manner and follows through accordingly, even if it means being willing to die every so often. His counterpart, on the other hand, is somewhat more personally assertive and less accepting of the prevailing assumed expendability notions when compared to No. 17 or society at large. And the reality they each create, in turn, reflects such thinking. The Marshalls, by contrast, epitomize the self-absorbed personal gratification and unbridled lust for power to which they believe they’re entitled, no matter what the cost may be to others (humans and otherwise). While these ambitions may seem most obvious in the arrogant and pompous behavior of the former Congressman, they’re arguably more entrenched in the beliefs of his quietly manipulative spouse, who appears willing to do whatever it takes to get what she and her husband want.

In each case, getting one’s wishes fulfilled depends greatly on maintaining one’s focus on those goals. And, from that standpoint, the Mickeys and the Marshalls couldn’t be more different. Even though Mickey 17 may at times appear clueless, he and No. 18 both know how to stay on track when it counts, especially when the intentions of the colony’s leadership are made clear. They keep themselves from becoming distracted by incidentals that could throw them off course, holding those diverting beliefs at bay. In that sense, they are just the opposite of Kenneth and Yifa, both of whom can become sidetracked on a whim. Because of that, then, it’s not difficult to figure out who’s likely to achieve a greater degree of success in the long run.

This factor, in turn, figures largely in how matters ultimately unfold and how well those results reflect the individuals’ destiny. This is also known as one’s value fulfillment, the act of being one’s best, truest self for the betterment of oneself and the world at large, a course of conduct often requiring us to draw upon our reserves of personal courage and our capacity to live honorably and heroically. Given the underlying intentions driving the beliefs and actions of the Mickeys compared to those of the Marshalls, one might easily guess who prevails. Indeed, will expendability be allowed to hold sway, or will it fall by the wayside once its dubious impact becomes apparent? It thus poses an intriguing and relevant question to all of us – in the end, which option would we – or should we – choose?

Some movies have a way of hitting things right on the head, and such is the case in the latest offering from Oscar-winning writer-director Bong Joon Ho, a hilariously insightful sociopolitical sci-fi satire that knocks it out of the park in more ways than one can count. The narrative’s diverse story threads blend well together (even if a few of them are a little stretched out or are underdeveloped), but they collectively tell a well-integrated tale that generally keeps viewers riveted throughout. This captivating yarn is superbly supported by the picture’s inventive visuals, expert editing. and stellar performances, most notably Ruffalo, Collette, Ackie and the first-ever portrayal by Pattinson that I’ve actually enjoyed.

In addition, the film deftly addresses a number of pressing social, cultural and environmental issues, such as the potential fallout that could come from the current tepid handling of ecological matters, as well as how average, everyday working class individuals are looked upon and treated by society’s officials and institutions, aspects of the narrative that effectively bring the expendability question front and center. Some might see these story elements as somewhat excessive, heavy-handed or preachy, but then these attributes have often found their way into this director’s work, such as in previous releases like “Parasite” (“Gisaengchung”) (2019) and “Snowpiercer” (2014), plot devices that truly shouldn’t come as any surprise here. After all, so-called “excesses” like these are the essence of good satire, and the filmmaker holds nothing back in making use of them in the pursuit of this sought-after outcome.

What makes this offering especially (and somewhat inadvertently) effective, however, is the timing of its release, which was originally scheduled for a year ago but was delayed due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, a truly propitious blessing in disguise. Given current conditions in today’s turbulent sociopolitical climate, particularly the capricious leadership of a particular high-profile narcissistic politician, “Mickey 17” couldn’t have debuted at a more opportune time. (While I’ll spare the specifics here, let me just say that MAGA fans and evangelical conservatives probably won’t find this picture much to their liking.) As a consequence, one can’t help but wonder if this was a happy accident or an uncanny case of insightful, profound prescience, but that’s something I’ll leave viewers to decide for themselves. The film is currently playing theatrically and online.

When we find ourselves at the crossroads of where we’re headed as a society (or even as a species), we invariably come upon important choices that we must face. That’s particularly true with how we see ourselves collectively, as well as individuals within that collective. We must ask ourselves important questions, such as do we genuinely value everyone and everything within that materialized assemblage? And, if so, to what degree? One would hope that we answer affirmatively and with an abundance of appreciation. But what if we don’t? Then what? How do we effectively correct such a potentially fatal deficiency? A good place to start might be in examining how disposable we consider the elements of our existence to be. That could be a hard lesson, but it could eventually spell the difference between how – and even whether – we survive going forward. That’s something to think about the next time you’re taking out the garbage – and trying to decide whether it consists of trash or treasures.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

New Movies for April

 

Join yours truly and show host Frankie Picasso for looks at five new films and a few additional surprises on the upcoming movie review edition of the Frankiesense & More video podcast, to begin airing at a special day and time, Monday April 28 at 1 pm ET. Tune in on Facebook or YouTube for all the lively chat and movie fun!

Wrapping Up the Chicago Latino Film Festival

     

The 41st annual edition of the Chicago Latino Film Festival – the longest continuously running event of its kind in the US – is now in the books, having featured an array of narrative, documentary and short films in local theaters and community centers. In all, I screened four feature films and three shorts during the festival’s 11-day run. To find out what I saw and what I thought, check out my blog on the subject, “Wrapping Up the 2025 Chicago Latino Film Festival,” available by clicking here.

Seeking the Seeds of Connection 

Philosophers and metaphysicians are generally quick to agree that we’re all fundamentally connected, both to one another and to everything around us, that there’s a certain universality binding all there is in our existence. But how many of us actually take the time to truly recognize, consider and appreciate this or what makes this attainable? Maybe this calls for stepping away from our everyday world and immersing ourselves in some sort of alternate version of it to see the inherent connections from a fresh perspective, along with the nature of these links and the value that lies within them. That might sound like a profoundly daunting undertaking, yet need it be? Perhaps those goals can be accomplished through a simple, more accessible and inherently joyful means, a proposition raised and explored in the thoughtful and delightfully whimsical new gentle comedy, “Universal Language” (“Une langue universelle”) (web site, trailer).

Actor-writer-director Matthew Rankin’s second feature offering is one of those films that genuinely defies description, an absurdist fable of seemingly unrelated stories that ultimately tie together to illustrate the bonds that unite us and how we can put them to best use for our collective benefit and betterment. Set in an alternate version of Canada where the predominant language is Farsi and everyday life is characterized by a set of quirky, imaginative institutions, preferences and lifestyles, “Universal Language” serves up a collection of seemingly unrelated stories that ultimately tie together to illustrate the bonds that unite us and how we can put them to best use for our mutual benefit.

This triptych of tall tales tells the stories of a Quebec government worker (Rankin) who quits his job to return home to visit his long-estranged mother in Winnipeg; a part-time tour guide (Pirouz Nemati) who leads small bands of visitors on an often-puzzling excursion of mundane, unimpressive alleged tourist sites in Manitoba’s capital city; and a pair of concerned grade school classmates (Rojina Esmaeili, Saba Vahedyousefi) who try to secure funds to help a friend (Sobhan Javadi) replace his much-needed lost eyeglasses when they fall off and are quickly pilfered by a crafty. free-roaming wild turkey. The assistance these individuals freely offer to one another (and receive from them in kind) to get through the challenges of these bizarre circumstances, in turn, reveals the innate value in the unspoken “universal language” that binds all of us – our mutual compassion and support for each other, particularly those in need. Think of this as a reworking of the uplifting themes introduced in the inspiring, heartwarming drama “Pay It Forward” (2000) if it were directed by Federico Fellini or Monty Python.

What’s so impressive in this is seeing how easily and naturally these ideas come to the characters in the movie. It’s as if they never have to give these notions a second thought when the time comes for them to act on them. Their behavior flows from them effortlessly, no matter what the circumstances might require of them. Everybody wins. And isn’t that an enlightening way for us to look at how the world should function (especially in these self-serving times)?

Itʼs particularly appropriate to see all of this taking place in Canada, a nation widely known for its culture of politeness and friendship, a social structure that many would say could serve as a model for the rest of the world. It’s also quite fitting to see everything unfolding in the dead of winter, a backdrop that undoubtedly serves as a metaphor for what “a cold place” the world can often be, reminding us that kindness and compassion can be extended to others regardless of the conditions under which we might be operating.

Such are the bonds that truly can unite us – that is, provided we allow it. So what makes that possible (or keeps it from happening)? It fundamentally comes down to the choices that we make. Indeed, it’s all up to us. But what specifically does that require?

In the end, it’s a question rooted in our beliefs, and that’s important in light of the role they play in the manifestation of our existence, for better or worse and both individually and collectively. In making this happen, we’re always free to choose from an infinite range of options for what we ultimately decide to create, depending on the nature of the beliefs we embrace. Of course, a fundamental upfront awareness of these possibilities is imperative if we hope to get the results we desire, and a deficiency in this area could hinder us in realizing what we hope to manifest. This is why it’s so important to recognize the existence of this school of thought and to employ it skillfully when seeking to materialize what we’re looking for.

The society presented in this film gives us an excellent example to draw upon in terms of what’s achievable. The characters here have obviously chosen to willingly adopt beliefs centered on cooperation, compassion and mutual support, concepts that subsequently get put into practice to shape the nature of the society in which they live. Numerous incidents throughout the film illustrate these principles at work, and they generally do so with a touch of whimsy, showing us that being helpful to others need not be a chore. The actions of these characters indeed reflect the message of the aforementioned release “Pay It Forward,” where people intentionally engage in acts of kindness – often with total strangers – as a means to reshape the nature of society, a principle that transforms the long-accepted practice of “pay it back” into an entirely new and beneficial concept, one capable of revolutionizing society for the better and that taps into the intrinsic connections that are already in existence among us. And to think, all it takes to make that happen is a change in our attitude and the beliefs that underlie it.

“Universal Language” thus serves up a heartwarming, gentle yet insightful story that reminds us of our innate linkage and the goodwill that we’re all capable of unselfishly extending to one another when warranted, something that, ideally, should come to us as second nature, as it does for the characters in this film. And all of this is nestled into a wealth of hilarious, off-the-wall humor, regularly invoking unexpected laughs among audience members. Admittedly, the film’s opening act may seem somewhat disjointed and perhaps even a bit too idiosyncratic for its own good at times, but these issues gradually dissipate as the picture plays out and the pieces of its various story threads begin piecing themselves together, revealing the aforementioned intrinsic connections among us. This delightful indie gem has largely flown below the radar thus far, despite its awards, nominations and rave reception at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival, as well as its designation as one of the National Board of Review’s Top 5 International Films of last year. Indeed, at a time when it seems like there’s so much dividing us, it’s gratifying to see a release like this, one that tenderly spotlights more of what binds us than what sets us apart. The film is available for streaming online.

Unity is something that most of us claim to seek, but, when push comes to shove, it frequently gets relegated to the back burner in favor of satisfying our own wants and needs. However, that’s hard to fathom when we look at just how easy it can be to realize that aforementioned dream. Changing our beliefs to change the outcome essentially doesn’t cost us anything other than a shift in our outlook, but failing to do so could cost us a lot more in the long run (and not necessarily of a material nature). At times like that, we may well find ourselves longing for assistance and support, commodities that might readily come to us if we had extended the same consideration to others in their times of need. The connections among us are there for a reason – to make those accommodations happen – and we shouldn’t hesitate to tap those resources when circumstances warrant. It’s often been said that “good deeds are their own reward” and that they can return big dividends – that is, provided we’re willing to invest in them in the first place.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

Thoughts on Fairness and Inclusion

 

They say that “blood is thicker than water,” an observation that can make its presence felt in many ways. This often becomes most obvious during times of crisis, when major decisions are called for, such as when a death occurs or an inheritance is involved (money being on the line frequently speaks volumes). And, in conjunction with those conditions, differences and disagreements frequently arise, making difficult situations more tense, perhaps even combative. So what accounts for this? That’s a question examined in the LGBTQ+ domestic drama, “All Shall Be Well” (“Cong jin yihou”) (web site, trailer ).

Long-tenured same-sex couple Angie Wang (Patra Au) and Pat Wu (Maggie Li Lin Lin) are very much in love. They’ve built quite a successful and fulfilling life together, having resided in the same Hong Kong apartment for 30 years and amassing a comfortable nest egg for themselves, thanks largely to Pat’s savvy financial sense. They’ve also enjoyed reasonably good relations with their relatives, most notably Pat’s extended family, including her brother, Shing (Tai-Bo), her sister-in-law, Mei Shum (Ho So-Ying), and their partnered adult children, Victor (Chung-Hang Leung) and Fanny (Fish Liew Chi Yu). They may not fully understand or appreciate the exact nature of Pat’s relationship with Angie (at least openly), but they have at least seemingly come to accept the genuine closeness between the two women. That’s especially true for Victor and Fanny, who, as part of a younger and more open-minded generation, see that their “aunties” are more than just roommates. If nothing else, this is a familial relationship comparatively more tolerant than what Angie has with her own relatives, most notably her elderly parents (Leung Si, Ting Yu), who don’t appear at all to grasp the true character of their daughter’s relationship with Pat, blissfully blind to the nature of their connection and ever hopeful that their old maid of a daughter will one day settle down and marry a good man.

Through frequent gatherings of Angie, Pat and her extended family, they enjoy plenty of good food, good times and good company. However, when Pat unexpectedly dies, matters become complicated, particularly when it comes to acknowledging Angie’s relation to her late partner. That includes such issues as deciding on the final disposition of the couple’s considerable assets, including those Angie jointly held with her beloved, but most of which were officially in Pat’s name. These circumstances are made all the more complicated by the fact that Pat had no will, leaving Angie financially vulnerable, even her ability to lawfully remain in the residence she has called home for three decades.

Pat’s relatives also try to run roughshod over Angie when it comes to the handling of Pat’s remains. Before her passing, Pat made it clear that she wished for her ashes to be scattered at sea, a long-held and long-cherished dream. However, when Angie attempts to follow through on fulfilling that request, she’s rebuffed when Pat’s family intervenes. They reject Pat’s wishes in deference to the recommendation of a pompous, know-it-all holy man, Master Yu (Wah-Wo Wang), who insists that placing her ashes in a mausoleum in a crowded city neighborhood is a better and more spiritually appropriate option. And, to add insult to injury, when Pat’s remains are interred during a ceremony at the mausoleum, she’s coldly pushed to the back of the crowd of mourners when Master Yu tactlessly asserts that the spaces up front are reserved “for family members only.”

Relations between Angie and Pat’s relatives thus become progressively more strained, if not downright ugly, with a woman they’ve long seemed to tacitly accept as a member of the family. This becomes most apparent when Pat’s relations try to grab all they can from her estate in an effort to solve the many fiscal problems that they’ve brought upon themselves, actions rife with hypocritical elements even from the assumed allies Angie thought she could most count on. There’s little that Angie can do, too, as her lawyer (Luna Shaw Mei Kwan) observes when she seeks to forestall the actions of Pat’s family, none of which are technically illegal but all of which raise ethical questions to which they all seem willing to turn a blind eye.

As all of this plays out, viewers witness the stark contrast that exists between the loving, mutually supportive bond that the couple forged with one another and the crass, uncaring sense of entitlement that Pat’s relatives have sought to exercise for themselves, regardless of how this might impact others. To make matters worse, Pat’s family members even appear to be quietly aware on some level that what they’re doing is wrong, especially in light of the long amicable relationship they’ve had with Angie. Through this, their largely failed attempts at successfully establishing a supposedly loving, healthy and compassionate family come shining through, a comparison deftly and sensitively yet candidly presented by the filmmaker.

So what accounts for this sad state of affairs? Regrettably, it comes down to what everyone believes, and that’s important given the role that our beliefs play in the manifestation of the existence we experience. These powerful and often-persistent resources can yield tremendously resilient and long-lasting materializations spanning the gamut of everything from tangible objects to widely held and firmly entrenched customs, traditions and cultural outlooks. And, because of their innate attributes, beliefs can make it difficult to bring about change, with alterations frequently coming slowly and incrementally. Furthermore, considering that many of us are patently unaware of this way of thinking and the impact it can have, we may not even realize that its principles are being employed, implemented and unwittingly reinforced, prompting us to rely on established views and practices in the face of new circumstances to which we may not know how to react. That can be particularly frustrating for those seeking to invoke what they perceive as much-needed reform, especially in situations involving equality, fairness and inclusion.

These are conditions to which Angie can likely well attest. Despite what seemed like years of acceptance by her partner’s family, she finds out differently when Pat dies. In deciding on how to address the questions of Pat’s assets and remains, her family defaults to long-established traditions that leave Angie out in the cold. Their beliefs and actions genuinely reflect the aforementioned notion of blood being thicker than water, especially when it comes to matters like Pat and Angie’s relationship – an arrangement that falls outside the mainstream of social traditionalism. At bottom, their partnership is quietly treated as one more of polite tolerance than sincere recognition, making it all too easy and convenient for Pat’s family to brush Angie aside when it comes to carrying out the practices and conventions generally associated with settling an estate and paying so-called “proper” respect for the dead. What’s more, even those who appear to demonstrate a greater degree of open-mindedness to alternate possibilities (i.e., Pat’s niece and nephew) end up capitulating to socially accepted expectations when the time for decisions comes, especially in the wake of the pressure to conform that’s no doubt put upon them by older relations firmly bought in to more conventional views.

Angie, meanwhile, is left holding the bag in this scenario as a result of the beliefs held by others. Her recourse is extremely limited, especially when all of the others involved in this situation are in concurrence about how to proceed. It’s bad enough that she’s lost the love of her life, but now she also must address these other distressing considerations, some of which clearly carry serious implications for her own well-being and the nature of her future.

In light of that, then, is it even realistic to think that things could be any different? That’s a tough question. Practically speaking, many would probably say no. However, theoretically, given the nature of how we make use of our beliefs in materializing our existence, the answer should be a resounding yes. But, considering what’s in place here, how can that happen?

Because we always have access to an infinite range of possibilities when it comes to the beliefs we embrace, we can opt to choose different notions from the ones that we may have selected previously. Granted, their unconventionality may meet with pushback, but that’s not to suggest that such opposition can’t be overcome. So how can this be addressed?

In many respects, this requires understanding the prevailing beliefs already in place and trying to figure out how they can reshaped. It also calls for examining belief combinations that could foster change with some simple tweaking or modest adjustment. For instance, Pat’s family may be acting as they are because they believe in following tradition in circumstances like these. However, upon close examination of these beliefs, one might find that there are overriding, underlying core ideas at work that are ultimately more formidable and determinative than those governing the unfolding of the situation’s specific tangible aspects. For example, the beliefs behind the relatives’ actions are inherently more limiting than what’s potentially possible, and, by embracing beliefs rooted in the concept of limitation, they may be willfully cutting themselves off from devising or considering other, less restrictive possibilities. A mindset where limitation is given license over everything it touches, then, generally works to keep alternative responses off the table. And that, in turn, enables Pat’s family to purposely exclude Angie from the conversation of how matters concerning their loved one are handled.

But is this a dead end? Not necessarily. If Pat’s family members could open their minds to get past the rigidity of limitation and consider different options, there just might be room at the table for Angie in having a say in how circumstances unfold. Indeed, that possibility is always open if Pat’s family allows it, thereby enabling a different outcome to materialize. This is where Victor and Fanny’s more enlightened viewpoints, for instance, could have tremendous impact if they want it to. The influence of these younger, more free-thinking individuals on their older, more conventional parents could turn the tide in favor of their beloved Auntie Angie so that everyone comes away from this scenario satisfied with the results. The key question, of course, is, are they willing to expand their consciousness enough to see this as a viable option and then act upon it?

Changes in the thinking of Pat’s family members are not all that’s involved here, though. A degree of responsibility in this respect should have fallen on Pat and Angie themselves. Because they were partners in a relationship that’s not exactly mainstream in nature, they should have been more cognizant in taking steps to protect themselves from the ramifications involved in a potential eventuality like this. In a very practical sense, this would have meant embracing beliefs behind such matters as making sure that their bases were properly covered legally, namely, by spelling out their wishes in documents like a will. While it’s true that Pat apparently died at a younger age than she expected, one could argue that she nevertheless should have taken steps to safeguard her and Angie’s well-being as a precautionary measure. This, in turn, might have also involved addressing any number of other related beliefs that could have impinged on this undertaking, such as wishful thinking that such an eventuality might never happen, a fear of dying, or a reluctance to become involved in creating an unpleasant, though necessary, plan for succession. Some might call this an unfair criticism, one driven by hindsight, but, for those living under non-traditional conditions like these, it could spell the difference between a harmonious outcome and the heartache, frustration and disappointment of not being suitably prepared.

Itʼs a safe bet that many of us would likely rather avoid discussions like this. But we must also accept the notion that death is a fact of life, a common fate that we’ll all ultimately face. So, because of that, it would be prudent of us to be realistic about this eventuality and plan for it ahead of time, particularly if we’re concerned about ensuring that the aforementioned equality, fairness and inclusion concerns are accounted for. It’s no mistake that estate planners talk about the importance of needing to take care of our “final wishes,” as they’re exactly what the name implies. If we desire to leave this life with peace of mind, we must believe in and act upon everything that’s associated with achieving that goal so that it’s properly achieved when the time comes.

While the story in this film may not be especially original (as many in the LGBTQ+ community can attest), director Ray Yeung’s latest nevertheless serves up a valuable cautionary tale that packs quite a powerful emotional punch. That’s made possible in large part by the stellar performances of the excellent ensemble cast, backed by beautiful cinematography and a subdued atmospheric background score. Admittedly, the pacing can be a tad slow in spots and the presentation of the material may occasionally be a little too “deliberate” for its own good. Nonetheless, “All Shall Be Well” is, without a doubt, one of last year’s underrated gems, a film that will both move and incense audiences, particularly when it comes to distinguishing what’s legally permissible and what’s ethically proper, especially in matters of love and what constitutes “family,” particularly at a time when these considerations come to the forefront in the wake of what happens. The film is available for streaming online.

Most of us are undoubtedly aware of the expression “love is love,” and it’s something that we rightly believe we’re all entitled to, no matter who we might choose as a partner. It’s a concept to which we also believe we should unquestioningly be afforded the rights to equality, fairness and inclusion, particularly at such a sorrowful time as when death separates us. No one should have to endure a situation made worse by acts of petty selfishness or willfully exclusionary behavior, and it might seem disappointing that we may have to take significantly purposeful steps in order to avoid their impact and consequences at a time like this. Until circumstances change, however, we might have to resort to such measures so that we get what we want in the end so that no one is left out when the need to be included is greater than ever.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

Copyright © 2025, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.